They understood, and made the intentional choice of taking it in a different direction. Because it's 2024 and they wanted to tell a story that wasn't just subtextual.
Agree or disagree with that change, but don't act like it was due to a lack of understanding or respect. It's an adaptation, not a copy - paste of the original.
Yeah but I agree a little with OP, now a days everything is so over-sexualized, and I mean Iām all for gay representation but with the vampires in Anne rice novels thereās not really a gay or straight or anything like that theyāre all pretty pan & sapiosexual, theyāve broken free of the spectrum, no labels no boxes just passion and desire in its purest form. Drinking each others blood is their sex, they experience each other on a much deeper level and it goes with the whole idea of them being āaboveā or more āevolvedā than humans, that theyāve escaped the confines of the basic human desires of sex and now experience a whole different set of wants and cravings leaving love & āthe lonelinessā or deep desire to connect as their last true human emotion. I mean even if you edited out all the sex scenes itās still incredibly fucking obvious Louis and Lestat were a couple same with Louis and Armand. I dunno, I just feel like it adds another level of depth to their relationships.
One of my favorite changes. I always thought it was incredibly dumb they couldn't fuck. Now we get to see Lestat and Louis makeout and I am here for it
Anne Rice even invented a way for them to have sex later in the series so she clearly wasn't opposed to the idea. She was constrained by the time she was originally writing in. I mean, the woman wrote some straight up erotica under a pen name.
That she did. In Blood Communion and Realms of Atlantis. But consider the caveat of it: they are unable to do it *by default*. They had to be *infused with living blood*. Lestat even managed to impregnate a woman, but only after having been temporarily 'de-vampirised' through Fareed and Seth's experimentations. The capacity for sex - and, subsequently, the *need* of it (whether because of attraction, or for affection, or just because) - still does not exist on a vampiric vessel, and only ever 're-manifests' itself if the vessel is 'de-vampirised', albeit temporarily. That made their state of undeath more poignant in that they're using cutting-edge science to find ways to *not be 'dead'*. Giving your regular, run-of-the-mill vampire the capacity to f-rnicate, eat, and drink (rather than to simply be content with sniffing and holding mugs of warm beverages or staring and smelling plates of food), basically gives their existence all the perks of living *plus the powers that come with un-death*, which hardly makes for the existential dilemma that Rice was trying to establish in her work.
Also, her erotica is divorced from the Vampire Chronicles work - hence the pen name. So...
You literally said nothing to support your point that vampires don't have a purpose to have sex. I know there are mortals and undead in this universe, I've read the books several times, what does that have to do with that you said
I just see no purpose in adding sex. I don't think it makes it more interesting. I just think it's much more interesting that they can't, because drinking blood has replaced that.
Because people can relate to having sex; and it's easier to communicate on screen visually. The blood drinking is there and they do a good job likening it to a drug.
There's already a vampire story where blood is a drug. It's called 'True Blood', and Anne was a fan of both the show *and the books*, and the author of True Blood / Sookie Stackhouse novels, Charlaine Harris, was likewise an admirer of Rice.
If AMC is gunning for another 'True Blood', this ain't it. But one can't expect much from the same channel that butchered The Walking Dead.
This show is much better than True Blood lol Its wild to see ppl suggest its a failure because of changes when its a massive critical and commercial success
It's a massive critical and commercial success not because it is good, but because it is designed to cater to a specific demographic of unthinking thralls.
Because the equivalent blood exchanges are not something your average TV viewer can get behind. They need to appeal to the general audience as well as the Anne Rice fans.
Um the havnt butchers crap. I love the take on the series. It's interesting and differnt but in a good way. I'm super excited for the new season and can't wait to watch it with my mom.
Good thing he's just one person. Who cares if that's what he thinks? I was just sharing my opinion. If he thinks they butchered it that's okay. I was just saying I don't feel like the butchered it at all.
Why in the world do we care what he thinks? He didn't write it. Is every family member of every dead author supposed to sign off on adaptations to their work for it to be valid now?
You don't know much about his relationship with his mom huh. Like the fact they co wrote books together.
Also Anne herself said she didn't want this shit. There are plenty of interviews where she says so
Anne has a known tendency to hate things until she sees the finished product - remember that article condemning Tom Cruise and the follow up apology?
