Which one of the 'Salem's Lot' is more like the book? - Salem's Lot (2004) Discussion

[–] Octantis-1 17 years ago

well, this new version is about 60 minutes longer, so of course it has more time to tell the story
I don't rember the old version, but this one is pretty close to the book

reply

[–] MuMu2525 16 years ago

Actually the 1979 version and the 2004 are about the same length (3 hours). There was actually an edited 2 hour version of the original from 1979 which was released as a theatrical film in certain countries.

The Barlow in the 2004 version is actually more closer to the character in the book (though admitedly not as frightening), however both versions take some liberties with changing things from the source novel.

reply

[–] flcnesbitt 17 years ago

the 2004 version.

reply

[–] antherick 16 years ago

i hope someday it gets a theatrical release... maybe if the stand and dark tower graphic novels are continually successful they'd do a salem's lot comic, since i am legend and 30 days of night are pretty recent, and i saw some other "vampire hunter" comic, so tha'd be cool, and if that's successful, maybe a movie for the theaters finally

i agree though that it's be tougher to make he book into runtime for the cinema release... one of the best parts, i think, is the slow build to the incredibl last 200 or so pages of the book now that i finished reading it finally, and that'd be boring to non-fans of the book in the theater

reply

[–] antonak 16 years ago

With the exception of the ending, I'd agree.

reply

[–] bruceybonus3002 16 years ago

I'd say the 1979 version is more like the book, mainly due to what they did to Callahan in the 2004 version-turning him evil, I really didn't think much of that change and it was a lot more than the change of appearance for Barlow in the 1979 one.

ARH!, SHarK!

(shark attack 3 MEGALODON)

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] redcoyote 16 years ago

Reading it right now, but can't find either movie. Cody dies when the stairs collapse under him, and he's impaled on the splintered steps.

"First God created idiots. That was for practice. Then he created school boards." Mark Twain

reply

[–] gary_overman 16 years ago

While both versions took liberties with the story, I would have to say that the 2004 version was closer to the book than the 1979 version.

reply

[–] alexosborne80 15 years ago

The way I look at it...

The 2004 version seemed to capture most of the events from the book...but added things that really were not necassary. It also failed to capture the spirit of the book...for one it was not scary on any level...and some of the changes I didn't like...like them finding a whole nest of vampires up at the house and him not killing girl. Allot of of it was also just over glammed up and flat...like the vampire effects...the less you see the more scary..but in this you had the vampires zipping around like the Flash...it just was not scary.

The 1979 version made allot more changes but seemed to capture the heart of the book and had some scary moments. I thought the vampires were allot more chilling in this version...and thought the Master looked great...although they did deviate from the book.

I think if the 2004 script had been given to a better director...then we would have almost had the perfect conversion of book to film.

As it stands though the book is far superior to both mini series.

reply

[–] weresmurf 15 years ago

The book will always be superior to the movies, thats for sure, its so indepth and intricate you couldn't replicate it as effeectively on screen as you could in a book.

reply

[–] Hollowshape 15 years ago

While both versions took liberties with the story, I would have to say that the 2004 version was closer to the book than the 1979 version.

Not really.

*It's set in 2004 and it's winter instead of late summer.
*The miniseries begins with Ben trying to kill Callahan
*Ben tells the whole plot to a male nurse.
*Burke isn't a caucasion
*No Hubie Marsten ghost.
*Callahan turns evil
*Ben dies at the end

There are also characters getting way more screen time than they deserve, as in they shouldn't have been in the miniseres at all; Sandy McDougall, Dud Rogers, Charlie Rhodes and Ruthie Crockett are all minor throw-away character. Ruthie didn't even have any dialogue in the book for crying out loud. What is so special about these characters that they managed to get on screen and take away precious time from the real characters?

An hour of the 2004 miniseres could have been left on the cutting room floor. Time-waster sub-plots go nowhere. Like the doctor having an affair and getting blackmailed by the husband. Then he takes his lover's baby to the hospital and has it admitted under his own name. Then what? This goes nowhere so why bother.

