I thought vampires could not enter a home without being invited according to the lore yet Barlow comes flying into the Petrie kitchen and is able to kill Mark's parents.
How is this possible? Is this something that Hooper ignored or goofed or was there some loophole in the vampire legend that enabled Barlow to enter uninvited?
I thought vampires could not enter a home without being invited according to the lore yet Barlow comes flying into the Petrie kitchen and is able to kill Mark's parents.This has been covered before in this board, but I can't find any of the threads. It is definitely a plot hole that appears in both of the films and the book as well. You are correct; the folklore has them requiring an invitation to enter.
How is this possible? Is this something that Hooper ignored or goofed or was there some loophole in the vampire legend that enabled Barlow to enter uninvited?
It's not a plot hole, how on earth can it be when we are dealing with myths and unfounded beliefs? Stephenie Meyers (Twilight novels) created vampires that bare little or no resemblance to traditional, so called 'folklores' or novels such as Bram Stokers Dracula. In the realm of fantasy there are no rules that is why I've never considered the scene described as a plot hole.
It's all a deep end.
Consistency in character development is a key to telling a good story, that's why vampire movies have stayed with the folklore up until now. If in the next Superman movie suppose Superman is unable to fly and walks around throughout the entire movie? How do you think that will go over with the audience? Everyone will hate it.
You brought up Twilight as an example? Most horror buffs hate that series for this very reason. There have been "rules" to follow but some people(Meyers)just chose not to follow them. The approach she took may work with a young immature female audience ,which is who the predominant fans of Twilight are, but not with average experienced mature audiences who are used to a sense of faithfulness and consistency.
BTW,
In this movie, the need for an invitation is acknowledged when Jason Burke tells Mike Ryerson " I revoke my invitation", but it is ignored when Barlow comes crashing in. This is why I originally posed this question. No one is saying a federal law was broken, but that does appear to be a hole of some sort.
In this movie, the need for an invitation is acknowledged when Jason Burke tells Mike Ryerson " I revoke my invitation", but it is ignored when Barlow comes crashing in. This is why I originally posed this question. No one is saying a federal law was broken, but that does appear to be a hole of some sort.
Heck, Mark's parents could have phoned up Mr Barlow and invited him around for coffee for all we know. It's not like he was hanging out at the beach sunbathing. The "plot hole" can be easily explained away by something we just didn't see. I agree that it was bad writing and the scene could have been set up better but that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is when there is simply no plausible explanation for what occurs on screen.
shareHeck, Mark's parents could have phoned up Mr Barlow and invited him around for coffee for all we know. It's not like he was hanging out at the beach sunbathing. The "plot hole" can be easily explained away by something we just didn't see. I agree that it was bad writing and the scene could have been set up better but that doesn't make it a plot hole. A plot hole is when there is simply no plausible explanation for what occurs on screen.Does the old expression 'straining at gnats and passing camels' occur to anyone here besides me?
The point is the film is not the book and the book is not the film. A plot hole is when you see something that occurs that cannot possibly occur within the confines of the plot. That is not the case here. What we have here is a scene with a poor setup, but even if Barlow requires an invite then we can extrapolate from the events of story that an invite must have have occured at some point. Missing that bit out is sloppy writing, but not a plot hole per se. Maybe they bought something from the shop and Barlow was invited to bring it over. There are any number of plausible ways in which Barlow could be invited. If we knew for sure that Barlow had not been invited that would be a plot hole, but we can't say for sure that's the case.
shareIf it didn't happen in the script/movie then it didn't happen. If you have to fill in the blanks for something then that means something got missed.
This movie is fiction it's not real, meaning that whatever is in it that is all that's in it. There's nothing wrong with a little mistake from time to time especially if you're as great as Tobe Hooper and Stephen King. They are human like everyone else so there's no reason to get fanatical about it.
If it didn't happen in the script/movie then it didn't happen. If you have to fill in the blanks for something then that means something got missed.