And Christopher has been riding Anneās coat tails for years. I wouldnāt put stock in his opinions.
You misunderstand Anne's 'ick' when it came to Interview. She was already 'icked' from the get-go at having to change key elements of the story, like Claudia's age, or the character of Armand, or the doing away of Louis' brother Paul, etc. Yes, she was screenwriter, but that didn't mean she had full creative control over the project. She was simply afraid that the movie would be less and less *her* 'Interview', and more and more what Geffen films wanted 'Interview' to be. When she saw Cruise's performance (and found out that Cruise, among all the others in the cast, was the only one who read the books), she changed her mind because Cruise *did Lestat justice*.
Above all else, Anne was very concerned about maintaining the integrity of her work - hence divorcing herself from 'Queen of the Damned'. It isn't that much of a stretch to assume - considering what is known about Anne - that the way the showrunners going about 'Interview' and the rest of her intellectual property, that the ensuing result wouldn't sit well with her. Would she have praised Sam Reid? We can assume she would. Reid does a decent Lestat. Would she have enjoyed their choice of Jacob Anderson as Louis? She probably would, considering she wrote an amazing novel about the *gens de couleur libre* (Feast of All Saints). Would she have liked Assad Zaman's Armand? Probably not, especially considering there's already an Islamically-inclined vampire (Fareed in Prince Lestat; Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis; Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat). Overall, would this new 'Interview' scratch her long-standing itch of being '*my Interview'*? Nope.
Speaking of opinions, whose opinions should actually hold more weight in the matter: a mob of rabid fanboiz and fanghorlz, or that of her actual offspring who lived, breathed, ate, and existed alongside her while she was still in the thick of it writing all the books so many people have come to love and so sorely miss?
Catering to book purists alone isn't enough to keep the show running. They needed to get many more viewers, and sex still sells and is easier to explain.
Subtext and sensuality might work well in written form but don't always translate to the screen. Also, different readers have different opinions (which leads to interesting discussions). A tv show can't encompass that all and needs to settle for something more generally relatable, in this case, sexual desire.
Additionally, the show runners would be accused of queerbaiting if the main couple(s) had to remain on 1994 movie level subtext. I always thought Louis and Lestat would if they could, so them having a "full relationship" this time is great.
I mean. I agree 100%
Anne specifically didn't want her novels changed for tv. She said so in an interview.
The network did it anyway immediately after she died. Like fucking scumbags.
Her son won't comment on the show due to an nda not being able to speak negatively about it.
That should speak volumes to Anne's actual fans.
I remember the days when Anne was super active on Facebook and continuously discussed her vision for the televised Vampire Chronicles series. Asking the fans our ideas on casting and having live sessions with her and Christopher. You could tell how excited and passionate they were about it. Sadly it was never to be, not any of it. What we got was AMC fan fiction. I'm not going to lie, I watch the show and I do enjoy it, but it is not Anne's Vampire Chronicles. I know her name is in the title for brand recognition but I can't help thinking about what could have been. The show runners will only change more and more as the series continues.
That's like saying a s-x worker loses all autonomy simply because you have bought their time with money. Even if the rights are no longer under the Rice 'estate', for Anne's sake, it will *always matter* that her work be represented properly.
No, no, it's not.
Y'all really like to forget that AR herself canonically enable the vampires to have sex and that it's been stated that they are incorporating all the books into the show and creative license exists.
Yeah. By having Fareed experiment on them. The only exception to this was when Pandora was turned by Marius and she insisted that Marius stick his *gladius* into her *cunae*, which she would later realise does nothing for her, but that the feeling of 'being filled up' was welcome (Blood and Gold). And then that was only possible because both of them had fed prior to shimmying away into their sarcophagi.
The show isn't 'The Vampire Chronicles', and 'The Vampire Chronicles' isn't the show. They can take all the 'creative license' they want, and they're well within the rights to do so, but fanfiction is fanfiction and canon is canon. And the Rice *canon* is written in black-and-white, in Janson font, on acid free paper.
This! A thousand times this. Merrick is right. You articulated that so well.
In 'The Tale of the Body Thief,' Lestat talks about having sex again for the first time when he switches bodies. Why? Because he couldn't have sex before!
