# Salem's Lot (2004)



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

June 20, Sunday 8:00 pm. marks the beginning of this two-parter to conclude on Monday, June 21 same time, same channel, TNT. Anyone going to see this? I plan to. I have a buddy who has Tivo that is going to make me a copy. The first one wasn't as bad as people made it out to be. My main complaint was the Barlow character played by Reggie Nalder, who looked like Graf Orlock and never spoke a line. Anyone who has read the Stephen King classic (who hasn't?) knows this is not the case. For its time, it was a cutting edge piece for television. Don't watch the all-cut-to-hell 2-hour-version, instead, invest in the 3:30 episode. Though not the greatest Vampire opus of our time, it certainly isn't one of the worst. Let's hope that with Lowe, Cromwell, Hauer and Sutherland they do this version of *Salem's Lot* the justice it deserves.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

That's my biggest gripe with the original... they totally screwed up Barlow. He was supposed to be more like a Dracula-type, having great dialog and looking pretty slick, while remaining a ruthless blood-sucker. Instead, they made him look like a goon and took away all of his cool-ass dialog. I look forward to this remake, and sincerely hope it doesn't disappoint.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Tonight's the night it starts! I'm really psyched to finally be seeing this. I'm crossing my fingers they get it right this time around.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Barlow looks awsome ^^ I loved it so far. It is so good. I enjoy the actors in it. My mom liked it too. She is into horror as well.


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Update: Loved it though the ending was interesting I really enjoyed it. It was pretty cool... The vampire's deaths were interesting and Barlow was pretty handsome but I felt he needed to be involved more and the priest seem to be splashed in there a little bitt too fast but it was still a good storyline and I liked it.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

IMO, they ****ing blew it with this one. The book is just so damned perfect, that to mess with it is to ruin it. Why they changed so much is beyond me. The only plusses in this version are:


Resolution to the Father Callahan story. In the novel, after his dark conversion, Callahan gets on a bus to god-knows-where and is never heard from again.
Hauer's and Sutherland's performances. Simply great. Hauer is a great Barlow, and despite the fact Straker's overall persona and appearance were altered, Sutherland rocked.

My biggest questions about the changes from novel to film are:


Why change the season from late summer to winter? It served no purpose.
Why did they write out ALOT of secondary characters, yet keep their stories going, but on a different character?
Why change Eva MILLER'S name and give her a completely different backstory?
Why change Mears from novelist to nonfiction war writer?
Why did the vampires shamble around more like ZOMBIES than vampires?
SPOILER (Hilight to read):Why did they kill Mears at the end? Again, it served no purpose and almost kills any hopes of a better "Return to Salem's Lot".

I guess to really get it right, they need to hire somebody who actually read the damn book to write the movie, and they NEED to make it a 3+ part miniseries. Seriously.

On a funny side note, did anyone else notice Mike Ryerson's autopsy scar switch sides between two different shots in the SAME SCENE? It's the scene where Mr. Burke goes upstairs and encounters Vampire Mike and then has a heart attack. Continuity people!!! :voorhees:


----------



## Lilith (Apr 13, 2004)

Maybe so but I never actually looked at it through the book's perspective. I tend to always take away the book from the movie... I guess that is why i enjoyed it more. lol


----------

