MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (2024) Discussion > The point of this?

The point of this?

posted 4 months ago by DevonteHuntley (297)
15 replies | jump to latest

There were the 1979 and 2004 adaptions both of them being a miniseries to flesh out that long book properly. What could possibly be done differently with the story THIS time to warrant yet another adaptation? What makes this one so laughable is that it's a featured film at 113 minutes including credits, so it's removing a lot from the book and already downgrades this. There weren't any other books they could have brought to life that hasn't been done already twice rather successfully and far more fulfilling? Shame.

[–] millsey72 (10935) 4 months ago

I can't wait for the reboot of Return to Salems Lot

[–] DevonteHuntley (297) 4 months ago

Oh no, give them no more ideas here!

[–] BrandNewPoster (10996) 4 months ago

There is no point to it.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15276) 4 months ago

The original is fantastic. No need for this.

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) 4 months ago

To make money? Stephen King's adaptations are selling like hot cake.

[–] DevonteHuntley (297) 4 months ago

And there's plenty of other books they could adapt, not ones that have been done already....TWICE. Considering the bad reception and short run time this has, they fumbled here entirely so this was best left alone. Just goes to show why you shouldn't be so quick to redo things that aren't warranted especially if you're just out to make a quick buck because it will backfire and all that work will be meaningless. This OUGHT to be the last time they do something like this.

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) 4 months ago

you don't know how something is going to turn out until you make it, don't you think so?

[–] DevonteHuntley (297) 4 months ago

They've made a 113-minute movie out of something that requires way more runtime which is why the first two adaptations were a miniseries. That's already showing a downgrade because now most of the book material is cut. What do you expect to get out of that? Considering this was pushed back three years they had plenty of time to re-adjust and get it right. But still, we already had two good adaptions of this story so why did it need a third? What could they have done differently this time to warrant this? Nothing. They were out for a quick buck for name only and it shows. They didn't care about doing anything good but rather to unintentionally tarnish a good name and franchise.

[–] TheArgentinian (7251) 4 months ago

To capture Gen Z audience. They don't care about old productions. Did they care about IT already having been made with Tim Curry?

[–] DevonteHuntley (297) 4 months ago

That was also something they didn't even have to redo either but at least there was only ONE of those made. The latest Salem's Lot was in 2004, fairly recent for Gen Z to tune into if they couldn't be appeased by the magnificent 1979 version. And lots of these "old productions" especially from the 1970s, still kick even today.

So the studio heads want to give Gen Z a new take on a classic to view? Well they screwed it up big time removing pretty much tons of what made the story what it is. If these studio heads keep following down this ridiculous trend of pointless and inferior re-remakes and re-adaptations, they might as well close down Hollywood as we know it because all quality and charm to make any movie will be GONE in a flash and be nothing but a joke.

[–] Melton (5549) 4 months ago

they might as well close down Hollywood as we know it because all quality and charm to make any movie will be GONE in a flash and be nothing but a joke.

We’re there already. Hollywood is a pure shit factory now. You have to go digging for the latest Scorsese film, if you’re lucky Tom Cruise will bypass the woke shitheads in the studio and get something awesome like Top Gun: Maverick made.

But those guys are getting old and will be gone soon. We now have to look outside Hollywood to find films that are worth watching.

Personally, I just live on my home video collection of classics from when Hollywood made decent films. Wake me up when they start doing that again.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3577) 4 months ago

Ironically, that's why so much was changed, in the hopes we wouldn't notice the shortcuts. King is one of my favorite authors and Salem's Lot is one of my favorites of his books, I've read it probably 4 or 5 times. But I think the only way to enjoy this movie is to have low expectations and not be a purist in terms of adaptation.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15276) 4 months ago

'But I think the only way to enjoy this movie is to have low expectations'

Already taken care of!

[–] Melton (5549) 4 months ago

You forget, the people who made this hate you and couldn’t give two shits about the source material. A committee noticed that Stephen King adaptations make money and commissioned this turd.

All the talent, both creatively and commercially, are absent now. They simply rely on the good reputation of the book and fond memories of the 1979 series to dupe people into watching this.

I knew this would be a stinker as soon as it was mentioned. I never understood why people got excited about it, it could only ever smear shit over the good name of Salem’s Lot.

Unless proven talent is behind an upcoming film or TV project we have to assume it’ll be dogshit.

[–] Guitar King (5102) 4 months ago

The point is for Loxists and Black Supremacists to have their own version of Salem's Lot that race swaps white characters.