It's really quite tiresome to page through the IMDB reviews of RB and ponder the barely literate scrawlings of folks weaned on Michael Myers crap who just... don't ... get it.

One can only wonder what they'd say if they were to see a Bergman film (or Bunuel, or Eisentein, or ... ).  But I suppose we can guess:  "it was boring," "it was dumb" or "it sucked."  (Was thrilled to chance upon "The Seventh Seal" late last night, one of my top 10 ... but couldn't spare the early morning hours for yet another viewing of "Rebecca" -- also in my top 10 -- or "The Picture of Dorian Gray", per another thread.  Great night for TCM!)

I haven't seen "The Sixth Sense," so I could be mistaken, but the ending sounded like it was lifted from a '70s made-for-TV movie where an isolated group of people came to the horrifying realization that they were all dead.  Not sure if that has anything to do with "The Sixth Sense" or not, but I do remember reading somewhere that the surprise ending had been done before.  Of course, we've talked about Dark Shadows and Shakespeare borrowing shamelessly ...

For members, when a board has a new post, the diamond on the home page turns blue.  The same goes for the child boards.  And when a topic has a new post, a blue "new" tag" appears next to the title in the board listing.  Clicking on that new tag will take you directly to the first unread message in the topic.  The blue "new" tags in the new post itself, however, went out with YaBB SE.

I see those features now, thanks.  Haven't tried clicking on the "new" tag yet but am excited to try.  

Second, I'm noticing that in a topic there will be a new tag; but, it will be stuff I've already read.

Case in point, yesterday, from home I read Vlad's response to Gerard's IChing; today at work (different day/different IP), it said new, but it was what I had already read.

I could have been responsible for that.  I'm not sure but this might have been a post that I modified several hours after I wrote it.  I added to another post I had written and re-wrote one that I made to the I-Ching thread -- didn't realize that re-writing one's post later could potentially create problems from the moderators' perspective.

Tonight I installed a mini-upgrade, and it's actually back already. However, it's slightly different that it was before because now there's a 2 minute time limit (it had been 90 seconds).

Oh dear, was that because of me (see Midnite's post above) ...

Hadn't considered this from a moderator's point of view; I just noticed that I was able to modify my post when I logged in five hours later and thought I'd try to minimize my number of posts ...

Thanks for the information, everyone.  

Wish I had realized before that you can scan an individual file (or directory -- am assuming that's something like "My Documents").

Although I'd seen that "Scan for Viruses" option with the right click, it never really registered with me what that meant -- it was sort of like, I saw it once, wondered what it was, then never really "saw" it again after that.  Guess it's because for years I used only computers at work or at school and never had to worry about virus protection.

I've tried the right clicking on a file deal and it worked!

when you select scan your computer in the AV program, it'll give open a window with a list of your folders (just like any other Open or Save As menu) and you select what you want to scan.

Haven't noticed that possibility, as mine just shows something like "Complete Computer" and then shows two folders below that, the C drive and the CD/DVD drive.  Not sure if it allows you to open up the C folder and select items inside, but will check that out in the future.  (My antivirus is Symantec.)

Last time I did a virus scan I noticed there was some log or something you could read and it listed all sorts of things that it COULDN'T scan.  Not sure what that was all about.

OK, I found my notes on this.  First there was a note that said "Symantec antivirus cannot access D drive."  This shouldn't be a problem since that's just the DVD drive.  But this part seemed strange:  "Event Log -- 'Scan Omission' ".  This listed oodles of files that "can't be accessed."

Should this concern me?

 

I was interested in viewing the remake since I had found the original mini-series gripping, enough so that I looked up the novel.  Unfortunately, I only made it about a third of the way through the novel, which I found mildly interesting, but up to that point it was just pages and pages of character sketches, which seemed to go on and on a bit pointlessly (at least King has an interest in developing characters though).  Now, I would like to go back to the novel to better judge the two mini-series versions.

It's strange, looking up comments on imdb and elsewhere, people seem to be about evenly split -- either strongly positive or strongly negative -- about the TNT "Salem's Lot."  It seems to me that there is stronger approval concensus for the original version, although even with that I've read a few people who felt that one was a "travesty."  The couple of reviews I've seen of the new TNT version were pretty negative.

