MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (1979) Discussion > A Plot Hole or At the Least A Question ...

A Plot Hole or At the Least A Question MAJOR SPOILER!!!


Mark and Susan are caught by Straker in the Marsten House and Mark is tied up. Straker takes Susan down to meet Barlow in the cellar, and while Straker is engaged with Susan, Mark uses his Houdini trick to escape. Meanwhile Ben and Dr. Norton arrive at the house and Ben tells Mark to go. Ben and Mark deal with Straker, and then go down to the cellar to do Barlow in. They destroy Barlow just after the sun goes down, and escape from the house and Ben pours the gasoline and strikes a match, and the Marsten House burns merrily to the ground.

But this leaves Susan. Barlow could not have gotten to her yet, because it was still daylight, and he was destroyed immediately after the sun went down. Where was Susan? We know that she was 'turned' but Barlow could not, in spite of the intentions of Straker, have been the one to do it. Was she in the house when it burned? The film hints very strongly that she was. And if she was burned to death, how was she a vampire at the end?

What does anyone here think?

reply

This is a big plot hole
I guess another vampire in the basement could have turned her and then she escaped but this is weak and just filling in the blanks Lol.
I'm going to go with it was just a goof

reply

This is a big plot hole
I guess another vampire in the basement could have turned her and then she escaped but this is weak and just filling in the blanks Lol.
I'm going to go with it was just a goof
Good: you saw it the same way that I did. Another point that could be raised is where was she? The film strongly implies that she was taken to the basement, 'to meet the man she came to meet' so why didn't Ben and Mark spend a few minutes at least to look for her? This is an instance where they would likely have been much better off had the script stuck a little closer to the novel.

reply

I remember even as a kid I was asking myself why didn't they look for her
Also I never understood when Susan and Mark were caught if they were for Barlow why separate them?

reply

I remember even as a kid I was asking myself why didn't they look for her
Also I never understood when Susan and Mark were caught if they were for Barlow why separate them?
Good point, but in this case there may be a logical answer. Separating them, if either of them were unconscious might have made them easier to handle. Besides, I think that both Straker and Barlow may have wanted to toy with Mark a little bit.

Here's one more puzzle for the folks on the board. When Cully Sawyer finishes with him, Crockett flees in his shorts, and doesn't carry anything out of the house. He is driven to the lake where Ben and Susan find his body and the policeman shows his clothes to Gillespie. Where did the car keys and his clothes come from? Is this another goof?

reply

I have always been under the impression that Crockett's car had been abandoned at the lake by who ever had killed him.

It has been so long since I read it, I am not sure how this was dealt with in the novel.


You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink!

reply

I have always been under the impression that Crockett's car had been abandoned at the lake by who ever had killed him.

It has been so long since I read it, I am not sure how this was dealt with in the novel.
It's completely different in the novel. There Bonnie is the wife of Reggie, and is having an affair with a kid from the telephone company. Reggie catches them and does roughly the same shotgun bit with him as Cully did to Crockett in the movie. The kid then encounters Barlow with predictable results.

Crockett's role is limited to arranging for the house and the businesses, as well as Barlow's entry into town and in the book, he has nothing to do with Boom-Boom Bonnie.

Hope this helps.

reply

I always assumed it was Cully and an accomplice (probably Bonnie) who drove Crockett's car to the lake and abandoned him there with his clothes. When Crockett runs outside the house, Barlow attacks him and presumably kills him (or Crockett drops dead of a heart attack after seeing him). Cully and Bonnie would have discovered his dead body outside their house, right after Cully was threatening him with a shotgun, and assumed he was dead because of that. So they took Larry's body along with his clothes and car and abandoned them at the lake.

reply

Ya I can't say why but I've always thought it was them who took Larry and his car to the lake
Ben tells the Constable he heard a car or a truckas well

reply

If it's Barlow, why the heck would he be standing outside a house waiting for a victim? It seems the master could handle that better.

reply

I wonder if Barlow knew Crockett was inside?

reply

I wonder if Barlow knew Crockett was inside?
It's possible, but I think the meeting was pure happenstance. He was not seeking Crockett out; he just happened upon him.

reply

I always assumed it was Cully and an accomplice (probably Bonnie) who drove Crockett's car to the lake and abandoned him there with his clothes. When Crockett runs outside the house, Barlow attacks him and presumably kills him (or Crockett drops dead of a heart attack after seeing him). Cully and Bonnie would have discovered his dead body outside their house, right after Cully was threatening him with a shotgun, and assumed he was dead because of that. So they took Larry's body along with his clothes and car and abandoned them at the lake.