Ok let's call it poor writing. The original point is that a mistake was made, debating over what to call the mistake is just being argumentative.
shareOk let's call it poor writing. The original point is that a mistake was made, debating over what to call the mistake is just being argumentative.Agree with you here. But you know, the other gentleman does have a valid point, as well. I have to give him credit for that. The problem is that there is no mention of any invitation in either the book, this film or the 2004 effort. So, if it is poor writing, and I think that you, the other gentleman and myself can all agree that it is, it is shared by not only King, but by both screenwriters. share
The point is the film is not the book and the book is not the film. A plot hole is when you see something that occurs that cannot possibly occur within the confines of the plot. That is not the case here. What we have here is a scene with a poor setup, but even if Barlow requires an invite then we can extrapolate from the events of story that an invite must have have occured at some point. Missing that bit out is sloppy writing, but not a plot hole per se.I agree. People use the term plot hole a bit too loosely however it is indeed a goof and no excuse can be given such as "maybe it happened off screen" . You can attribute stuff to being offscreen like that when it is insignificant to the film but if you state that a invitation must be acquired then you must show the audience or at least mention to the audience that an invitation was given.
Someone mentioned that the Petrie house is actually "fighting back" against Barlow, b/c of the lack of invitation, but ultimately Barlow wins out. My gut says that Hooper just wanted a scary scene, but the angry house angle intrigues me.
shareSomeone mentioned that the Petrie house is actually "fighting back" against Barlow, b/c of the lack of invitation, but ultimately Barlow wins out. My gut says that Hooper just wanted a scary scene, but the angry house angle intrigues me.I don't see the house fighting back necessarily.
This plot hole is also in the 2004 effort as well as the novel. So, it seems that Tobe Hooper is not the only one to fail to see this lapse in the folklore.I wouldn't necessary call it a plot hole. The main plot and story goes on whether or not the incident occurs. It is definitely a goof and sloppy writing.
This plot hole is also in the 2004 effort as well as the novel. So, it seems that Tobe Hooper is not the only one to fail to see this lapse in the folklore.You have to understand that there are many incarnations of vampire universe that completely leave out the invitation clause. One of my favorites in the Anne Rice universe and in that one vampires do not need an invitation, have reflections in the mirror, are not afraid of crucifixes or garlic and can take a stake to the heart. However, they cannot transform into mist, wolves, or bats. I personally find the invitation one extremely silly and is about as bad as that they sparkle in the sun.
The invitation rule is invoked here though, so it definitely applies. I don't actually have a problem with the scene. I haven't read the book and I always assumed that King had covered it and that Hooper had just decided to omit the exposition from what was already a very long adaptation. I like the theory that the house "resists" him and that is why it starts to tremor, but I am happy to accept that Barlow's invitation ended up on the cutting room floor.
For me the bigger problem—and something that I do consider a plothole—is how Susan ended up a vampire. I think there are two plausible scenarios here. Susan was able to escape at some point, either prior to the house burning down or during, and was later captured by the surviving vampires and turned. The other was that Straker had her taken from the house for some reason. Perhpas Barlow had special plans for her and wanted to meet her in a more formal setting? Either way, it seems like we are missing a major part of the plot when Susan turns up as a vampire at the end.
You're not accepting that Barlow's invitation is on the cutting room floor you're creating it.
I agree Susan must have escaped during the fire. In the book she is long dead before the end.
You're not accepting that Barlow's invitation is on the cutting room floor you're creating it.Please let me see if I can sum up the arguments on both sides here, trying to be fair to each one.
I agree Susan must have escaped during the fire. In the book she is long dead before the end.
According to the folklore, a vampire must have an invitation to enter someone's house.According to which folklore? You guys seem to be dead set that there are universal rules that ALL vampire stories MUST share. It is a fictional story and the author of said fiction can create any rules they want.
Well that puts us right back where we started then Gary. I too believe it was a goof, but Logan seems to not want to admit that and chooses to create a phantom invitation to explain it. I see nothing wrong with admitting it was a goof so I don't understand why Logan does this.
shareYou're not accepting that Barlow's invitation is on the cutting room floor you're creating it.
Yet Barlow is permitted to enter without being invited. So this appears to me at least to be an inconsistency, or what is more likely, a plot hole, since the death of Mark's parents is an important point in the story.
It's not about personal preference it's about being consistent. In this movie, the need for an invitation is acknowledged when Mike Ryerson arrives, yet it is contradicted in the kitchen with no explanation. It's not about preference, it's about being consistent. Some of us actually like to think.
Also, the effect of the cross was nullified when Callahan cut a deal and lacked faith. That happened in the book also.
