New Salem's Lot Movie Happening

[Randy G]

Watched this, perfectly competent PG-horror but very nearly the defintion of perfunctory. As if AI made it, almost completely free of even a trace of personality.

[Jack J]

Don't forget the Larry Cohen sequel (A RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT, 1987). So maybe they wanted to somewhat compete with King's CARRIE, which had 3 film adaptations (1976, 2002, and 2013) and a sequel (THE RAGE: CARRIE 2, 1999)?

True dat.

[Darcy Parker]

I watched this today, and it was actually really well-done. Some scenes were direct from the book in terms of dialog, and the trims to make it fit the run time were well-chosen.

[Matt H.]

I keep waiting to see some reactions on this new one, haha. I'm actually just going to watch it tomorrow.

[Dark Horse 77]

But why oh why!?!? They've already remade it once and that didn't turn out so well. And now again? There's absolutely nothing wrong with the original tv adaptation, in fact it's great. I saw it on tv in 89 and I've rewatched it on dvd and Blu-ray twice within the past 12 months or so - and it's still great.

Couldn't agree more. Leave it well enough alone; the 70s TV adaptation is great the way it is.

[Lorne Marshall]

But why oh why!?!? They've already remade it once and that didn't turn out so well. And now again? There's absolutely nothing wrong with the original tv adaptation, in fact it's great. I saw it on tv in 89 and I've rewatched it on dvd and Blu-ray twice within the past 12 months or so - and it's still great.

Don't forget the Larry Cohen sequel (A RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT, 1987). So maybe they wanted to somewhat compete with King's CARRIE, which had 3 film adaptations (1976, 2002, and 2013) and a sequel (THE RAGE: CARRIE 2, 1999)?

[Jack J]

But why oh why!?!? They've already remade it once and that didn't turn out so well. And now again? There's absolutely nothing wrong with the original tv adaptation, in fact it's great. I saw it on tv in 89 and I've rewatched it on dvd and Blu-ray twice within the past 12 months or so - and it's still great.

[Darcy Parker]

I think you are misremembering, it is quite a long book, the first in his multi-character portraits of a small town in the style of It, Tommyknockers and The Stand. Not as long as those later books but still long.

It’s still one that can be compressed to a reasonable feature length without losing anything important, which is rare for King.

[Randy G]

It's been 30 years since I read it but from what I recall this is one of the few King books you potentially could adapt as a standard feature film without leaving out too much. It's not a massive doorstopper of a book like most of his output.

I think you are misremembering, it is quite a long book, the first in his multi-character portraits of a small town in the style of It, Tommyknockers and The Stand. Not as long as those later books but still long.

[Zaibatan]

It's been 30 years since I read it but from what I recall this is one of the few King books you potentially could adapt as a standard feature film without leaving out too much. It's not a massive doorstopper of a book like most of his output.

[Randy G]

Kinda odd they didn't go for a tv series as that would be a better for adapting the novel.

[agent999]

In the UK it's only been certified for theatrical so it looks like it's getting a cinema release of some kind over here.

[Ian Jane]

Trailer!

[Ian Jane]

Looks like this is going straight to MAX instead of to theaters.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/s...but-1235774431

[Ian Jane]

Some footage premiered at Cinema Con last week, a bit of info on that here:

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/...ial-reactions/