Possible right up to the point where they put Larry's body behind the wheel. Why take the time time to do this? To what end?

Putting Larry behind the wheel would take time, and there would be too many car doors shutting, I think. I'd classify this as another plot hole.

reply

I think that part should've been edited from the film, tbh. Even David Soul looks bored during that scene.

reply

I think a lot of small parts have been edited in the miniseries. As far as Susan goes, to me they implied that maybe some vampires escaped through the windows that were being broken out.

reply

I think a lot of small parts have been edited in the miniseries. As far as Susan goes, to me they implied that maybe some vampires escaped through the windows that were being broken out.
Plausible, even though this is the first time I had heard of that.

reply

This plot hole always bothered me too as I first watched the 112-minute VHS film version and for a number of years thought that was the only version available. Can you imagine my surprise when I stumbled across the full 3-hour miniseries on television? The ending left me floored to say the least. After reading the novel and watching the miniseries I must agree with some other posters that the omission of Susan's fate until the very end was problematic.

reply

This plot hole always bothered me too as I first watched the 112-minute VHS film version and for a number of years thought that was the only version available. Can you imagine my surprise when I stumbled across the full 3-hour miniseries on television? The ending left me floored to say the least. After reading the novel and watching the miniseries I must agree with some other posters that the omission of Susan's fate until the very end was problematic.
Quite so. And as much as some of the regular posters here despise it, the 2004 effort handled Susan's fate a lot better, I thought.

reply

[deleted]

So, which version handles Susan's fate better? Like I said above, I feel the 2004 mini-series was a lot better in this regard.

Anyone else?

Or, if you say the book handles it better than either of the two movies, that will be good fodder for discussion as well.

reply

I haven't seen the 2004 remake miniseries, but I strongly prefer the novel's depiction of Susan's fate.

reply

I'm gonna have to say the book it feels more complete to me
I will agree with you 2004 has a clearer Susan ending than 1979

reply

I find most scenes with Susan uninteresting anyway; in fact, I usually skip the part with her as the vampire.

reply

My only beef with the 79 Susan is she is a romantic style vamp not like Mike or Mrs. Glick I like the soulless thirsty vampires not the let's make love while I kiss your neck type lol

reply

My only beef with the 79 Susan is she is a romantic style vamp not like Mike or Mrs. Glick I like the soulless thirsty vampires not the let's make love while I kiss your neck type lol
Then you would love the Brides of Dracula as depicted in the 1977 Dracula product of the BBC.

But you would also hate them because they use sex to tempt Jonathan Harker in the Castle. They are about to have their way with him when the Count stops them and gives them something else to, shall we say, feast upon.

The Brides, as the Beeb presents them, are both sexy and seductive and at the same time, predatory and utterly soulless. And my impression is that the relevant folklore has them this way as well.

reply

Can a vampire ever "make love" to a civilian? Serious question.

reply

[deleted]

Just watched it again and there's literally NO WAY Susan could have been turned into a vampire.

Straker returned and sure, he could have done something weird and vampiry with her (to turn her) but chances are he just left her tied up as he did with Mark.

So overall, very unhappy with this result. It was just extremely shoddy writing.

As far as I'm concerned, the movie ends after the second death of Barlow and Ben himself kills Susan when he burns down the house. That's just as unsatisfying, but it's all I've got.

reply

I completely agree. Before watching the full miniseries I always thought it was strange when Ben said, "Sorry, Susan, forgive me," after setting fire to the Marsten house. To me, that seemed to imply Susan was still in the house somewhere and was killed when it burnt down. I dearly love the original miniseries, but this plot hole is imho it's biggest flaw.

reply

Just watched it again and there's literally NO WAY Susan could have been turned into a vampire.

Straker returned and sure, he could have done something weird and vampiry with her (to turn her) but chances are he just left her tied up as he did with Mark.

So overall, very unhappy with this result. It was just extremely shoddy writing.

As far as I'm concerned, the movie ends after the second death of Barlow and Ben himself kills Susan when he burns down the house. That's just as unsatisfying, but it's all I've got.
The problem with this is that Straker was not a vampire.

This glaring plot-hole concerning Susan was just one of the problems with this pretty-much good mini-series.