And in the same book, he goes on at great length to comment about things like beverages, food, the feeling of warmth *and coldness*. Because while vampires aren't 'numb' by any means, the way they feel things is different from that of humans. That's why it's 'The Dark Trick' before Lestat called it 'The Dark Gift'. It's a trick. You get to live forever, at the cost of a life spent in the crush of life but forever set apart from it. You end up paying more than you bargained for. Lestat turned the 'trick' into a 'gift', where one is given the privilege of becoming witness to living history *as part of it*, not just a detached 'passerby'. One might even hazard that Lestat's diatribe in 'Interview' about how a vampire's 'all seeing eyes were meant to give them detachment' isn't really Lestat-Lestat, but part-Lestat and part-Louis' mischaracterisation of Lestat, because Louis is a notorious unreliable narrator.
The only good thing this show might potentially do is introduce a new roster of readers to Anne's work, where they will find far more gems of great value than all the paste jewellery and rhinestone glimmer any 'adaptation' can currently deliver.
Yes! I'm sure Fareed's exact words to Lestat in Prince Lestat was asking if he wanted to feel erotic pleasure again for the first time in 200 hundred years.
After having sex, Lestat states it pales in comparison to blood-drinking. He even talks about how he almost completely forgets about having sex as soon as he finishes because it's so meaningless.
Yes. Although he was quite taken by the girl who 'shamelessly offered herself to me'. F-cking manwh-re. Lol.
People *need to read the books.* The series doesn't even try to do justice to the books, by Maharet's name!
I dont know what makes me more uncomfortable, the characters having a set sexuality (Louis is gay, Lestat is bi, etc) instead of them all being pansexual ish, the fact that they actually have sex, or the fact that they eat and drink and smoke ā¦ why ????
Anne was trying for fluidity.
'The limits of sexuality and gender roles no longer apply to moi, because I am forever and beyond the trappings of human norms. In fact, I will now proceed to Frenchie my own mother as proof!' - Lestat (quote not verbatim).
'Here's a tiny kid monster who is my adopted daughter but also my sorta-kinda-maybe-wife who is also my kinda-maybe-*sister* from the same maker.'
* Louis to Armand regarding Claudia (quote not verbatim).
Anne even went above and beyond this in Blackwood Farm and Wolves of Midwinter, where she featured an hermaphroditic / intersex character (Petronia), and hinted at a possible *transgender* character (the house-help at Nideck Point).
Anne was leagues in advance of the whole 'let's break boundaries when it comes to sex and gender', and somehow, giving her characters set sexualities defeats the purpose altogether. It only serves to reiterate what already *is*, and challenges nothing beyond whatever makes 'the cishet' uncomfortable. That's hardly a challenge.
And the eating and drinking. Unlife, with all the perks of living. So why the need to be all emo, Louis? It isn't a curse. It's just the nightlife, nonstop, plus UV proof glass so you can go enjoy your sunrises without going *poof*.
It's just... ugh.
Couldnāt agree more on the sexuality thing. Aside from the fact that it takes away some very important features the books had, itās also not done very well. Like, it got me so mad when Lestat said that he cheats on Louis because he needs variety. I mean seriously? The whole ābisexuals canāt be loyal to their partners because they need sexual and/or romantic varietyā has been such a bad bi-stereotype since like forever. I was so disappointed especially because the show clearly tries to be super inclusive and representative and yet they still do that? And yes I know, thereās a reason for Lestat constantly cheating, which hasnāt anything to do with his sexuality but rather with his personality and his general feelings for Louis. I still think that it pushes that bad stereotype. Iām not trying to accuse the writers of biphobia because it seems to been have done unintentionally. This whole problem couldāve been solved though, if the characters didnāt had sexualities in the first place.
I completely forgot about that!! It gave me the āLouis the moral monogamic āgoodā homosexual and Lestat the immoral evil cheating bisexualā .
Itās completely irrelevant to the books, and it hurts bisexual people in real life.
As you pointed out, it promotes the same old stereotype.
I also hate how Claudia goes through a traumatic implied rape in the show, it was unnecessary nothing like this happens in the books (that I remember even from the comics through Claudiaās POV), it was done just to dramatize the plot and itās disgusting . Something so hurtful and serious shouldnāt be used to reach for views . Itās not a plot device, it doesnāt create character development, itās something traumatic that hurts and kills women all over the fkkn globe .