So any movie where one person has powers that the others do not is a glaring inconsistency that you cannot abide. Then wow, superhero movies must drive you absolutely insane.
shareApparently you're not familiar with Vampire folklore. The whole thing is obviously made up but the Vampire legend typically states that a vampire must be invited in someone's home or place before entering. This has been demonstrated in almost all older vampire movies, like this one, and literature. In this particular movie and book, that legend is maintained or at least acknowledged like most of the others have with consistency to what the folklore standard is/was. The only thing that is being pointed out here is that Barlow did something inconsistent with the standard the movie appears to depict, such as what vampires do: entering with or without an invitation, cross repellent, etc.
If there was no acknowledgment of this aspect of the legend then there wouldn't have been any questions about it. Hooper probably just wanted to do something different than the norm, which he has a right to. There are a lot of vampire/werewolf movie makers who have gone in another direction with their interpretation. The problem here is that it appears that Hooper did not go in another direction with his interpretations for Barlow entering the kitchen and some of us was just wondering why that's all.
In the end, movie makers can do what they want, but if they seem to stray off of what they are doing then it sometimes gets noticed.
It's no big deal.
Good post, fair sir. You have stated the problem quite well. The entrance without an invitation is not consistent with the folklore. The gentleman LOGANS, while I disagree with his contention that an invitation was extended to Barlow, is at least attempting to be consistent with the lore. And I have to give him credit: he doesn't attempt to resort to this babbling nonsense about how Barlow is so powerful that an invitation is not needed for him to enter. He simply contends that an invitation was extended but not mentioned.
You and I, on the other hand, also being fairly familiar with the relevant folklore, can simply say that this is a goof, which it is. The lengths that some will go to in order to avoid saying that this is a goof is amazing.
You, Logan and myself are at least trying to be consistent with the folklore. The others are not. And if they are not, that's fine, but they should at least admit that they are not and don't go inventing some cockamamie nonsense about Barlow having 'special powers', or how the folklore doesn't apply to him because he is a 'master vampire'.
I've said it before: Stephen King, although I enjoy him immensely, can be a very sloppy writer sometimes, and he quite often doesn't seem to follow his own thoughts too well. Witness the longest thread in the IMDb board for The Stand. It is about goofs in that book. The book itself is quite good, but there are enough inconsistencies for almost 250 posts. And that is a lot of goofs.
The Stand is my favorite book by King and I still enjoy reading it. But it does have an inordinate number of mistakes in it. Salem's Lot has a few as well and this is one of them.
Apparently you're not familiar with Vampire folklore
From what I can gather in the vampire wold that King created it seems that he clearly acknowledges traditional vampire lore such as the invitation with Mike Ryerson and twice with Danny Glick knocking on the window. King also establishes traditional vampire lore of the cross as a real weapon as does the wooden stake.
They show Barlow not using the traditional invitation twice. First was at the jail cell when he kills Ned Tebbets and then what this thread is about which is the infamous Petrie kitchen seen. The problem is they don't actually explain these inconsistencies. To me it logically in this fiction vampire world Barlow is able to bend the rules to an extent. They showed this with Callahan cutting a deal and the cross being useless against Barlow once he lost faith. I think his grand entrance into the Petrie kitchen was also trying to show this extended power.
From what I can gather in the vampire wold that King created it seems that he clearly acknowledges traditional vampire lore such as the invitation with Mike Ryerson and twice with Danny Glick knocking on the window. King also establishes traditional vampire lore of the cross as a real weapon as does the wooden stake.That is correct; they don't explain these inconsistencies. To me there is a much simpler explanation and that is that King goofed in the book and Tobe Hooper and Paul Monash goofed in the series.
They show Barlow not using the traditional invitation twice. First was at the jail cell when he kills Ned Tebbets and then what this thread is about which is the infamous Petrie kitchen seen. The problem is they don't actually explain these inconsistencies. To me it logically in this fiction vampire world Barlow is able to bend the rules to an extent. They showed this with Callahan cutting a deal and the cross being useless against Barlow once he lost faith. I think his grand entrance into the Petrie kitchen was also trying to show this extended power.
The invitation rule is invoked here though, so it definitely applies. I don't actually have a problem with the scene. I haven't read the book and I always assumed that King had covered it and that Hooper had just decided to omit the exposition from what was already a very long adaptation. I like the theory that the house "resists" him and that is why it starts to tremor, but I am happy to accept that Barlow's invitation ended up on the cutting room floor.Another thing to consider is perhaps that Jason was mistaken that he could rescind his invitation and was something he picked up watching vampire movies. Perhaps an invitation was not needed at all. Perhaps Ryerson simply backed out because of the cross he held up to him. I mean, the writing in this is so sloppy it is completely feasible.
