Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mist' started by flipska19, Jun 23, 2017.
Yes Just watched it.
This dropped on Netflix today. Might check it out when all the other stuff I really want to watch is done.
I watched all of season one this weekend. If I had watched the series without knowing it was based on Stephen King's The Mist, I don't think I would have guessed it was.
Dropped on Netflix UK, so despite some misgivings (mostly held over from when the project was announced, because I couldn't see the material suiting the needs of an ongoing drama series), I gave it a go and...
Hm. What to make of it? I didn't think it was unwatchably bad, but nor was it much good. I think it benefited from my being able to 'binge' it. Had I waited a week between episodes, my reaction would have been markedly less charitable (even if my first point would still remain), but that seems to be the way with most things now: they're intended to be best viewed as a set, even though the nature of broadcast TV is (and will probably always be) the episode-a-week model. It doesn't do them any favours when viewed 'old-style' (see also TWD and FTWD).
Characters...well, some (most) were cardboard cut-outs, and some of the events and situations were so cliched or badly telegraphed that it made me question the collective IQ level in the writers' room.
First, there was the teenage girl swooning over the QB. As soon as the party got mentioned and Mom said no, it was obvious what was coming. Second, the rape. Not only was it always going to happen, it was also always going to be her 'gay' (bi, at this point, surely?) "best friend". Third, this GBF also turned out to be a sociopath. So not only gay/bi/queer, but also definitely wrong in the head! I see what they did there. Probably unintentionally, but even so, they equated being gay with being mentally and/or emotionally defective. Oh, and abused at home, too. Bullying outside and inside the home = gay. Hm. Psycho- or sociopathic, fair enough. I'm still not 100% convinced by that, because not all abused people become psychos or sociopaths (in fact, it's probably the case that most don't), but...yeah, sure, there are enough documented cases to get me to go along with that. Psychological trauma at a young age = lack of emotional development/awareness and leads to an absence of empathy. OK. But psych trauma = gay? No.
As I say, though, that might have been unintended. It just didn't really look it or sit right. Then again the chief was also a wonky in the noggin and became even more so as things went on, so...
There were scenes that seemed unnecessary,
Particularly the mom's 'When Harry Met Sally' routine, which seemed/was gratuitous because we learned nothing about the characters from them that we didn't already know before.
and of course there were no firm answers offered, because it's a series and they're at least aiming (hoping?) for a second season, so while there's a resolution of sorts, it doesn't offer any reasons, and lacks the wit (and talent, on the part of the writers?) to leave it ambiguous in a satisfying way, as was managed in both the original story and the film.
All in all I'd only say it was a bit below average. None of the performances really stood out one way or the other, though equally no one seemed to genuinely believe in the story/series or that they were doing good work. But despite everything I didn't go away disappointed, perhaps because I had no/low expectations going in and I can still look forward to a time when someone, somewhere does the concept of a 'Mist' TV series and the source material real justice. (The film, I will say now, does do justice to the story and SK's writing, though of course I know there are those who disagree - especially re: the ending (which I like ).)
Yeah...I just saw it as an option on Netflix Canada last night. I guess I'll be checking it out this weekend. I gave season one of UTD a chance before I abandoned it and will most likely give this one the same college try.
...I couldn't hack it, found it to be nigh on unwatchable.....by the end of the third episode, I was ready to have creatures kill off the whole cast, just to have some entertainment value...
The lack of creature action and 'WTF could THAT be?' moments was the biggest disappointment, for me.
I haven't seen any monsters within the mist. The mist itself seems to be the monster. The series seems to be based more so on The Fog by James Herbert rather than on The Mist by Stephen King. The Fog is a horror novel written in 1975 about a deadly fog that drives its victims insane when they come into contact with it.
Was Nathalie Raven's story about the mama bear actually a story about herself?
The closest they seemed to get was the butterflies. Oh, and the 'Black Smoke Monster' in the bookstore.
And yep, I know The Fog. I've always fancied seeing a decent adaptation made of that. But given the hallucinatory manifestations (the butterflies, the four horsemen turning up for the vicar) it did seem more in keeping with JH's work than SK.
Good point re: Mrs Raven's story. No idea if it was actually about her, but given the scene at the end I guess it could well have been.
...exactly!....I withered on the vine waiting for mayhem to ensue......
Just watched the first episode of this series. I'm not sure how long you can sustain a series on this premise but I'll give it a few more episodes. I've gotta say
after the third head shot
I was feeling a bit desensitized.
I gave up after 2 episodes. Lifeless piece of work.
In the novella and film we had characters that stirred emotion. Even the less likeable characters did that. The characters evoked anger, annoyance or sympathy. We had an extremely intriguing central premise, and the mist itself was truly terrifying, populated by some great, monsters that Lovecraft would've been proud of.
A committee of blithering idiots, obviously believing they could do better, decided to take this gift of a premise and throw it out of the window, preferring instead to come up with this truly *&^%** awful mess.
Spoiler: 'Let's call it The Mist, but we'll take out the great monsters and replace them with...er..well, anyway, we'll think of something as we go along...but we'll..er..make the mist a little less dangerous so that the 'good' characters can go out in it. Oh, yeah..and we'll have a guy kind of being killed by a moth and a tattoo on his back, and he'll grow wings and die..and the old woman who was with him will..er..obviously think she's seen God. On top of all this, we'll have characters full of their own personal angst and day to day problems which is much more interesting than monsters in the mist and Arrow Projects, right?.'
'Let's call it The Mist, but we'll take out the great monsters and replace them with...er..well, anyway, we'll think of something as we go along...but we'll..er..make the mist a little less dangerous so that the 'good' characters can go out in it. Oh, yeah..and we'll have a guy kind of being killed by a moth and a tattoo on his back, and he'll grow wings and die..and the old woman who was with him will..er..obviously think she's seen God. On top of all this, we'll have characters full of their own personal angst and day to day problems which is much more interesting than monsters in the mist and Arrow Projects, right?.'
You're pretty smart! I didn't connect the butterflies and the four horsemen to hallucinations of an unsound mind. I was merely thinking that half of the characters behaved as if they'd lost their sanity.
A note to anyone who may not be familiar with James Herbert's novel The Fog. John Carpenter's The Fog was NOT based on Herbert's novel. There was not a sailing ship filled with vengeful ghosts in the novel.
Though of course they weren't entirely hallucinations. It was more like the mist had picked up on their fears or expectations and made them manifest.
This bothered me immensely, as well.
Hi, I like the new series, but is anyone else disappointed at the lack of monsters? They should have kept the monsters as that was what made the movie so great. I get that they want to make it a bit different to the movie, but I think a more drawn out version of the movie with lots of different plot twists for the characters would have been better. Is the Mist a military weapon that's gone wrong? A weapon that makes anyone caught up in it have to succumb to their worst fears?
I moved your post to this thread as there is some discussion about monsters beginning at post #89.