And imo it should be talked about as such.
Heavy on the Claudia one. As you said, it was completely unnecessary and did nothing for the plot. What makes the whole thing even worse, is that the director said that this incident made her āstrongerā. Like, I canāt express how much I hate the whole āwomen experience sexual violence to grow as a characterā kind of trope. Itās disgusting and teaches a completely wrong message, yet it has been done so many times, especially in the past, which is why I donāt understand why they went with this change in the first place, since their mane goal for the show was to make it more modern.
Honestly? The show feels like a fanfiction. I had no problems with Louis being black, and Armand being Muslim . I think Armand being Muslim promotes a bad stereotype that all Muslims are religious extremists specially nowadays with whatās going on in Gaza. When Armandās religious extremism (and all his moral and spiritual quarrels) are so important for him to grow as a character . And also it seems they made him Muslim but ignore all the important dogmas of Islam unless is plot convenient.
But right now ? It all feels like a fanfiction, written by a fan who loves MarySue 2dimensional characters.
Lestat is not a bratty diva with his own spiritual and moral quarrels anymore he is just evil and cruel. Armand is STILL with Louis, Louis is younger, Claudia is not only older she didnāt go through the whole āI will never grow upā phase and you could argue that she did, but has she really? A horny teenager who canāt lose their VCard is not the same as a toddler(or a young child) who āknows too muchā for their age.
Lestat did not baby trap Louis it was the opposite. My favorite lines from the book were butchered.
Who tf is Antoinette ? Everyone tells me is Antoine but if she is why was she alive for so long ?
The most accurate scene in the entire show has been the death of Paul, and even then it wasnāt portrayed as it was in the book.
The show is good, has beautiful cinematics, and great actors. But the story telling is lacking. I feel like theyāve been trying to pander to a nonexistent audience and create their own universe. They ignored all the world building and development from Anne Riceās original work unless itās convenient or to their liking . This show wasnāt made for fans of the book. It was made for the average viewer. Who is not going to read the books but comment online on how āhotā the vampires are .
The show superficially touches Danielās addiction, uses raping a teenager as a plot device (say whatchu want Claudia in the show looks and acts like a teen). Portrays bisexual people as morally corrupt. Badly represents Armand religious trauma(they surely did not know what they were doing did they?).
And can someone please please PLEASE tell me how theyāre planning on turning Daniel into a vampire now that heās old and not twink anymore?
Also when is Marius going to show up? Are they planning a 3rd season with Lestat appearing mad at Louis podcast ? How is it all going to play out in the 21st century?
The audacity amc has been to feed the fans regurgitated crumbs from the books has been killing me.
All the time when Iām watching the show I say out loud āwell at least is not The Queen of the Damnedā .
Iām excited for new season? Yeah. Do I think the show is a good adaptation? No I donāt, the first movie did it better, the fkkn musical was more accurate than the show . And I cringed at most songs .
And I know I will never see baby faced curly red haired angel Armand on a screen in my lifetime.
I did not see the need to make Armand Muslim, when his personal spiritual and existential struggle, and the religious undertone of it all, was clearly fuelled by the fact that he was from the Kievan Rus and was an icon painter who since childhood *sincerely and devoutly believed in 'god'*. His loss and reclaiming of faith, the corruption of it, and his eventual disavowal of any limitations faith might impose on him, as well as his realisation of the *dangers* of unquestioning, blind, dogmatic belief, could have just as easily been translated into the adaptation *without* appealing to the need for some 'diversification' that does away entirely with that struggle while simultaneously *misrepresenting the religion they want to represent*. Because in Islam, if you 'doubt' your faith (apostasy / *irtidad*), becoming a *murtadd*, is a *grave sin, and is blatantly haraam*. So it creates a character that cannot even make up its mind on *what it is*, let alone *why* it is.
I do not see the need either. As I said they made him Muslim ignoring all the dogmas unless itās convenient.
They could make him a Muslim if they knew how his religion and him trying to meet god, and all his religious questionings would affect him as Muslim, āwould he walk into the sun?ā āWould he join the Satanists if he was a Muslim? Would he even return to the religion if he refused it before?ā . All of Anne Riceās characters have a religious turmoil that reflexes her own religious turmoils. Making Armand Muslim could work, he could be an Ottoman child kidnapped and sold into slavery in Venice . But how could they change his most important characteristics without adapting the rest of his personal story ? How they plan to make him okay with joining the Satanists? How would he act with being gay ? And How would he react to Venetian society ? Would he still be an apprentice ?
