What's new

Anyone psyched for "Salem's Lot"...? (1 Viewer)

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Somebody explain to me just what was the reason for this retread (besides greed, that is)?

It's not as spooky or scary as the original. The settings are too brightly lit. (A killer to the mood.) The head vampire, Barlow, is on screen not much, a good thing, too, since he's just, well, not frightening. (At all!) Whether or not the vampire talks in the book, it's a mistake on screen; just Rutger Hauer doing one of his weirdo bits. (But then, too, how do you top Reggie Nalder for bizarreness?)

When unethical real estate dealer, Larry Corbett, finds his daughter's(?) undwear in the former hunchback guy's trailer and yells " Doug Rogers!", all I could think of was "Duck Dodgers" (of the twenty-fourth and a half century!).

[SIGH] Just another unnecessary remake. Why? Why? Why?
 

Rex Bachmann

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
1,972
Real Name
Rex Bachmann
Somebody explain to me just what was the reason for this retread (besides greed, that is)?

It's not as spooky or scary as the original. The settings are too brightly lit. (A killer to the mood.) The head vampire, Barlow, is on screen not much, a good thing, too, since he's just, well, not frightening. (At all!) Whether or not the vampire talks in the book, it's a mistake on screen; just Rutger Hauer doing one of his weirdo bits. (But then, too, how do you top Reggie Nalder for bizarreness?)

When unethical real estate dealer, Larry Corbett, finds his daughter's(?) undwear in the former hunchback guy's trailer and yells " Doug Rogers!", all I could think of was "Duck Dodgers" (of the twenty-fourth and a half century!).

[SIGH] Just another unnecessary remake. Why? Why? Why?
 

Skippy

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
88
I thought it sucked pretty bad. All of the 'modern updates' (Matt being black and gay, many of the parents being single parents rather than couples, etc) were not necessary and did nothing to make it seem more current. The changes to the Ben character made him a completely different person. The same with Susan. I felt that none of the characters were really as fleshed out as they needed to be, especially the main ones. Maybe they DID just need another night.

I dunno, maybe my dislike comes from the fact that I'm right in the middle of rereading the book, which is worlds better than the movie was. I haven't read it in a long time, and was wondering if anyone remembers if the Eva character helped Hubie write the letters to Straker in the book? I know as far as I am in the book now that we 'know' that he did write the letters. I just don't remember if it was ever said in the book that she helped. If no one knows, I'm sure I'll find out soon.
 

Skippy

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
88
I thought it sucked pretty bad. All of the 'modern updates' (Matt being black and gay, many of the parents being single parents rather than couples, etc) were not necessary and did nothing to make it seem more current. The changes to the Ben character made him a completely different person. The same with Susan. I felt that none of the characters were really as fleshed out as they needed to be, especially the main ones. Maybe they DID just need another night.

I dunno, maybe my dislike comes from the fact that I'm right in the middle of rereading the book, which is worlds better than the movie was. I haven't read it in a long time, and was wondering if anyone remembers if the Eva character helped Hubie write the letters to Straker in the book? I know as far as I am in the book now that we 'know' that he did write the letters. I just don't remember if it was ever said in the book that she helped. If no one knows, I'm sure I'll find out soon.
 

Lee Ford

Agent
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
46
I guess I'm in the minority on this one, but I really enjoyed it, especially over the previous version, which never did anything for me, and wasn't that scary. I wish the hadn't just made Callahan all evil, though. I loved the scene in the book when he burns his hand on the church's door handle, showing that even God rejects him.
 

Lee Ford

Agent
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
46
I guess I'm in the minority on this one, but I really enjoyed it, especially over the previous version, which never did anything for me, and wasn't that scary. I wish the hadn't just made Callahan all evil, though. I loved the scene in the book when he burns his hand on the church's door handle, showing that even God rejects him.
 

Berk

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 1999
Messages
98
Though admittedly it’s been awhile since I read the book, I enjoyed the remake of Salem’s Lot. The original will never be topped, in my opinion, but the remake does a good job of telling the story and entertaining audiences at the same time. It’s a shame all Stephen King made-for-TV movies aren’t this good.
 

Berk

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 27, 1999
Messages
98
Though admittedly it’s been awhile since I read the book, I enjoyed the remake of Salem’s Lot. The original will never be topped, in my opinion, but the remake does a good job of telling the story and entertaining audiences at the same time. It’s a shame all Stephen King made-for-TV movies aren’t this good.
 

Jordan_E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
2,233
I give the entire remake a simple "oh well." It didn't really suck, but made me appreciate the tightness of the first version. Going to watch that version this weekend. If anything, this remake has made me want to read the book again.
 

Jordan_E

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
2,233
I give the entire remake a simple "oh well." It didn't really suck, but made me appreciate the tightness of the first version. Going to watch that version this weekend. If anything, this remake has made me want to read the book again.
 

Daryl Stovall

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
455
It was entertaining, but nowhere near as scary as the first version. Which just goes to show ya, that ol' Dan Curtis (who produced the first verision) can still give these young uns' a few lessons in atsmosphere and execution.
 

Daryl Stovall

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
455
It was entertaining, but nowhere near as scary as the first version. Which just goes to show ya, that ol' Dan Curtis (who produced the first verision) can still give these young uns' a few lessons in atsmosphere and execution.
 

RobertW

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2000
Messages
719
i assume this is gonna be re-run a few times? i too decided to read the book again after seeing this. haven't read it since i was in high school.

and i remember being somewhat disappointed with the original. i'll find out when tnt runs it this weekend. this new version was ok, but rob lowe was just an empty suit in the role. terrible. much of the rest of the cast didn't make much of an impression either.
 

RobertW

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2000
Messages
719
i assume this is gonna be re-run a few times? i too decided to read the book again after seeing this. haven't read it since i was in high school.

and i remember being somewhat disappointed with the original. i'll find out when tnt runs it this weekend. this new version was ok, but rob lowe was just an empty suit in the role. terrible. much of the rest of the cast didn't make much of an impression either.
 

Joshua_W

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
477
It will be replayed in its entirety (all four hours) on Friday evening and again Saturday afternoon.
 

Joshua_W

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
477
It will be replayed in its entirety (all four hours) on Friday evening and again Saturday afternoon.
 

Darren Gross

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
518
Actually, Dan Curtis had nothing to do with any permutation of SALEMS LOT. The original was a Tobe Hooper film, with Richard Kobritz producing and Paul Monash scripting...

That said, the original was a classic...this new thing...ugh. An unfaithful mess and another great missed opportunity.
 

Darren Gross

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
518
Actually, Dan Curtis had nothing to do with any permutation of SALEMS LOT. The original was a Tobe Hooper film, with Richard Kobritz producing and Paul Monash scripting...

That said, the original was a classic...this new thing...ugh. An unfaithful mess and another great missed opportunity.
 

RobertW

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2000
Messages
719
is it the new one this weekend? the TNT site has conflicting info: one, it says that this program will not be broadcast in the next three months, but then when you click on the program schedule for more info, it takes you to the new salem's lot webpage. but tv guide says it's the original that's running this weekend.
 

RobertW

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 27, 2000
Messages
719
is it the new one this weekend? the TNT site has conflicting info: one, it says that this program will not be broadcast in the next three months, but then when you click on the program schedule for more info, it takes you to the new salem's lot webpage. but tv guide says it's the original that's running this weekend.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,051
Messages
5,129,552
Members
144,285
Latest member
blitz
Recent bookmarks
0
Top