What sequels await us...? "Variety reports that the two-part adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot (review) was a ratings monster for the TNT network. The premiere of the first installment this past Sunday night scared up 5.9 million viewers, making it the year's number-one longform basic-cable program and besting major networks ABC and Fox in the key 18-49-year-old demographic for the timeslot. The second part was almost as strong, pulling 5.3 million viewers on Monday night. If you missed the initial airings, you can still catch LOT in repeats this weekend: Friday, June 25 at 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.; Saturday, June 26 at 2 p.m. and 4 p.m.; and Sunday, June 27 at 10 a.m. and 12 p.m." - Fangoria
Bring on the sequel! There's potential for one. I've always wanted King to revisit Salem's Lot. His short story, "One For the Road" was a tease. I wanted more, dammit! Any thoughts on Larry Cohen's cheesy "sequel"? It had some interesting moments and I liked Fuller's character.
ok a few points 1) within 5 minutes of watching this i recognised an aussie car with a chevy badge.. couldnt find it on the chevy website.. seems this movie was shot in so theres a bit of trivia for you! thankfully the grating aussie-trying-to-be-american accents were only noticable for the first half an hour.. and all the lead roles were american (the bus driver and a few others are from shows like Neighbours and blue heelers etc) 2) i saw a movie called "A Return to Salem's Lot" (1987) when i was a kid.. i always had assumed that was the only salem's lot movie and when i saw this mini series announced i had assumed it was a remake of it.. i haven't seen the original 79 movie. onto the movie.. i think they spent too much time doing brief unimportant scenes.. i would have preferred they spent some more time on some scenes.. at least to develop the locations and characters a bit more.. I haven't read the book though so i'm just basing this solely on this new remake. I guess it was shot for TV so it was bound to have that feel.. maybe money restricted a lot of what they could do.. someone's idea before about an ongoing horror tv series sounds like fun. I remember seeing a vampire tv series when i was a kid.. was a great show but i can't remember the name of it for the life of me.. anyone care to name some vampire tv series? (and it wasn't ultraviolet, that is too new)
I don't know old you are, aeon, but off the top of my head I can think of Dark Shadows and Forever Knight. Oh yeah, and Kindred-The Embraced was another one.
if i recall, in this series light produced by candles etc would hurt/kill the vampires but light produced by light bulbs etc wouldnt... it wasn't forever knight.. i can barely remember the series to be honest.. I am 26 btw
from www.dvdanswers.com: Title: Salem's Lot Starring: Samantha Mathis Released: 12th October 2004 SRP: $19.98 Further Details Warner has just announced Salem's Lot: The Miniseries which stars the likes of Samantha Mathis, James Cromwell, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Rob Lowe and Rutger Hauer. This terrifying new take on the classic Stephen King novel, will be available to own from the 12th October this year. Retail will be set at around $19.98. Each of the episodes will be presented in 1.77:1 anamorphic widescreen along with English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround tracks. I'm afraid that we have no details on extra material at the moment. We've attached our first look at the official region one package artwork below:
Just watched this on DVD, and was quite disappointed. I've never been much of a fan of Tobe Hooper's 1979 version, but seeing the 2004 version actually made me appreciate Hooper's version more than I've ever done. The original miniseries does contain some VERY memorable moments (e.g. Mike Ryerson in the rocking chair), whereas the new version just isn't scary AT ALL. And almost all of the newly invented character traits and subplots are lame and totally unnecessary. The character of Barlow is much, much closer to the novel than the Nosferatu-ish character in Hooper's version, but this does little to remedy the other changes that have been made. What a shame.
I finally caught this last weekend. I though story wise it actually improved on the original but i would still say that the Original was the scarier of the two films. Not a bad remake though.
The original was DEFINITELY more scary, but for me, I could be feeling that way simply due to the experiences I had with that film as a child when it first aired. Perhaps if I were to see them both today for the first time I'd appreciate the newer one? I dunno. I liked the remake for what it was, and I do think they did a better job of capturing the misc. lesser story lines etc. instead of trying to amalgamate them into fewer stories. One of the biggest flaws I thought: the character of Marjorie Glick. Granted, they sure picked a hottie for the role, but that was just it...Marjorie Glick wasn't really supposed to be a slim, perky blonde woman. There were other flaws I picked up on as well, some of the vampires looked a little too Romero-style-zombie instead of vampirish...
I watched this and the Hooper version again after seeing it, and to tell you the truth I liked them both. A little too much computer bullshit effects at times in the new one, but it was one of the best performances by Rob lowe that I've seen by far and the rest of the cast was solid as well. I acually went out and bought this on DVD after renting it and watching it.
Yeah i really enjoyed both but i give points to rutger haur (i dont if thats spelled right) simply because i didnt like the nosferatu rip-off vampire in the tobe hooper version