This incarnation doesn't leave out the invitation clause. Burke revokes his invitation when he defends against Mike in his house.
Anne Rice's universe seems to exist for no purpose other than to spite the original folklore. Anyone can makeup stuff as they go along, but in the end it's all made up.
Vampire folklore varies from culture to culture, with much of it very different. Goggle vampire folklore sometime & you'll find that every country or region has varying vampire beliefs, lore. Not every vampire movie/novel has to adhere to the Bram Stoker classic.
shareWell, King, Hooper, and the setting in this movie are predominantly reflective of American culture. We're not in another country or region so it's most appropriate to stick with that one.
When I'm in Hungary or Japan, I'll go by theirs.
Sometimes varying from the typical vampire folklore makes the story more interesting. And besides, Barlow no doubt was shipped from a foreign land (to America). So introducing some differing folklore makes sense.
shareWell, King, Hooper, and the setting in this movie are predominantly reflective of American culture. We're not in another country or region so it's most appropriate to stick with that one.
When I'm in Hungary or Japan, I'll go by theirs.
It is easy enough to assume that Barlow is a very powerful vampire and can sometimes overcome such barriers as the "invitation". It is quite obvious that the entire foundation is quaking before he enters, and you can also see the way he has to dive through the window in order to achieve it. It seems quite obvious in the film that Barlow's power overcomes the lack of invitation. Otherwise, I see no reason why he'd purposely make the house quake and then dive in like that. His minions cannot do this, but a centuries old master can. Simple as that. It's no different than a simple cross off of a model kit driving away a minion, but yet Barlow can crush the cross of a priest. It's really only a mistake if you are hellbent on seeing it that way.
- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.
You seem to be emotional about this for some reason so I will tread lightly with my words.
Yes it's obvious that he came in overcoming the lack of invitation, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, just guessing.
You stated several obvious things that happened yet they don't answer the question, you just list things that may be true but are presumptuous.
I'm ok with Barlow being so powerful that he doesn't go by the same rules, but when you violate those rules without giving a general movie audience an explanation it can create confusion. It's about communication and telling an effective story.
Sure, you and I may accept this explanation but a general prime-time movie audience may not pick up on it like diehard horror fans will.
You seem to be emotional about this for some reason so I will tread lightly with my words
Thanks for proving my point.
shareWhat point? That you acted condescending over the truth right out of the gate? I like how you want to be politely insulting but then pretend you are so innocent. You have no upper hand here.
- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.
I'm not trying for any type of hand, that's what you're doing. That's what's motivating your arrogance. I simply asked a question that others have posed about that scene.
So at the age of nine, after not many previously released vampire movies since the 60s, you not only knew about the invitation requirement, but also deduced that Barlow is such a powerful vampire that he overrides it huh?
The book says that they require an invitation. Mark said as much when Danny came to visit. Susan also tries to enter but she can't for the same reason and then Barlow enters his house without invitation. Some say it is because he is a master vampire and the rules don't apply to him. This is an assumption. A much more logical explanation is that which not only allen but yours truly put forth and that is a plot hole. Nowhere in the novel does it state that Barlow/Breichen is not subject to the same rules as other vampires, that only comes in the Dark Tower series where King makes up his own rules (and which also takes place in a different universe/level/dimension). Other than in the DT series, I have never heard of 'master' vampires.
In this story, he is a vampire. Ben, with Mark's help, destroyed him in the traditional way--by driving a stake through his heart. Surely, if he could enter a house without invitation, he had the means of saving himself from the stake as well. Yet he does not.
No, the best and most consistent explanation is a plot-hole.
