Talk:Salem's Lot (1979 miniseries)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable adaptation accuracy

In what way was Salem's Lot "largely faithful to the book"? Very few aspects of the novel were accurately incorporated in the screen adaptation, with many of the main characters and details being completely changed. Even the title itself was inaccurate: Stephen King's 1975 novel, the source of the TV adaptation, was entitled "'Salem's Lot", due to "'Salem" being an abbreviation of "Jerusalem".

− Shinigami Kamenzi 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

There are two versions of this page: A (film) version and a (TV mini-series) version. One needs to be merged into the other, and I believe the (film) version needs to come here. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performed the merger. BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I would like to move to have this cleaned up, the plot summary is almost a wall of text. CharlieP216 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? (DCincarnate (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There's some terrible English in this page. 217.205.224.155 (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marsten House in Ferndale?

On Google Earth there's a placemarker for a house on the south edge of the town. Its placement (on a hillside with lots of trees) is basically identical to the Marsten House in the movie. But the house in the movie wasn't really, right? It was just a shell constructed for the movie, right? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The interiors of the house as seen in the movie was inside a film studio, yes. DCincarnate (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TheMasterKurtBarlow1979.jpg

The image Image:TheMasterKurtBarlow1979.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different 'Cuts' of Salem's Lot (1979), the European Version, and the initial CBS Broadcast

Is there any information on the 'alternative' material in the European theatrical release ? Was it released on VHS or DVD ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This film, made for American television viewing, has a curious and long history. Originally it was a two day, 4 hour CBS prime time event during the 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. slot. [I have forgotten the interval between the nights, being, whether the second night was the next day or a week later.] But the first night had a lot of graphic violence in it, though no cuts, and included the Crockett gun scene which was broadcast in full. The cuts commenced the second night, of which there were two, with the second occurring during the conclusion of the movie at about the 10:40 p.m. mark. (CBS New York cut from the film and showed a news segments both times, presented by Jim Jensen anchor of the 11 p.m. New York local news.) After this 1979 'presentation' -- which was in truth not quite a full broadcasting of Salem's Lot -- the movie would undergo further cuts and eventually come in various lengths over the years as it was released on VHS. Leonard Maltin's 2002 Video Guide lists the original picture at 200 minutes, though he says other versions of it run 112 and 150 minutes. And concerning the so-called European version: I believe this might be an ad-hoc device various corporations have employed to title, and in a manner perhaps protect, the complete original 200 minute made-for-TV movie which was intended for, but not entirely released by, CBS. (John G. Lewis (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]

To be accurate, the Crockett 'gun-in-the-mouth' scene was broadcast over the airwaves on CBS in 1979, and therefore part of the original broadcast, and consequently, part of *the original* mini-series... To say otherwise is incorrect. I remember this event so well because it was such a high quality production and very well done. It was advertised heavily on CBS, naturally, and I was a fan of horror films at the time. But what no doubt happened after the first night of the broadcast, as I figured out over the years, was that numerous VIPs called in to complain of the extreme violence, and that this should not be tolerated on public airwaves.... I have heard this nowhere admitted, but it must have happened. CBS-NY pinched in and edited the second and final day of the broadcast twice... taking away the antler scene, and then biting into the climax. I was so upset over these cuts - with CBS -NY switching to showing a 'newsbreak' headed by Jim Jensen, even though there was no news that could not have waited (until 11 p.m.) - that I turned off the TV at roughly 10:40 p.m., at the second cut, and therefore have never seen the conclusion to the film. This was after I had invested some 3 (1/2) hours into it...! I am unsure how "Salem's Lot" was broadcast in other venues, but this is what happened in New York> Very annoying...! But the Crockett 'gun-in-mouth' scene *was broadcast* on the first (and uncut) day .... (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Unsourced material

Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home release

===Home release=== The theatrical cut also aired on cable television and was titled Salem's Lot: The Movie for its VHS release. It was later released alongside A Return to Salem's Lot on VHS as a "Movie Double Feature". Warner Bros. eventually released the full-length miniseries on to VHS, as well as on DVD. The DVD release includes all of the extra scenes from the theatrical version, except the alternative scene of Larry Crockett putting Cully Sawyer's gun in his mouth. A Blu-ray version was released on September 20, 2016 alongside other Stephen King adaptations like Cat's Eye and It.