Being a vampire is inherently haram (is also haram to eat human flesh and practice magic isnāt it?) . And Iām saying that could work just from the basis of āIf Iām evil Iām gonna be fucking evilā which he did for awhile .
Questioning your faith as a Christian is also a sin in Christianity.
Islam and Christianity have actually a lot in common to the point that changing a characterās religion could work if you know how the taboos, dogmas and culture practices of said religion change from one to the other .
'(is also haram to eat human flesh and practice magic isnāt it?)'
Very haraam.
If they wanted a Muslim character who happens to be a vampire, they could have taken a cue from World of Darkness franchise with their take on Middle Eastern vampires in the *Ashirrah*, the *Banu Haqim,* and the *Assammites*.
Armand as Orthodox Christian makes sense because his 'fall' to the Satanic coven was his 'surrender' to the 'evil' of his nature (or what the Children of Darkness convinced him was), because Marius never came back for him, and he thought himself abandoned not just by his mentor, but by his god. In his erroneous perception of Marius 'turning his back on him \[Armand\],' he likewise 'turned his back on God.' He became a 'scourge of God' under the Children of Darkness, and he was *so good at it*, he eventually became a bigshot in the coven.
But how do they reconcile that with a *Muslim* Armand, when the goal of Islam is 'submission to the Will of God \[Allah\]', and wanton murder and blood-drinking is *not* submission to God's will, but being *abominable before God*. The same can be said for Armand's sexuality (although it can be argued that more progressive iterations of Islam do not hold such views). World of Darkness works a caveat into this dogma by creating a heretical concept among the *Ashirrah* that 'Allah promises redemption to any and all Kindred who follow the tenets of Islam,' but also that 'The Kindred are Allah's scourge upon the sinners of humankind, and to *be a scourge is to do God's work'* (same 'justification' that the Children of Darkness had in Anne's corpus).
The way the showrunners go about it is appears to be more 'tokenism' than any actual intention of adding further depth to an already pre-established complex character.
Literally. I also donāt think the show itself is bad. It works, especially for people who have not read the book but for fans of the original work? Not so sure if I would recommend..On that note, I donāt really understand what exactly this show is trying to be in the first place. While it constantly drives the āwe want to be different from the original workā road, it still takes place after the interview in San Francisco. Many questions will come up, the most important ones you already mentioned, like why isnāt Daniel a vampire? Why is Louis still with Armand? And so on and so on. And donāt even get me started on the whole āthis is the real storyā thing. This makes me wonder, who is this show really made for? Youāre saying itās made for the average viewer and while I partly agree, I feel like they in some way also try to attract fans of the original work. And I donāt think that works. Either you do your own thing or you completely stick to the original work without making any changes whatsoever. Itās just all very confusing especially since they said that they want to adapt the whole series (or at least thatās what I think they said, I could be wrong though).
You were talking about Armand and while I get your points, I will probably wait until season 2 drops before I make up my whole opinion on him. Season 1 only fed us crumbs of his character, not really anything I can work with at the moment, so I am looking forward to season 2, hoping that they donāt mess his character up. I also heavily relate to your last sentence. Assad Zaman for sure does not look like book Armand, though I do think that he kind of gives of similar vibes. He, in my eyes, definitely delivers that āinnocent beautyā they always talk about in the books. And letās be honest, itās definitely an improvement from Antonio Banderas.
You were mentioning Lestats character and my god I couldnāt agree more. What have they done to him??! Lestat, especially in the first book, is an asshole BUT HEāS NOT THAT KIND OF AN ASSHOLE. Seeing him being changed up so much really hurts since for me, he was one of the best things about IWTV. He does so many things in the show that book Lestat would never do. For example the whole train scene (which btw was also completely unnecessary) and the huge mess that the end of episode 5 was. The directors explanation for this change is, that they wanted to make the reason why Louis and Claudia decide to kill Lestat more reasonable. And this brings me to my next point: Louis and Lestats relationship.