Ah well; I still enjoyed ti.

reply

The 1979 miniseries differs soooooo much from the book that it is difficult to draw conclusions about the characters in the miniseries. When Straker told Mark that he took Susan to "meet the man she came here to meet" I thought he was talking about her 'on again/off again' boyfriend, Ned Tibbits (Floyd in the novel). I didn't think he was talking about Barlow since Susan didn't even know Barlow even existed.

As far as Susan being a vampire goes, it easy to see how it could have happened since there was no sunlight in the basement. Straker could have simply locked her in the basement crawl space with Ned and the rest of the town's vampires and any one of them could have bitten her.

reply

In the book, vampire Susan walks "hand in hand" with a male vampire with black hair, as they're about to feast on cop Homer McCaslin.

reply

In the book, vampire Susan walks "hand in hand" with a male vampire with black hair, as they're about to feast on cop Homer McCaslin.
If memory serves, wasn't the male Kurt Barlow?

reply

Don't think so, it said he was a young man. Doesn't seem Barlow's style either, imo.

reply

Don't think so, it said he was a young man. Doesn't seem Barlow's style either, imo.
I do think so. The book strongly implies, even if it doesn't come right out and say so, that the male is Barlow. Besides, according to folklore, vampires can make themselves appear younger.

I'll check it out.

reply

King never says who it was, but my gut said another male vampire, but who knows?

reply

King never says who it was, but my gut said another male vampire, but who knows?
I still think it was Barlow, but like you say, who knows? 

reply

In Dracula the Count does seem to appear much younger when he appears to Harker later in the story.

reply

The first time Barlow makes an appearance in the novel is at the town dump where he speaks with Dud Rogers.

The text is as follows:

Dud wiped his hands on his green pants, hitched them up, and strolled over.
‘Dump’s closed, mister.’
The man turned toward him. The face that was discovered in the red glow of the dying fire was high-cheekboned and thoughtful. The hair was white, streaked with oddly virile slashes of iron gray. The guy had it swept back from his high, waxy forehead like one of those fag concert pianists. The eyes caught and held the red glow of the embers and made them look bloodshot.
‘Is it?’ the man asked politely, and there was a faint accent in the words, although they were perfectly spoken. The guy might be a frog, or maybe a bohunk. ‘I came to watch the fire. It is beautiful.’
‘Yeah,’ Dud said. ‘You from around here?’
‘I am a recent resident of your lovely town, yes.

That suggests that Barlow was at least middle aged or older.

Later, when (a vampirized) Susan appears with her companion, the text from the novel reads as follows:

‘Sheriff?’
A light, carefree voice, like tinkling bells. Why had his hand dropped to the butt of his gun?
He turned and saw the Norton girl, looking incredibly beautiful, walking toward him hand in hand with a stranger – a young man with black hair unfashionably combed straight back from his forehead. McCaslin shone the flashlight at his face and had the oddest impression that the light was shining right through it without illuminating it in the slightest. And although they were walking, they left no tracks in the soft dirt. He felt fear and warning kindle in his nerves, his hand tightened on his revolver . . . and then loosened. He clicked off his flashlight and waited passively.
‘Sheriff,’ she said, and now her voice was low, caressing.
‘How good of you to come,’ the stranger said.
They fell on him.

I have to say that I was under the impression that the 'young man with black hair unfashionably combed straight back from his forehead.' was in fact Barlow and that he had been growing younger since coming to the town and rejuvenating with the blood of the townspeople.

This is a point that is made once again when Mark and Ben track Barlow to his coffin at the end of the novel:

Mark came around and they stood together in front of the coffin’s locks and seals. They bent together, and the locks split as they touched them, making a sound like thin, snapping clapboards.
They lifted.
Barlow lay before them, his eyes glaring upward.
He was a young man now, his black hair vibrant and lustrous, flowing over the satin pillow at the head of his narrow apartment. His skin glowed with life. The cheeks were as ruddy as wine. His teeth curved out over his full lips, white with strong streaks of yellow, like ivory.

Once again with the line: 'He was a young man now' seems to suggest that since coming to the town Barlow had been revitalized, from old, to middle aged, to young again.

Think it over and post with any thoughts.

Cheers for now.

reply

According to my understanding of the folklore, a vampire can appear younger if he (or she) wishes. So, like I have said all along, the balance of probability, not certainty, but probability, is the male who appeared to the sheriff with Susan was Barlow.

