Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2010 - 7:55 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Which mini-series do you like better, the original or the remake, and how come?

Richard

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2010 - 9:31 PM   
 By:   TominAtl   (Member)

The remake was closer to the book but it had no bite, so to speak. The original was scary when it first aired, but it has not aged well at all. But any movie that has James Mason in it has my vote, so I will go 1979.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2010 - 10:21 PM   
 By:   BobJ   (Member)

Original.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 12:33 AM   
 By:   razorback64   (Member)

I would have to say the original. In Australia we had the cinema version in 79, which had some extra little gory moments added. They didn't air the mini-series version until a year or two later. Loved the lead vampire( Nosferatu look) and the house house ( Psycho look) and Tobe Hooper.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:47 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

The original. Sometimes it's better that these adaptations aren't that close to what King wrote and aren't page for page recitals (the latest children of the corn remake a perfect example of how a literal word for word adaptation sucks). The Tobe Hooper version of Salem's Lot has the meat of the story and really gets the town feel right. Bonnie Bedelia, David Saul, James Mason,... make for a great ensemble. Horror-wise, less is better, and keeping Barlow out of sight for the majority of the movie is more effective.

The remake wasn't that bad, but it had redundant characters and sidebar storylines (the James Cromwell priest and that minion of Barlow), weird casting choices (Sutherland isn't used at all and Rutger Hauer is too prolific as Barlow) and a lack of chemistry between the actors. It's almost as if they set out to make an adaptation that was the opposite of the original Hooper version and by doing so, proved why the original was more effective.

Rob Lowe as the lead... I started to cringe from the moment you heard those tedious voice overs (something that didn't work). Now I see why they cast him as a deaf mute in The Stand.

The new version also has the graphic novel feel to it in the horror scenes involving the Marsten house and the pacing is just too high. It wants to cram too much into its running time and it's here where the bad scenes start to pile up (the wedding scene with the Eva character... ugh)

What I did like about the new version is the score by Gordon, very strong on its own and a nice addition next to Sukman's, and the Andre Braugher and Dan Byrd characters. Braugher was also strong in The Mist.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:12 AM   
 By:   David Kessler   (Member)

Which mini-series do you like better, the original or the remake, and how come?

Richard


The remake wasn´t as effective as the 70´s miniserie but was closer to the book King wrote.

Tobe Hooper´s Salem´s Lot is the better...
I loved the vampire look both from Barlow and the other vampires.
Masons Straker was more eerie than Sutherlands portrail of him.
David Soul nailed the Mears character which Lowe didn´t and the rest of the supporting cast was also better.
The creepy Marsten´s house and even the town of Salem´s Lot, the music by Sukeman...

best scene: "Look at me teacher...look at me"



what do you people think about the 1987 sequel Return to Salems Lot??

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 9:13 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

The remake was closer to the book but it had no bite, so to speak. The original was scary when it first aired, but it has not aged well at all. But any movie that has James Mason in it has my vote, so I will go 1979.

Agreed. The production value and casting on the remake is excellent but it feels like they rushed through a lot of scenes that needed slower pacing, particularly involving the house.

And would like to add that the remake had a far, far better score.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 10:52 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)


what do you people think about the 1987 sequel Return to Salems Lot??


It's very low budget and exploitative, that said I did like how they tried to continue the story rather than just repeat it. Especially the whole vampire society angle, but in the end as a sequel to Salem's lot it was a bit of a letdown.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 4:26 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I've not seen the remake, but I quite disliked the original, which I saw for the first time just a couple of years ago. I posted my views then, in this thread:

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=54459&forumID=1&archive=0

Little did I know that it was some sort of Holy Cow (a la Goldsmith or SPARTACUS) which apparently everyone and their mother held as an untouchable nostalgia favourite.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:09 PM   
 By:   David Kessler   (Member)

I've not seen the remake, but I quite disliked the original, which I saw for the first time just a couple of years ago. I posted my views then, in this thread:

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=54459&forumID=1&archive=0

Little did I know that it was some sort of Holy Cow (a la Goldsmith or SPARTACUS) which apparently everyone and their mother held as an untouchable nostalgia favourite.


Yes and we better not go that route again *LOL*

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 11:00 PM   
 By:   LRobHubbard   (Member)


what do you people think about the 1987 sequel Return to Salems Lot??


It's very low budget and exploitative, that said I did like how they tried to continue the story rather than just repeat it. Especially the whole vampire society angle, but in the end as a sequel to Salem's lot it was a bit of a letdown.



It's better if you come into it realizing that there is NO relation to the miniseries at all, and it's Larry Cohen's idiosyncratic take on horror -- he was one of the people who tried to bring SALEM'S LOT to the screen... when Warner's wanted a followup, he took it on, but did it in his own fashion. Come in expecting anything relating to King, and you're gonna be disappointed. As a low key horror-satire, it isn't bad.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 12:14 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

I appreciate all your responses.

My first impression, after watching the 2004 remake this weekend, is that it fails on its own terms whereas the original tells it story very well indeed. But that is a first impression. I need to watch it again. More on it later.

RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT is a clever and entertaining riff on the original mini-series and book without actually being a direct link to either of them. I'm an admirer of Larry Cohen's independent genre films and I enjoyed RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT as a Cohen film. I got a kick out of seeing independent director Sam Fuller doing a vampire hunter schtick. He's pretty funny, actually.


Richard

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2010 - 11:43 AM   
 By:   AndyDursin   (Member)

Not sure if I remember it correctly, but I am pretty certain the ending of the 2004 version deviated more from the book than even the 1979 version. I really, really disliked it personally, to the degree it colored how I viewed the entire production.

I also remember when I was in 7th grade how A RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT played at my local movie theater in Warwick RI -- I believe the only venue that received a theatrical shoiwing for the movie (it was even mentioned in the Phantom of the Movies Guide as being the spot for its "token theatrical run").

Good, fun B-movie though -- available through the Warner archive. smile

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2010 - 12:10 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)


Good, fun B-movie though -- available through the Warner archive. smile


It has been released on dvd in Germany.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.