OT<Salem's Lot

Did anyone catch part one of Salem's Lot last night on TNT?

I only saw a couple of scenes; I was a little confused.

Is it a straight remake? Or, does Rob Lowe portray whoever Lance Kerwin was in the orig. movie?

Thanks,

Patti

Rob Lowe had the David Soul part .. .i've seen the 1st version, read the book and frankly .. don't remember which one is more faithful to the book .. .it was so long ago. . but i do recall Barlow was supposed to be a horrific thing to look upon, not Rutger Hauer good looking. .(the model for Lestat). . .and did anyone catch the doctor talking about trying to 'cure' vampirism. . shades of Dr. Hoffman, i had to snicker. . .

Excellent.

Much more faithful.

I thoroughly enjoyed it (I watched both parts).  It certainly was updated from both the novel and the original miniseries.  The film was atmospheric and at times had a documentary style.  What is interesting is that the very beginning was borrowed from King's concept of a sequel, in which the priest is working in a homeless shelter/soup kitchen several years after the events at 'Salem's Lot.

Gerard

See, I thought it was a total copy.

I am a big fan of both Andre B and Rob Lowe's, but I thought it offered nothing new.

BTW...as the end credit rolled by...did we all notice the production company....? Thaaat's right...Warner Bros.!

If they were going to do a complete and total nothing new movie (which, IMHO Salem's Lot was), why not do DS?

Patti

it was more true to the book and thought better than the first one. Rob Lowe
was good and Andre great as usual!
Rob Lowe says he is a fan of horrorand King(he was in THe Stand) wonder
he is is a fan of DS?

jenifer

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).

I thought David Soul did good in The Old Salem Lot
movie but i sure would of love to have seen
David Selby in it!!!!!!!!!!!  yummy!!
     
                          Love Anne

LATER ADDITION TO THE ABOVE:

We realize that most posters were probably glad that the time limit on edits works very differently as of the most recent upgrade, but 1) I can't guarantee that the SMF creators won't bring it back as an actual limit with the next version, 2) readers who are visiting soon after a post is submitted will probably never see the modifications, and 3) an edit made later (I consider 5 hours later to be much later) can be very problematic for the moderators since we tend to read posts promptly.  So please, I have to ask that all posters make liberal use of the preview feature and create new posts for any additional thoughts.  Thanks! 

We realize that most posters were probably glad that the time limit on edits works very differently as of the most recent upgrade, but 1) I can't guarantee that the SMF creators won't bring it back as an actual limit with the next version

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). That's until 2 minutes after the initial posting time or the last time the post was modified. But one thing you have to keep in mind is that the system extends you a courtesy of 90 seconds before it will log the modified time (that's so that if we have the "Show time of last edit" feature turned on (which we don't at the moment), and if you modify anything before those 90 seconds expire, the edit time of your modifications won't show up at the bottom of your post).

Trust me, it sounds more complicated than it is. A good rule of thumb would be to start making any modifications to your post before 2 minutes expires. Or better still, try to catch anything that you might want to change by previewing what you've written before posting it.

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 ...

I won't go into this in detail unless others want to continue the discussion (although maybe further discussion isn't entirely appropriate on a Dark Shadows forum) but I'll just say briefly that I've started watching the 1979 mini-series (am a little more than 1/2 way through), which I hadn't seen in quite some time.  Not only am I very favorably impressed, I like it much better than TNT's version.  I think it's superior on almost every level, but it is a product of its time -- 1979 (less than 10 years after DS ended its run!).  The TNT version is a product of its time, too -- 2004 -- and 25 years from now it may seem far more dated than the 1979 version probably does to today's younger viewers ...