There is also a 183 minute streaming release that DonIago apparently steadfastly does not want to be included on this page. I have included his reasoning for excluding this information from Wikipedia below. Mikecap (talk) 8:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Salem's Lot (1979 miniseries) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doniago. Do you have a better suggestion for a link that proves that a 183 minute version of the television miniseries was released as a streaming video? I do not work for Shudder nor do I have any affiliation with them. Does this page, which cites NBC's own website, count as advertising? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Timeless_(TV_series). Please clarify. Mikecap (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party source which discussed the miniseries or reviewed it should be sufficient, and ideally will include the runtime. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doniago but your fiat ruling is hypocritical. This page for Doctor Who also directly cites links to episodes of the show at the BBC website. I don't see why a "third party" is needed when there are many examples all across Wikipedia of "first party" links that are not called out for being "advertising". Additionally, there likely is no "third party" site to link to because Shudder is the only service that has ever screened a special 183 minute version of the TV movie.

If Shudder screening that version is notable then it should be easy enough to find a source that noted it. If not, then it's not notable enough for inclusion. Either way you do not have a consensus to include this, but are welcome to discuss it at the Talk page for the miniseries if you'd like. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have so far come up with three different excuses to needlessly exclude this information, the latest being "not notable". There is an entire article about the movie already! The movie itself is notable, yet a fact about the movie is not? You are being ridiculous now. Also you refuse to acknowledge that I am correct about other articles all across Wikipedia using cite links to streaming videos on the sites that provide them. It seems that all you care about is being "right" and not about Wikipedia itself being the best source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecap (talk • contribs) 08:07, January 7, 2019 (UTC)

I support excluding the information because there is no source to support the claim that Shudder is the only service to have ever streamed a special 183-minute version. Without that claim supported by a reliable source, the information comes off as promotional, citing only the streaming website. Furthermore, it looks like Google Play has this version too for streaming, as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erik. Good points as (mostly) always. DonIago (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would either of you care to suggest how to reliably source the information that a 183 minute version of the film exists since you've now both seen that it exists at two different websites? This link at IMDB cites the 183 minute version, do you accept that as a source? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079844/alternateversions Mikecap (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:RS/IMDb. A different source discussing this version would likely be acceptable though. DonIago (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Influences

People have written here of the influences of the German film Nosferatu... Yet another film should be looked into also: Plan Nine From Outer Space. This film is incorrectly appraised as one of the worst films of all time, whereas in truth it is among the more unusual. In it beings come from outer space to wreck havoc on Earth by creating a colony of hostile vampires that can multiply. This recalls not only Salem's Lot, but also Tobe Hooper's later film Lifeforce (which was in turn directly based on the novel "The Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson). Yet Plan Nine... includes many eerie moments reminiscent of Hooper's later Salem's Lot. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I would suggest also examining Hammer films, particularly the vampire films of Christopher Lee, and the famous 'cult' drama Dark Shadows. I know somewhat less about these two possible sources for Salem's Lot (1979), but do believe there was some carry over in general ideas and theory. Indeed, in one of Lee's films, there is a window scene in which a female vampire is requesting entrance, reminiscent of the Danny Glick scene. Additionally, in Dark Shadows, theory is preeminent there, especially so the early parts of the series. (John G. Lewis (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Not totally sure what you have in mind, but we can't claim that other films were a source for this one without having a reliable source. To do so would be original research. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago: I was only proposing possible sources and this is why the comments were made in the talk section. Unfortunately, Tobe Hooper has passed, so perhaps we will never know but I feel Mr. Hooper probably sourced some material and ideas out of some of the films listed, especially so Plan Nine ... Take a second look at that film! It turned out much more interesting than I thought it would, with a number of engrossing and disturbing, haunting sequences similar in conception to what would later characterize Salem's Lot. (John G. Lewis (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Expansion and Citation

Looking over this article, I've noticed that the production section relies mostly on a single source for its information, and not only that, the citation style is all wrong and the section is poorly written. If there is more information out there on the film's production then it should be added to the article with the proper citation. I've also noticed that the article is missing information on the legacy and influence that the miniseries has had post-release and really needs to be added to the article, via with proper citations from reliable sources. This article has potential if enough work is done on it, so hopefully, someone comes along and gives it the proper attention that it deserves.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison to the other articles on miniseries adaptions of Stephen King novels (It' and The Shining), this is probably the worst in terms of complete development of its subject. A fact I find (partially) surprising as it is considered the best of the miniseries adaptions. I was hoping the same person that did such a phenomenal job with expanding those articles would work on this one, however, looking at the edit history of those articles, that user has since been blocked due to inappropriate behavior. As such maybe some equally qualified user is up for the task of getting this article up to par. We shall see.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what?

Salem's Lot is NOT about a haunted house! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]