Stephen King's works have always had a mixed track record on screen. Despite being a master of horror, only a few adaptations have truly done his books justice (The Shining is a horror classic, though King famously hated Stanley Kubrick's version). Salem's Lot is one of King's most iconic novels—often hailed as one of the best vampire stories ever written, blending small-town Americana with existential terror. Despite its legacy though, it has proven notoriously difficult to adapt for the screen. Neither the 1979 miniseries or the 2004 TV version have been wholly successful, and with a new film adaptation on the horizon, the question remains: Why is Salem's Lot so hard to get right?
At first glance, the story seems straightforward enough. The plot follows writer Ben Mears, who returns to his hometown of Jerusalem's Lot, Maine, seeking inspiration. He is particularly drawn to the eerie Marsten House, which looms over the town. His arrival coincides with some eerie goings on in town — disappearances, deaths, and the arrival of two more new residents; Mr Straker and the elusive Mr Barlow.
On a narrative level, the story seems simple: a small town is infiltrated by evil, and a group of locals band together to fight back. However, Salem's Lot isn't just a vampire novel—it's a sprawling meditation on the history of the town, the decay of small-town America, and the hidden darkness within seemingly ordinary people, something that doesn't translate particularly well to the big screen.
The novel is also unapologetically character-driven. King dedicates chapters to the town's history and gives a unique inner monologue to each resident, providing a vivid account of the communities secrets and histories, and the gradual erosion of their normal lives as evil creeps in. On the page, this builds an atmosphere of creeping dread, but capturing that level of detail and psychological nuance onscreen is no easy task.
Another hurdle is the pacing. Salem's Lot is a slow burn. The horror gradually seeps into the town, and King takes his time introducing the residents laying the groundwork for the horror that will take hold of the town. In fact, one of the novel's strengths is its subtlety—author Peter Straub remarked when he started reading the book that he didn't realise it was a vampire story until halfway through. Modern audiences, conditioned for slick, breezy horror, may find this slow build challenging. There are reports that Warner Bros. pushed for a “faster-paced, slimmer” adaptation in the upcoming film—a decision that seems at odds with the measured pace of the novel.
Much of Salem's Lot's horror is psychological, tapping into ideas of the occult, paranoia, isolation and haunted houses. It's no coincidence that one of the early chapters begins with a quote from The Haunting Of Hill House. While there are certainly terrifying, visceral moments—such as gravedigger Mike Ryerson feeling the eyes of a vampire on him from inside a coffin—many of the novel's scariest moments happen in the reader's imagination. King's strength is in what he leaves unseen. Scenes like Matt Burke hearing a child's laughter through a wall or a vague description of a particularly grotesque murder (“it became unspeakable.”) tap into primal fears without relying on graphic visuals.
Translating this to screen is tricky. While film thrives on visual storytelling, subtle psychological tension is harder to sustain in a medium that often leans on spectacle. Richard Kobritz, producer of the 1979 miniseries, summed it up well: “All those inner monologues that give you gooseflesh…are a real problem to deal with cinematically.”
The miniseries, directed by Tobe Hooper, is the most well-known adaptation, and in many ways, it succeeds in capturing the novel's sense of dread. It's a genuinely scary production, and this covers a multitude of sins. Where King took inspiration from literary horror like Dracula and The Haunting Of Hill House, Hooper is clearly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock, specifically Psycho and The Birds. Hooper brought cinematic flair to moments that became iconic, such as Ralphie Glick tapping on the window, a scene made chilling through the use of reverse footage and clever camera work. There are also several spine-chilling set pieces, from the re-animated Mike Ryerson to the grisly fate of Bill Norton.
However, even Hooper's version made significant cuts. The idea of a ragtag group of vampire hunters, so beautifully realised in the book, is all but abandoned, and key characters, such as Father Callahan, are reduced to bit parts, while others, such as the hunchbacked Dud Taylor and irascible bus driver Charlie Rhodes, were omitted entirely. The sheer scale of the vampire infection, that gradually desolates the town in the novel, is difficult to convey within the runtime of a miniseries. Much of the small-town paranoia and intricate backstories were lost in translation, and the theatrical cut, trimmed down to just 112 minutes, exacerbated these problems. There are simply too many characters to comfortably fit into a feature run time. Even in its longer cut, the film accelerates the timeline of the story, leaving certain character motivations unexplored and underdeveloped.
Most controversially, Hooper's version of Mr. Barlow was transformed from King's Dracula-like villain into a feral, Nosferatu-inspired creature played by Reggie Nalder. This was a conscious decision to move away from the urbane, charming depictions of vampires in the preceding years from the likes of Frank Langella and Louis Jourdan. It may not be a faithful depiction, but it's a terrifying creation that sears itself into your memory, while the cunning intelligence and eloquence of his book counterpart is shifted to his human servant, Straker, played beautifully by James Mason.
The 2004 version, starring Rob Lowe, is more faithful to the novel's events, reintroducing excised characters and depicting nightmarish scenes that were omitted from the previous miniseries (including Rhodes' final stand on his bus). However, it lacks the atmosphere and tone that made the book so unsettling, and perhaps fatally underestimates the importance of the town as a character. The modernized setting is too nondescript, the pacing erratic, and despite sticking closer to the source material, it misses the mark when it comes to embodying the book's unique sense of dread.
Interestingly, the series that most closely mirrors the spirit of Salem's Lot isn't even a direct adaptation. Mike Flanagan's Midnight Mass channels much of what makes King's novel great: a small, insular town, a mysterious new arrival, and a community gradually succumbing to darkness. Like Salem's Lot, it bides its time, focusing on the psychological struggles of its characters before unleashing its full horror.
Both stories share common themes of faith, guilt, and isolation, and neither relies on conventional scares. The horror comes from the decay of a once-idyllic community and the ways in which ordinary people can be seduced by evil. If nothing else, Midnight Mass proves that King's brand of slow-burn horror can work when handled with care.
The upcoming Salem's Lot film has had a troubled production, with reports of behind-the-scenes conflicts between director Gary Dauberman and the producers, and Warner Bros. over the film's tone and pacing. However, the cast is promising, with Lewis Pullman, Alfre Woodard, and William Sadler in key roles, and the trailer suggests that the movie will lean into the eerie atmosphere of the novel.
Whether this new adaptation succeeds or fails, it's clear that the sprawling nature of Salem's Lot, its subtle horror, and its deliberate pacing, make it a challenging novel to adapt. Tobe Hooper came closest, but even his version struggled with the novel's complexity. The key to a successful adaptation may not be in faithfully recreating every event or character but in capturing the soul of the story—the sense of decay, the evil lurking beneath the surface, and the vulnerability of a small town on the brink of collapse.
Podcast