I agree with elmmadman here. I am thrilled by his acumen.

reply

This particular one has probably been covered as a goof on here before, but doesn't Bonnie tell Larry that Cully is going out of town even before Cully has been hired to do any kind of removals job?

reply


This particular one has probably been covered as a goof on here before, but doesn't Bonnie tell Larry that Cully is going out of town even before Cully has been hired to do any kind of removals job?
Was she referring to this job for Straker or another one? It seems that the affair had been ongoing for quite a while, so I'm thinking she could have been talking about another job. Then the job for Straker comes up.

Just adding a question here and there.

reply


This particular one has probably been covered as a goof on here before, but doesn't Bonnie tell Larry that Cully is going out of town even before Cully has been hired to do any kind of removals job?

Was she referring to this job for Straker or another one? It seems that the affair had been ongoing for quite a while, so I'm thinking she could have been talking about another job. Then the job for Straker comes up.

Just adding a question here and there.
Any further thoughts on this?

reply

I can see your point here. Just because it is mentioned that Cully has to go away for a job before the Straker job is mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that it is a goof, as there could (obviously) be more than one particular job up for discussion.

However, does that suggest sloppy and / or confusing screen-writing?

It it not the job of the screen-writer to 'stay on point' as it were and not lose focus on the ongoing story?

Of course a lot of things COULD have happened and MIGHT have happened, but it might just be down to sloppy writing, or simply a mistake in the editing process of the movie (after all people who work in movies have to work to deadlines as well)

An interesting thought,

Let's discuss,

Cheers for now.

reply

I can see your point here. Just because it is mentioned that Cully has to go away for a job before the Straker job is mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that it is a goof, as there could (obviously) be more than one particular job up for discussion.

However, does that suggest sloppy and / or confusing screen-writing?

It it not the job of the screen-writer to 'stay on point' as it were and not lose focus on the ongoing story?


Of course a lot of things COULD have happened and MIGHT have happened, but it might just be down to sloppy writing, or simply a mistake in the editing process of the movie (after all people who work in movies have to work to deadlines as well)

An interesting thought,

Let's discuss,
It very well might suggest this. But we both know that this only applies to screenwriters, don't we? *wink-wink*

Never novelists, right? I suppose that big long thread in the board for The Stand really doesn't exist, does it.


All right; I'll be serious. Novels often have goofs, as evidenced by what I said above, which the number of said goofs depends on various factors, among them, the length and complexity of the story, the care and diligence of the writer and editor, any knowledge or research the writer might bring into it (although if you want to argue that the research comes under care and diligence, I wouldn't object too much) and probably other factors as well.

And BTW, lest anyone thinks I'm being 'holier than thou' here, my novel, The Pale Horse, has a few goofs that I've noticed as well. Further, I'd be willing to bet that it has a few that I haven't noticed. And I'm not talking punctuation or typos either.

I think that it is a good possibility that that is what happened in this case. Bonnie was simply talking about another job that Cully had to do and the screenwriter didn't make it clear. After all, Mike Ryerson said that Crockett himself had set the job up.

What do you think?

reply

I think that it is a good possibility that that is what happened in this case. Bonnie was simply talking about another job that Cully had to do and the screenwriter didn't make it clear. After all, Mike Ryerson said that Crockett himself had set the job up.

What do you think?


It's possible... anything's possible.

Cheers for now.

reply

About twenty minutes into the film, Weasel and Eva are in Ben's room, looking over his papers. Weasel is looking at the sheet of paper in the typewriter, and said there's nothing on it. He then noticed some scribbling on some scratch paper next to the typewriter and starts to read aloud from that. Eva, who is holding the paper removed from the typewriter, then starts to read aloud from the sheet in her hands. Yet there was nothing on the paper from the machine. So, how can this be?

Also, how did Father Callahan know of Mark's dealings with Danny Glick after Danny had been 'turned'? The first time in the film that we see them together is during Danny Glick's funeral and the only other time is at the Petrie's house just before and during Barlow's entry.

The book handles the Callahan/Mark connection much better.

Any comments here?

reply

The scene at the Petrie house begins while their already in the middle of a conversation, so I assummed it was brought up before in the beginning part of the conversation. Or it could have been when the Petries' contacted Callahan to come to their house. The scene simply starts after they've already began talking.

reply

It's a major plot hole and annoyingly the Blu Ray commentary track does not set the record straight.

It's all a deep end.

reply