Salem's Lot VS Salem's Lot ?

The 2004 remake (partially filmed in my state of Victoria in Australia -- I hail from Melbourne) was a mish mash right from the start. I think ill-advised may have been a proper phrase to use. It still confounds me that production companies are willing to remake what was essentially a hit and try and do it again for more modern audiences, when the original is infintely better all round, if a tad too long, which would be my only criticism.

The 1979 Mini Series based on Stephen King's celebrated novel, which originally screened over two nights was far superior. A great cast headed by David Soul and James Mason and a roster of supporting actors made this a memorable event.  Available in truncated form for an international theatrical release around the time of its debut airing on US television, it was good to get the full 3 hour plus version cut together from both Parts 1 & 2 on DVD a few years back.

It some fine character development within the framework provided and some genuinely scary moments, the least of which was a particularly nasty vampire played by Reggie Nalder.  For me, the one real standout in this mini series was the great atmospheric music score by Harry Sukman which lamentably, has never seen the light of day as an official soundtrack release.

I own both of them, and in an odd way I prefer both, just for different reasons. The '79 version, I will state right off the bat, is the preferred one when I'm in the mood to be thoroughly creeped out. Yes, it deviates heavily from King's source material, but it makes up for those deficiencies by giving you loads of creepy atmosphere, memorable and equally creepy music, and vampires that just about scared the shit out of me when I saw them.

Now, as for the 2004 version . . . yes, it follows King's novel a bit more closely, mainly in the pacing of "major events," and gives us a Barlow that's more in line with the vampire in the novel, but it's lacking in the relentlessly ominous atmosphere the first one had in spades.

The changes that were made in this version, in my opinion, were absolutely unnecessary: even though some of the characters followed their literary counterparts more closely in age, the filmmakers suddenly deviated from that by changing Mear's high school teacher to a black, gay man. The '79 version got this character right.

In both versions the filmmakers decided to mess with Mears would-be-girlfriend's death by moving it to the end of the mini-series rather than the latter half. SPOILER ALERT . . . killing her off in the middle of the book works because you're not expecting it.

The house in both versions, though, are dead on. I remember being horrified and blown away by the set design and creepiness once Mears and company get inside it. And, they did an equally great job with the house in the 2004 version.

The bookends on the new version I simply didn't like, but not enough to deter my enjoyment of it, though. If you could merge both versions together, and tweak the end product some, you'd probably have the ultimate Salem's Lot flick.

Agree with all the reasoning as stated by Main Title....1979.

Yes, when you strip it all away, the '79 one is the scariest, but I can't help but also like the 2004 version.

While I enjoy both, the clearly superior version for me is the 1979 miniseries.  It had a really great cast and provided a really creepy atmosphere that kept me on edge throughout.  It also has one of the scariest vampires ever put to film.....Reggie Nalder as Barlow was just downright frightening.

Speaking of Nalder, I'd love to see a release of the film The Dead Don't Die on DVD.....his performance as Perdido gave me nightmares as a kid.

I thought the '79 version was vastly the superior. Much more faithful to the novel and suitably scary. It has some brilliant moments - Danny Glick rising from his coffin and later floating outside the window for example.

Barlow isn't as he is in the book (in that he is of relatively normal appearance) but the TV version is certainly quite terrifuing, and a tribute to Nosferatu.