So what if the book says they need an invitation? The mini-series deliberately veered from the novel in several respects so this is just one of many instances. In the movie characters are changed, left out, etc. The priest is nothing like he is in the novel so is that a "plot hole"? Rarely do any vampire movies see eye-to-eye in regards to the powers and appearances of the creatures. Vampires existed in folklore, legends long before Stoker penned his novel. The vampires in "30 Days of Night" are different than those in "John Carpenter's Vampires". No need to get worked up over this as it isn't a plot hole. The novel and movie are very different (as most movies based on novels are) but we accept these as a necessary part of writing the screenplay.
shareSo what if the book says they need an invitation? The mini-series deliberately veered from the novel in several respects so this is just one of many instances. In the movie characters are changed, left out, etc. The priest is nothing like he is in the novel so is that a "plot hole"? Rarely do any vampire movies see eye-to-eye in regards to the powers and appearances of the creatures. Vampires existed in folklore, legends long before Stoker penned his novel. The vampires in "30 Days of Night" are different than those in "John Carpenter's Vampires". No need to get worked up over this as it isn't a plot hole. The novel and movie are very different (as most movies based on novels are) but we accept these as a necessary part of writing the screenplay.Just a couple of points here.
You're talking about two different things here. Changing events from a book to a movie adaptation is one thing, changing the folklore/legend of the character is something else entirely.
The direction of this conversation deals more with consistency and accuracy to the folklore, but anyone can pull something out of their butt and stamp vampire on it.
I re-watched the scene a few times over the last week, and I paid attention to Barlow's eyes, and they truly look creepy when he turns Mark's head to face Straker. If you look closely, the yellow pupils go back and forth manically, and totally animal-like. A home-run scene easily. My son got to see the preview and he was scared by the moving shape on the ground moments before Barlow rises. The "bio" said that scene was the witch melting Wizard of Oz scene in reverse, which was clever.
shareMy take on this is that as Marsten invited Barlow to 'Salem's Lot, he would not be held to this part of the lore unless it was specifically revoked by the home owner.
I appreciate may that I might be guilty of adapting the lore to suit the story, but it worked for me.
You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!
And I don't accept major revisions in adapting a novel to a screenplay as necessary at all. I can accept that certain scenes that work well in the novel might not translate well to the screen and might have to be revised, but I most emphatically do not accept major revisions to the story as a whole as a necessity. Why on earth would they be?
That's well said and I cannot put it any better myself, but to be honest it could just be a goof, simply referring to an oversight by the film-makers.
Cheers for now.
That's well said and I cannot put it any better myself, but to be honest it could just be a goof, simply referring to an oversight by the film-makers.Not only the film-makers (both of them) but King as well. share
Hi there,
I do not agree (to the same extent) that Stephen King made a goof with the writing of the novel:
When Danny Glick comes to see Mark Petrie in the novel, Mark very specifially invites him in.
The text from the novel reads as follows:
With no pause for thought or consideration (both would have come to an adult – his father, for instance – and both would have undone him), Mark swept up the cross, curled it into a tight fist, and said loudly: ‘Come on in, then.’
The face became suffused with an expression of vulpine triumph. The window slid up and Danny stepped in and took two paces forward. The exhalation from that opening mouth was fetid, beyond description: a smell of charnel pits. Cold, fish-white hands descended on Mark’s shoulders. The head cocked, doglike, the upper lip curled away from those shining canines.
Mark brought the plastic cross around in a vicious swipe and laid it against Danny Glick’s cheek. His scream was horrible, unearthly . . . and silent. It echoed only in the corridors of his brain and the chambers of his soul. The smile of triumph on the Glick-thing’s mouth became a yawning grimace of agony. Smoke spurted from the pallid flesh, and for just a moment, before the creature twisted away and half dived, half fell out the window, Mark felt the flesh yield like smoke.
And then it was over, as if it had never happened.
But for a moment the cross shone with a fierce light, as if an inner wire had been ignited. Then it dwindled away, leaving only a blue afterimage in front of his eyes.
OK, from the above text, it is clear that Mark DID invite Danny in, specifically so that the vampire could be banished with the cross.
Does that now put us into a grey area in terms of vampire lore?
What I mean is that once a vampire Danny has been invited in to the Petrie house, does that (by inference or otherwise) give Barlow (as 'The Master') a proxy invitation to come and go as he pleases?
I am honestly not sure as to the answer to that one, as I say we could be in a grey area surrounding vampire lore on that particular point.
Please post with any thoughts.
Cheers.
OK, from the above text, it is clear that Mark DID invite Danny in, specifically so that the vampire could be banished with the cross.I'd still have to say 'no', at least with the folklore as presented by the novel. After all, Susan did not just waltz in using a blanket invitation from Mark, so my hunch is that Barlow/Breichen would also require their own specific invitation to enter. share
Does that now put us into a grey area in terms of vampire lore?
