PART 1 - Synopsis And The Boy That Was Sacrifice
Lets face it, the fan theory department is pretty scarce when it comes to Stephen King novels, and it gets even scarcer when it comes to the movies. Although when I take a look at a certain movie based off one of those novels, it always leaves me reeling with questions. The movie i’m speaking of is Stephen King's “The Mist” based off one of his short stories in “Skeleton Crew”(1985). Directed by Frank Darabont theatrically it was phenomenal, but even now there are some things that scratch at my brain. Those things being how everything ended after the son had been killed and where the monsters came from in the first place. Both of which were never explained. I strongly believe that the son was meant to be a sacrifice to the gods to end the plague of monsters and that these monsters were the future counterparts of the monsters in the show “Stranger Things” Directed by the Duffer Brothers.
If you need a little refresher on the story, David Drayton(Thomas Jane) and his son head into town to grab food and supplies after a huge storm hits their Maine home on the coastline. Once they are in the store a thick fog rolls into town engulfing everything and everyone outside. It quickly escalates once the power goes out and they have to go to the back to get the generator up. One thing leads to another and they find out that there are terrible and ferocious monsters waiting for them outside. That isn't the only issue though because inside there is a religious zealot, played by Marcia Gay Harden, that wants a sacrifice. Explaining that God needs a sacrifice for all their wrong doing. She tries to sacrifice David’s son, but fails to do so because she dies later into the movie. The big kicker here though being that David’s son does die at the end and the military rolls in for the rescue. So was all that religious bologna really fact? I think so and i'll tell you why.
Stephen King’s novels have always been dark starting with his book “Carrie” which was also recently made into a movie itself. He even says and I quote,
“And as a writer, one of the things that I've always been interested in doing is actually invading your comfort space. Because that's what we're supposed to do. Get under your skin, and make you react.”
Perfect example to why I think he meant for this to be a hidden trinket in the movie. The ending scene after they get to the car and drive away eventually running out of gas and deciding to kill themselves instead of dying to the hands of the monsters is exactly the type of thing King loves to write. Dark and almost beautiful in a sense. That's why I believe the connection is so apparent because it's exactly what a King novel would include.
Now you may not believe me at this point and based on the evidence so far I understand where you’re coming from. I have much more to talk about though including a quote from the novel itself making it seem even more like King played the situation out for more dramatic effect. In the novel it reads,
“The horrors of the Inquisition are nothing compared to the fates your mind can imagine for your loved ones.”
King probably took this, thought about it and moved it to a whole other level. Having David shoot his own son and running out of bullets for himself was a perfect dark ending to the story. Adding on the fact that the whole thing is ended after his son dies though and the religious kook is right, now that’s icing on the cake in king’s mind. At first when the movie ends it makes you think that David having to shoot his son is absolutely horrible having to live with that, but then you go back having watched it before and remember that the lady said he should be a sacrifice for god. Isn’t that just a little bit of a coincidence that the military shows up after hes is dead? It would really be a great ending if I was in King’s shoes.
Something else that's relevant is the fact that the horror novels King has written in most cases have some sort of religious zealot that tends to use their religion in very ironic ways. This movie follows this trend in that the woman wants to make a sacrifice to god in order to repent for their sins in a way. This is completely hypocritical because shouldn't it be a sin to kill the boy in the first place? King quotes, “Religion is a dangerous tool…”, but in what way? Did he make these religious zealots to scare people in a fashion some didn’t even think of by making them correct in the end for this movie? Yes, I think one hundred percent so. Although not fully fleshed out or explained, it is very much possible that he meant for the religious woman to be correct in the end. He wanted the fans to figure it out by looking into things more.
PART 2 - Continuation And The Monsters Of The Flip Side
If you know Stephen King as a writer and a person, you know he’s weird. It’s pretty easy when you look at interviews and quotes from the man himself. One of the weirder things saying,
“People want to know why I do this, why I write such gross stuff. I like to tell them I have the heart of a small boy... and I keep it in a jar on my desk.”
This man is crazy and extremely talented, there is no reason he would miss an opportunity to slip in a ring effect to this movie. The concept of killing David’s boy for a religious agenda in the movie is used as a foreshadow to the end when he had to shoot him and everything ends shortly after. That brutal and disgusting foreshadow is exactly what someone like King would do and I can confidently say that seeing a lot of what he’s produced.
I went to concentrate on certain parts of the movie as well, you can very clearly see certain things that lead me to believe that it was intentional and is a real theory. Later in the movie when David and friends are all trying to make their way out of the store to escape the zealots craziness, they are caught and given a speech on how they are the reason this all has happened quoted,
This is very much looking as if true because when David shoots all of them but himself, the horror ends. All throughout the movie many people die as well such as the bag boy, the military hometown boy, and even the religious kook herself, yet the fog still persists. This leads me to believe that even if it wasn’t intentional for the boy to be the endgame sacrifice to the gods, it was still intentional that they were all sacrificial lambs. Even though many people died, the fog never let up. If you look at the very ending scene you can also see David scream in agony because he knows he killed everyone for no reason, but you could also take it that the scream he lets out is a scream of denial. He didn’t want to believe that his son and his friends were all the real sacrifices to god and he could've saved a lot of people's lives for theirs.
If you believe everything I have told you so far then the thing that makes it even more crazy might sound just a little more sane. The show “Stranger Things” is a prelude to “The Mist” and explains where the monsters originally came from. I know it sounds crazy, but it seems plausible if you look at the facts. The fog is known to be a cross dimensional void that has allowed monsters to come into the current dimension through military experiments. I think this dimension is just like the “upside down” in the Netflix Original Series, “Stranger Things”. The “upside Down” is a place where everything is exactly the same except dark, cold, and monsters live within. In the show the military opens a gate to this dimension and release a monster on the town. I believe this monster is one of the first that evolved into the monsters that were in “The Mist”.
Take a look at the show, when they enter the other dimension everything is exactly the same. The monsters that are in “The Mist” seem to know exactly where they were and how to get into places. These monsters clearly know their way around the city, which ties straight into them living in this alternate replica in the Netflix show. Why I strongly believe it's a prelude is because the show takes place in the 80’s long before Stephen King’s novel takes place. Most likely these monsters, after being discovered by the military, had probably evolved by the time the military got the bright idea of experimenting on them again.
Stephen King has also tweeted out that the show is even a greatest hits volume of all his work saying, “Watching Stranger Things is looking watching Steve King’s greatest hits. I mean that in a good way.”(@StephenKing). The reason for this tweet is the amount of similarities and Easter eggs in the show itself that pays tribute to his style. This is shown in the show as early as the title opening which features a font straight from a King novel. Now a show so devoted to king and his style is bound to be a prequel to his short story.
I know a lot of this might sound out of the ballpark and a little nuts, but as I have showed you here, these theories are not as crazy as they seem. Stephen King is an excellent writer as I've seen from his other work and him writing and helping produce a movie of his own short story without the “wow” factor of the child being a sacrifice, or even just all of them, is just too good to be true. He enjoys scaring people, that’s just what he does and in turn it makes his novels just that much better. The theorization of “Stranger Things” being the prelude to his movie though, now that might sound like a long shot, but even so it still sounds very plausible if you compare the show and the movie side by side. If you take both of these into account then i’d say this makes one hell of a plot twist on Stephen King’s “The Mist”, and it’s exactly what he’d want you to say.