WHY the ending is so criminally bad.(spoilers)

This was Darabont's pet ending. King's original is open ended with the mist still hanging around and our protagonists holed up in a motel with some hope of refuge in Hartford. But if you consider the real story to be the battle against the mist of fear which spawns human monsters inside a grocery store, then the story has ended when they escape. Darabont's version does at least give us a clear conclusion to the other story, the one about an inter-dimensional invasion. It also well fits the theme of the film ("fear changes everything") as Drayton's crew is yet another casualty of 'fear itself', as opposed to the facts on the ground. Yet it struck me, viscerally, as all wrong. Even defenders of the ending will more or less admit to having this immediate WTF. A telling admission is that they usually agree the ending felt 'rushed', but after some reflection they end up deciding the rush was a minor flaw and the gut wrench was more a measure of a well crafted tragedy than it was of a cheap shot cheat.

What is wrong, I think, is more than a little rushing, it's the jarring betrayal of the character the Drayton crew have displayed so far, which has stood out in contrast to the rest who, for the most part, caused their own demise by their flawed reactions to the mist with denial, panic, misguided remedies, and then to organized religion. (I'm sorry, not to mainstream religion but to a primitive version you wouldn't likely encounter in the modern world, wait...). But, our clear-minded crew have displayed something like humanity and good judgement in the face of all this. After they fight like hell for a chance to live we expect them to do more than just passively drive the car out of gas and then kill themselves without so much as a discussion. We particularly don't expect Drayton to blow out the brains of his breathing kid's head unless he absolutely has to.

Of course! to save his son a horrifying death a Dad might do this, if push had 'come right down to shove', as Drayton muses in King's novella, but for so many reasons we sense that we are still pretty far away from 'right down' to it. (This passage from the original is sometimes cited as inspiration and justification for the Darabont ending but it suggests a very different kind of mercy kill. Hence the 'right down' to shove. We picture a rational recognition that it's either monster or bullet.) Remember, the monsters don't invade closed structures. They might have waited for days in and around the car (it's kept them safe at a slow crawl for this long). They have the four bullets still if that time comes later, who knows, maybe the mist might dissipate or help might arrive. Not a large chance I suppose but the alternative is 100% chance of BLOWING YOUR OWN KID'S HEAD OFF. And why, as their gas got low, did they make no efforts to get off the highway to siphon gas or find shelter, or maybe find a more welcoming grocery store, something? That expected effort appears to have been left out? Did they leave this out because of time constraints? Were we supposed to assume it? These are the kinds of questions that race through your mind in this moment of utter shock and then you realize that Darabont has cruelly and crudely contrived it all just so he can say 'gotcha'! This is what rankles. Don't tell me I need happy Hollywood endings? Please, that is not what is going on here. I love dark horror. The ending isn't brutal because it offends soft-stomached suburbanites who wanted a happy ending. No, not at all, offend away, that would be fine by me, and if it's too much for casual moviegoers then so be it.

Darabont cannot show them trying harder, or else show a gradual loss of hope, and not because of time constraints either. He cannot because for the ending to have the shock he aims for they must take this action preemptively. The audience must mentally scream out, "no! not yet!" And indeed we do, because we know instinctively the time is not right. If there was a sweet spot where the mercy kill was both unexpected and believable then maybe he pulls off this ending but he missed it badly. Missed it enough to insult and anger his audience who are left wondering 'where are the people who, having fought off a death cult and giant lobsters for a chance to live, have made it to the relative safety of the SUV and the open road?' The problem is that Darabont simply tacks on this ending to an existing story that went very differently and, as in many such efforts, the new ending didn't seamlessly fit. In this case the gap was so huge it was stunningly out of place to the point of criminal mistreatment of our vicarious investment.

How could you have used this ending? Well, you might have a story where Drayton all along had been a dark character who lacked any faith in life and might, when things got tough, be willing to play god, and then when he does this thing he learns his lesson. The intended lesson Darabont wants to give I suppose, about keeping your head in a crisis. But this is not the Drayton of the novella or the film and it is nothing like the other three adults in that car! Or maybe you go ahead and show them make all sorts of efforts to live and then with monsters literally about to get them they take the mercy kill instead. But then when the army shows up there is no lesson to be learned, other than fate is a cruel beach. That would have seemed somewhat senseless but it would not have been nearly as much of an insult.

Assuming Darabont himself really believes his ending is more than a cheap shot buzz making 'twist' why would Darabont be so blind as to think this ending was going to work? Artistic blindness is a funny thing. A sophomoric writer makes this kind of mistake all the time, waxing grandiose like this and falling so in love with an idea that you can't see it is fool's gold. I don't see a good writer making this mistake but Darabont is not, primarily, a writer. He stubbornly denied all resistance to his ending, even turning down twice the budget if he would just change it! Think of the quality special effects we missed out on, the better acting, better everything! (In his defense they really could not use King's open ending, which would have also pissed off moviegoers who expect a slambang end to a creature feature, and this ending did generate a lot of buzz, if much of it was very negative, all good for ticket sales.) I admire his artistic bravery, in a way, but sometimes you need to listen to your editors and producers, they aren't always wrong about these things, they will often save you from yourself.

But King himself approved of it! Wished he had thought of it! Yes, I know King gave his approval but though King would never write this ending himself I can see him nodding his assent if it will help the box office and keep things groovy with his buddy Frank. Under the Dome, TV version, yea, he thought it was 'pretty good'. I rest my case.http://stephenking.com/promo/utd_on_tv/letter.html IMO King is a mercenary when it comes to selling his stuff for the big and small screen. I guess he got any fight out of his system after he criticized Kubrick for improving . . .er . .changing The Shining.

I have another theory. Darabont has in fact said that he saw a parallel to this King story in the invasion of Iraq. Sure, why not? In the face of fear the West resorts to an irrational action and creates a much worse situation - a fear-induced, self-fulfilling prophecy. Carmody as George Bush? Yes, exactly. Remember how Bush even said he had some kind of divine inspiration for the invasion! Ugh. No wonder Darabont was pissed at America and at the religious right. I actually quite agree with Darabont myself as to this Iraq thing. I was also angered deeply by it. But I think his anger, his desire to stuff a big F you down the throat of America, blinded him on this one. I think he might even regard those who were shocked and angered as jingoistic, pro-invasion types who might actually sense the subtext and resent it subconsciously! You think maybe? Maybe I'm way off on this idea. That would be a grandiose delusion if so.

Any way you cut it the ending just feels wrong. It just makes no sense and no amount of artistic leeway is enough to make it right unless you fight your own feelings. I honestly believe those who like the ending are just snowed by the idea of it - of the killer twist, the cool irony - but are willingly ignoring the context in which this ending simply DOES NOT FIT. Trust your gut on this one! You can rationalize your way into thinking it's great it but I think you will find that you, like Darabont, have talked yourself into ignoring the obvious flaw which invalidates it. This facile and ill-fitting Twilight Zone twist may well go down in history as the worst ending of all time. LOW HANGING ROTTEN FRUIT.