Production values aside, the original miniseries remains the definitive version. Some of the original's imagery is still memorable: a child-vampire floating outside a window, begging to be let in, a scene set in a morgue with a newly animated vampire, Barlow crashing throw a kitchen window, and the final scene involving vampires crawling through the root cellar. I also prefer the Nosferatu-inspired makeup for Kurt Barlow. The makeup was more feral, animalistic, and primal. Creativity seemed to be wholly missing from Barlow's latest incarnation. Rutger Hauer simply looks like the all-too-familiar count (Dracula), sans cape. And to be frank, Hauer is simply too old and overweight to play the Prince of Darkness. Also, Donald Sutherland is laughable; Straker got turned into a nightmarish Santa Claus.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shellshock-6 15 years ago

Both movies had so many changes, replacements, additions, omissions, and combining of characters that you'd have to count every single one, and there are hundreds easily. Either way it has nothing to do with which one was better or more memorable. My first impulse was that '04 was MUCH closer, but I think it'd be a pretty tight race.

reply

[–] MuMu2525 14 years ago

Hollowshape wrote:

"Not really"

Erm, actually yes - really. I never said the 2004 was completely faithful to the novel, but it is far more like the novel than the 1979 version:

*Barlow is a blue-skinned monster that never speaks in the 1979 version (in the novel he is an articulate human-looking character that speaks to people, like in the 2004 version).
*LOTS of characters are missing from the 1979 version because they have either been merged or deleted altogether (the 2004 version restores most of these).
*Callahan is barely in the 1979 version (two scenes only) but is in the novel far more, and is a major character in the 2004 version.
*The 1979 version begins and ends in Guatemala. The novel never goes to Guatemala.
*Susan's fate is different in the novel.
*Jimmy Cody's fate in the 2004 version is more similar to the novel. Jimmy Cody wasn't even in the 1979 version, but his analogue (Bill Norton) was killed differently.
*They easily find Barlow at the Marsten House in the 1979 version, whereas in the novel and the 2004 version they discover he has cleverly relocated his coffin to the basement of Eva's boarding house.

There are other details too, but as I stated in my original post, both versions take some liberties and neither version can be called "definitive". However the 2004 version is far more reflective of the source novel than the 1979 version. You would have to be blind not to see it. The 1979 version was certainly scarier, but the 2004 version was deeper. Merging ideas from the two together might have given a perfect adaptation.

reply

[–] act78 15 years ago

The new "salem's Lot" has only ony one thing in common with the book - it is a disgusting failure, based on a great novel.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roland-rockerfella 15 years ago

The 2004 version seems closer to the book in many aspects, however it has be made more modern to fit todays world. However they still didn't get the character of Straker right, in either version.

reply

[–] T-eschberger 15 years ago

The 2004 version is the closest to the book. Its also the better movie. The 79 film, while having potent atmosphere, is as dull as they come. The 2004 version has better acting, the characters are more engaging and the overall sense of dread is more powerful.

reply

[–] BertramWilberforceWooster 14 years ago

How does a voice over add to a sense of dread? That was weak storytelling. If the screenwriter/directer had wanted to be truly creative, they would have done something better to add a sense of forboding.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
jonbkennedy.wordpress.com

reply

[–] markfaressa 15 years ago

Both had their moments. I would say the "newer" version is closer to the book, only because this version allowed more character names and references. The original t.v. movie changed names for no reason and left out characters (they did combine characters though). Personally, I love both versions but the original has a special place because I was 11 when it aired and it scared me a lot! I read the book a few times a year and I am currently reading it now.

reply

[–] NERigby 14 years ago

Well, this version was a lot different to [how I remembered] the book. The biggest difference I saw was:
They made Mark a bit of a 'bad-boy', when he really wasn't.
I don't know which is closer, but I know one thing: This is far better [and more creepy] than the 1979 miniseries.

What are you trying to pull here, you sarcastic prick? -- Collateral (2004)

reply

[–] jumades 14 years ago

well, I'm a big fan of Salem's lot, I have the two movies in DVD and two books (I got the espcial edition with extras, lol) this new version is more like the book, if u see, some phrases are textual of the novel.

BUT I like more the first version of 1979, the new version is cool too, but I like more the first one.

reply

[–] whusup90201 14 years ago

They put a lot more from the book in this one but they also changed a LOT (all?) of events; Mostly though, the new one has a COMPLETELY different feel to it . The 79 version retained that feel of the book which makes it a better movie. Almost every character is completely different from the book; There's really not 1 person depicted anywhere near of how they were written.

reply

[–] ecs67-1 13 years ago

Both of them screwed up big time. I know you just can't be absolutely faithful to a book like this (unless you do a 12 or 13 episodes show), but why change so much? You could skip or condense some parts, but no need at all for transforming the characters into different people, or moving the story in a different line or, specially, adding your own great idea (Susan at the end of the '79 version or the beginning of the '04). I agree with whusup90201 in the '79 version staying closer to the feel of the book (I've just finished reading the book, I saw the Hooper version yesterday and I'm watching the 2004 crap right now). Completely dissapointed.

reply