why did the Warden's wife die after her terminal cancer was removed?
-
fyfytj — 9 years ago(April 21, 2016 11:57 PM)
Who said the mouse was immortal? Coffey just healed it, or brought it back to life quickly enough ("Give him to me; there might still be time"), but that doesn't mean it can't die from then on. Besides, he didn't bring the warden's wife back to life like he did the mouse, because she wasn't dead when he healed her.
-
holatKolnoa — 1 year ago(December 20, 2024 10:38 AM)
I always wondered why, if Coffey could revive the mouse, how come he couldn't revive the murdered girls? Is it a matter of how long the interval between death and Coffey's "helping"?
When you think of garbage, think of Hakeem!
Folks, calm down! This is not the last chopper outta Saigon! -
Gabe1972 — 9 years ago(May 07, 2016 05:58 PM)
It's possible that Coffey has the choice in what "gift" he gives to those he helps. She may not have been given the extended life like Paul and the mouse were.
Also, it wasn't really immortality, just extended life.
I just threw up a little in my mouth. -
mdnightwnd — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 08:14 PM)
Paul and Mr. Jingles weren't different after John just healed them. Mr. Jingles was changed when John zapped him while Del was being executed and Paul was changed when John had to give a bit of himself to show what he knew.
-
mikeyg24 — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 05:47 AM)
Whether Mr Jingles is immortal or not you're forgetting that he extracted the illness
out
of the Wardens wife he infused his power
in
to Mr Jingles. Big difference.
Hey! You're not old enough to drink! Now go and die for your country!!! -
jzerba — 9 years ago(August 06, 2016 02:03 AM)
What I was going to say, he just took the illness out of the Wardens wife but in the case of Mr. Jingles (when Del was being executed) and Paul (to show him what wild bill had done) he gave them part of his power.
-
Godfrey2 — 9 years ago(August 16, 2016 11:09 AM)
In the original 6 part, serialized version, Mr. Jingles died near the end of the book. In the book, Paul is writing about his memories from that time. Throughout it, he is harrassed by Brad Dolan, a staff member who reminds Paul of Percy. Brad is a cruel man who is trying to find out where "paulie" goes on his walks. When Paul and Elaine visit the shed, she is amazed at Mr. Jungles. Unfortunately, Brad has followed them. In the ensuing confrontation, Mr. Jingles, very old and fragile, dies while Paul is dealing with Brad.
It was very sad and I am glad they changed the ending in the movie.
There were a lot of changes from the serialized book to the whole book to the movie. However, both are very good and each has its merits. -
dubbzny — 9 years ago(January 20, 2017 09:44 PM)
It's the rare King book that doesn't include things I wish weren't there. I feel like he gets carried away with certain moral or spiritual messages or just has a penchant for the supernatural that sometimes distracts from the stronger details. Another example that was an improvement in the adaptation was the removal of the topiary animals in the shining, in my opinion.
-
costumrs — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 08:26 PM)
Really? After 17years you still want spoiler alerts. I can understand for the first 6 months or so after a film is released. After that, its your responsibility to avoid spoilers. The rest of us would like to discuss the film without worrying about who didn't see it.
-
jhpen22 — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 08:31 AM)
I've seen three movies this week that I never saw before. Two were from the 1940s, one from the '80s. And I've been a movie fan since the 1950s. Not everybody has seen every movie, much less all of them from the past six months. So yes, really. It's a matter of courtesy.
-
costumrs — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 01:01 PM)
So we shouldn't talk about the plot or details of any move at all? Ever? After all, you might not have seen it?
Yes, there are many movies I haven't seen. If its recent, I agree it is a matter of courtesy to put a spoiler warning in the subject. However, there has to be a point when that is no longer needed. My line is 6 months. After that, it is the reader's responsibility to avoid being spoiled. Either avoid the board (from whatever site) or realize you may learn something from the film.
The whole world (literal or metaphorical) should not have to twist themselves in a knot to avoid saying things about a movie (or book, or stage play, or sports game or whatever)forever. -
lcplthomasc — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 11:06 PM)
Why are you even here in the movie discussions if you haven't seen it? You can't offer any valid discourse on something you haven't seen, so why tease yourself and come here? Why blame those who have seen it for your lack of self discipline or control to stay out of a discussion board about a movie you have yet to watch?
-
JR541 — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 11:28 PM)
Correct. There is nothing wrong with giving spoilers on a film this old. By the way in The Wizard of Oz it was all a dream at the end. There's a major spoiler for you.
He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?