After watching a movie based off a Stephen King book, I like to hear what he has to say. I know with the orginal Salem's Lot he said it was a decent movie despite a few problems, (I read this in Danse Macabre) but I have never heard anything about this movie. Can anyone tell me if Mr. King has said anythng about this (horrible) movie.
share[deleted]
Stephen King would not comment on this because it is a sequel in name only. Larry Cohen did not bother to deliver a real sequel, but came up with his own completely independent story that in no way fit with what Stephen King wrote or what Tobe Hooper filmed previously. Why even bother calling it RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT and show Mr. Barlowe on the poster when it is in no way representative of the actual film or King property? This is why you have never heard any comment from King in regards to this crap sequel! The movie would have fared better by simply changing it's title and naming the town contained within something else!
shareI'm pretty sure if this movie was too different from the original and the novel then Stephen King could have his credit removed.
He sued to have his name removed from THE LAWNMOWER MAN, and he was left uncredited for THE MANGLER 2, so he couldn't do anything here?
Maybe he's never commented on it in interviews, but that can't be mean he hates it. Maybe he was shown the movie, and thought it was all right, and let his credit stay up. If it was too different, I'm pretty sure he get them to remove any reference to his name.
Spread The Fear,
Toyland Chairman
http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/index.htm
I don't think this film was marketed using his name to begin with. I don't recall the posters saying "Stephen King's RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT", do you? Even if it did, maybe it was all a money issue. This crapola was a flop, but THE LAWNMOWER MAN was a huge hit by using his name, at least by theory. I mean it is possible that the CGI film could have made the same money simply due to the intriguing special effects of the time without King's name ever having been attached, who knows? Also remember, King was upset that his own direct screenplay film SLEEPWALKERS had flopped while up against THE LAWNMOWER MAN, possibly adding fuel to his fire to go after the film makers.
* * * *
"i" before "e" except after "c" eh? How "weird" is that?
The difference is that LAWNMOWER MAN billed itself as an adaptation of a Stephen King story, when it really wasn't. They were able to use the credit on RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT because it's not an adaptation, but a sequel. Much like the CHILDEN OF THE CORN films, many of which bare little, if any, resemblance to the original.
http://noelct.blogspot.com
The difference is that LAWNMOWER MAN billed itself as an adaptation of a Stephen King story, when it really wasn't. They were able to use the credit on RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT because it's not an adaptation, but a sequel.
I don't think this film was marketed using his name to begin with. I don't recall the posters saying "Stephen King's RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT", do you?
"Why even bother calling it RETURN TO SALEM'S LOT and show Mr. Barlowe on the poster when it is in no way representative of the actual film or King property?"
Perhaps because Stephen King and "Salem's Lot" are looked on as "name brands" whose mere mention is enough to generate sales, even by the most flimsy of associations. How many "Wes Craven Presents" or, more specifically "Stephen King's" films are there, for example?
It is a shame that the original products must be shat all over by production companies wanting to cash in on the success of previous ventures (how many remakes have there been in the last 5 years alone?), but this is hardly a new trend.
Stephen King should of kicked up a right fuss over this 'effort'. Let me begin by saying Salems Lot is my favourite horror of all time, even to this day in 2012. It had everything a proper spooky movie should have. I even give it a 10/10.
I was so much looking forward to A Return to Salems Lot, and my God ive never been so disappointed and even hurt in a sequel. Call it a horror??? LOL! comedy more like, and a poor one at that. A sequal to this should have been made 3-4 years after its original where hopefully David Soul & co would have featured. I have give it a 1 rating only because of the cover (featuring Mr Barlow) otherwise would have been 0.
A Great Horror from 79, sequalled to a very poor film indeed.
[deleted]
Steven King watched A Return to Salem's Lot and this was his reaction. He stared at his tv speechless for 5 minutes. He then took the disc out of the DVD player and put it back in the case. He then threw the disc out onto his lawn. He then proceeded to eat burritos, beans, and tacos with extra hot sauce. 8 hours later he walked out to his lawn and took a rancid diarrhea all over the disc.
shareIn an issue of Fangoria back in 1997, King said he had never seen A Return To Salem's Lot. I don't know if that's changed since, but I've heard he's an admirer of Larry Cohen's, so perhaps he would take it with a grain of salt and think it's fun.
shareI think Stephen King should have said "WTF?" when asked about this crappy sequel. Lol!
-L31
...wrote a draft of Salem's Lot back in 1977 when it was a theatrical movie. The only thing retained was the animalistic, nosferatuesque Mr Barlow. He wasnt credited, took the producers to court and they found in favour of the producers (since Nosferatu was not Cohen's idea, of course, but Murnau's...or, arguably, Bram Stoker).
Anyway, perhaps King lets Cohen do his own thing in number 2 as a way of restitution? OR maybe that was a settlement?
The English will not be pushed around much longer...
This movie is not based off any book of his. It's a sequel to a movie that is based off his book so it's a loose connection. No characters he created are in it, and the town it's based in, Salems' lot, doesn't even reference the events of the previous movie.
shareKing probally said thanks very much for the money.
share