What I mean is that once a vampire Danny has been invited in to the Petrie house, does that (by inference or otherwise) give Barlow (as 'The Master') a proxy invitation to come and go as he pleases?
I am honestly not sure as to the answer to that one, as I say we could be in a grey area surrounding vampire lore on that particular point.
Please post with any thoughts.
Everyone seems to forget that (in the film, at least) Straker had entered the house. Assuming that the front door was left unlocked (and since these are 70s-era small town folk getting a visit from their priest, it's a safe assumption), Straker could have walked in unchallenged, giving him the opportunity to invite his Master in.
As for the same scene in the book, where Straker is not in evidence...it could be that Barlow is simply powerful enough to overcome some of the more minor protections against vampiric attack. In the book, he describes himself as being old when Christianity was still a renegade cult in the Roman world. He's bound to be far more powerful than all the newly-made vampires crawling around the Lot.
Barlow more experienced? Perhaps. Wilier? Very likely. But he is still a vampire, and according to my understanding of the folklore, they have to have an invitation to enter a building occupied by another. I am not aware of any exceptions to this; neither am I aware that the powers of a vampire increase as time goes on.
I don't know why it is so hard for people to accept that according to the relevant folklore, this is a plot hole. Nothing more. King himself pointed out this need for an invitation at least twice in the book (Mark's awareness and Matt's discovery through his research) and he goofed here. Neither Matt's research nor Mark's knowledge nor any place in the novel made any mention of an exception to this for Barlow because he was supposed to be a "Master" vampire.*
No, the same rules applied to Barlow that were in effect for any other vampire. This was a plot hole, pure and simple. Nothing else.
*Granted, you didn't use this term but others here have and it sounds like what you were thinking.
I think people (myself included) try to find the loophole so as to not be jarred out of the story.
There is one other (wild and unlikely) possibility; in the novel, when Mark first encounters the newly-risen Danny Glick, he tells the vampire "Come in, then," while holding a cross behind him to protect himself. Danny starts to come in, then is immediately repelled. It's possible that this invitation, facetious though it is, is enough of an opening for Barlow to exploit. It's all about willingly inviting in evil. Not enough to newly-risen Susan, perhaps, but for a monster as powerful as Barlow, just maybe.
Yeah, kinda lame. But it lets Stephen King off the hook, and his Constant Readers are ardent...even crazed...defenders of the man.
At least the 1979 miniseries fixed the problem by having Straker there. I don't know how the Rob Lowe remake handled it, because I didn't get that far into it.
I think people (myself included) try to find the loophole so as to not be jarred out of the story.Agreed; that is lame. And while I like King, and he is in fact one of my favorite writers, I also think that he tends to be somewhat sloppy. Witness on the IMDb board for the 1994 ABC mini-series, The Stand, the longest thread over there is the one on goofs in (and questions about) the book. Granted, The Stand is a long book, but there are enough inconsistencies and plain old factual errors in it to fill up a 200+ post thread.
There is one other (wild and unlikely) possibility; in the novel, when Mark first encounters the newly-risen Danny Glick, he tells the vampire "Come in, then," while holding a cross behind him to protect himself. Danny starts to come in, then is immediately repelled. It's possible that this invitation, facetious though it is, is enough of an opening for Barlow to exploit. It's all about willingly inviting in evil. Not enough to newly-risen Susan, perhaps, but for a monster as powerful as Barlow, just maybe.
Yeah, kinda lame. But it lets Stephen King off the hook, and his Constant Readers are ardent...even crazed...defenders of the man.
At least the 1979 miniseries fixed the problem by having Straker there. I don't know how the Rob Lowe remake handled it, because I didn't get that far into it.
A local news radio station had a "Mr. Barlow" arrested in the Philly region; my son and I had a laugh. He's almost 9, and I've shown him pics of the Master.
shareThe 2004 version did the same thing except their was no Straker there. The reason Barlow came to the Petries in the first place was to kill Mark for killing Straker at the mansion. He didn't come to get Callahan in this version.
shareThe homeowner has to invite the vampire in, not just anyone who's there.
shareNot sure that holds up, at least with literary precedent. As long as someone resides there, and invites them in, the Vampire can enter. Hence Dracula getting into Seward's hospital, even though Dr. Seward didn't invite him; Renfield, as someone who lived in the asylum, was able to invite Dracula in.
share