Admittedly, I wasn't able to devote my full attention to the second night of TNT's show, so I would need to give it a second chance.  It took a second viewing of the first night to catch alot that I had missed the first time and increased my appreciation of the first night's episode.

A big plus, I think, was the general atmosphere and setting, for which they must have used some of the techniques Stuart talked about (regarding the recent DS pilot) in making gray skies, subdued lighting, etc., considering that this was filmed in Australia!

I did find a lot of the new version confusing at times, and I would have to ask how the badly injured Ben Mears on his deathbed, hardly able to utter a word, managed to tell the entire story to the male nurse (doctor?).  I also had a hard time hearing/understanding some of the dialogue.

I was disappointed with what seemed to be a lack of establishing shots, e.g. you never did get a good look at the antique shop, especially the exterior, nor of Ben's room at the boarding house, and you never got a good look at the boarding house exterior until the second night's ep.

I would be curious to know if a couple of elements from the TNT version were from the book or not, things that seemed a bit derivative, such as the dead children from the past (which reminded me of "Blair Witch") and the dead boy calling home (which reminded me of a spooky made-for-TV movie I've never forgotten from the 1970s, "When Michael Calls.").  Also, were the grittier aspects such as father-daughter abuse in the novel?

The original miniseries was much more innocent in many respects and I remember it more fondly.  Just one example, Mark Petrie was a much nicer boy and from a more typical 70s family than in this updated version where he had a single mother and was rather foul-mouthed.  Maybe not as realistic for today, and this may be a generational POV.

From what I've read, the original series missed out on a major theme, that evil already existed within people, and that evil had to be invited in.  A major plus of the new version was that this thematic element was brought out clearly.

It's too bad the original miniseries deviated in such a major way (I later learned) in depicting the vampire character as a "Nosferatu" type rather than as a cultured gentleman (as I understand King wrote him).  The scene in the original miniseries where the vampire rises from under the tablecloth was unintentionally humorous.  Yet in the new version, I wasn't won over by the "superior special effects" such as the vampires continually going through the ceiling.  What was that all about?

The original series also developed more of a relationship between Ben Mears and Mark Petrie, which I liked.  As far as acting, I liked James Mason's depiction better than Donald Sutherland's.

LATER ADDITION TO THE ABOVE:

What I did get from the second episode of the TNT version was a lot of gory special effects that did nothing for me personally.  It was overkill, like all the blood and guts spewing out of main vampire endlessly.

I basically lost interest during the second night with all the vampires going through the roof and the scene of the mother coming to life in the hospital, and decided I needed to do other things while trying to watch the rest.

From what I've read over other viewers comments on imdb and elsewhere (many of which gave reasons and explanations beyond the "it sucked" type of "review" that seems to be gaining ground on the net these days), most people familiar with the book hate what was done with the priest character here.  I'd have to say I didn't care for it even without having read the book that far.

It seems to me the original version had its own mood, pace and tone, and less overbearing music throughout.

Viewer comments on a site called bloody-disgusting.com were almost entirely negative for the new version (though, ironically, these all followed a rather ecstatic review by the forum moderator).

"Rosemary's Baby" is one of the most sophisticated and artistic horror movies ever, if not the most.  IMO, it's the last GOOD horror movie.  At least, in my view, horror movies changed after that, going in for "Halloween" type slasher junk.  I'm sure there have been some other decent ones in recent years, maybe "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others," though I haven't seen them, but from what I've read they are derivative and not as original as "Rosemary's Baby," hence I wouldn't rank them on the same level ... "The Blair Witch Project" was certainly original, but I wouldn't care to see that one a second time, unlike "Rosemary's Baby," which continues to be interesting after multiple viewings.

Everything I've seen of Polanski's work is masterful and classic.

I guess "The Exorcist" and "The Omen" came out after Rosemary's Baby, but again, I don't find either one as good, althought the novel of "The Exorcist" is far superior to the shlocky written "Rosemary's Baby" -- RB being one instance where I think the film was better than the book.

As an aside, I was paging through the book "Big Lou" (when I finally received it shortly after placing a second order for it at amazon) and one of the first things to catch my eye was an error that surprised me.  The author names the charming British actor Maurice Evans (remember him from "Bewitched"?) as playing Roman, when of course he played Rosemary's older male friend and confidant.  I was rather surprised by the error.  Both actors gave superb performances in RB.