Where do I even start on this one? Iāll try to make it as simple as possible. Louis and Lestats relationship is complex due to them being literal vampires. The show does not understand that. They make their relationship appear like some kind of dark romance-Wattpad kind of thingy. Like I already mentioned, vampires relationships are complex and itās never really clear to tell what most of them have going on. But one thing is for sure. Louis and Lestats relationship was always supposed to be understood as romantic. I absolutely hate how the show is trying to be representative by making their relationship more āexplicitā, but letās be real, what kind of representation is that? Itās abusive, toxic and nothing like their relationship in the book. And itās also not like Anne Rice isnāt explicit about their relationship in the later books, just not in IWTV and this has a good reason. Aside from the fact that the whole Loustat thing was kind of unintentional, the first book is also told from Louis perspective, which explains a lot especially after reading the books that follow. In my opinion, Louis and Lestats relationship was perfect in the books and I donāt understand why they felt the need to change that up.
I also do not really like what they did with Louis character. They victimise him way too much and itās clear that they want to make him the good guy even though heās really not. Heās a vampire and with that heās just as bad as everyone else. One thing I always loved about TVC series is, that there are no real protagonists nor antagonists. I feel like the show does not understand that. They are constantly pushing these ideas of what is good and what is bad on us and with that they are completely missing the point if the original story. Thats why I also completely agree with your point, that they only use the original work when itās convenient or to their liking.
We should definitely find a way to talk about this whole thing again after season 2 drops. Iād loved to hear your opinions on it!
Hey, I donāt know if youāll see this but I basically just wanted to tell you that I donāt have Discord
:( I was trying to tell you that via chat but it for some reason didnāt work (the message apparently didnāt go through idk)š Just wanted to ask if theres another way, if not Iāll try downloading Discord! If you have Instagram you could also DM me there (nameās in bio) and we could try figuring out the whole thing over there so we now donāt need to do it over Reddit! Whateverās fitting for you!
Tv show and movie characters smoking seems on the rise once more in general, at least imo. Maybe the tabacco industry is contributing financially again, but more secretly this time.
The majority being smokers in Iwtv is historically accurate though it doesn't make much sense for vampires. Why are they also smoking among themselves and not just when they want to fit in with humans? My guess it's mainly for visual appeal, them lightning each other's cigarettes is sharing a brief, sweet moment of intimacy.
I've read your post and the comments you've made on it. I mean this in the politest way possible, you're coming across like the kind of fan that makes a fandom toxic. Ranting about what a deceased author or their living kin would think, demanding purity, and going on about "real fans". Adaptations aren't just for the old fans, they're also meant to create new fans. And sex sells. The show runners are very aware of what they're doing. They're making a show that will sell, so they can keep making it and making money. Ultimately, it's just a TV show. You don't have to like it. Let it go and move on. You'll be better off for it. Trust me. (Don't get me started on how I acted about some Sherlock Holmes adaptations back in the day.)
Vampires did have sex and sexuality in the books, by the way. Just not typically in the way most humans do and when they did do sexual acts in human ways, they didn't use human primary sex organs. But even humans don't always use their primary sex organs or have orgasms during sex. You really seem to be limiting your definition of sex.
Even discounting the erection Lastat got after drinking Akasha's blood or the injections he had that let him have sex to make a kid because those situations are out of the ordinary, the vampires regularly demonstrated desires for each other that humans would consider sexual or sensual. Marius did a lot of sexual things with Armand before he turned him and then they both did sexual things with Bianca. Marius had sex with Pandora too. He just didn't get a erection or have a human orgasm, which, again, you don't actually need to have sex.
'I've read your post and the comments you've made on it. I mean this in the politest way possible, you're coming across like the kind of fan that makes a fandom toxic.'
Sorry. No. The kind of 'fan' that makes fandoms toxic are the kind of people who think it's perfectly alright to butcher an entire compendium of work that took up an author's entire lifetime, for the sole reason of 'sex sells', 'representation', 'get in with what's new,' 'they sold the rights, deal with it.' Those are the kind of 'fans' that are 'fans' because it's 'the in thing that everybody is talking about on the interwebs', and not the kind of fans who are fans because during those times when being gay, bi, lesbian, or trans meant a *literal death sentence to some people*, they found a glimmer of commonality and companionship with fictional characters who became more real to them than the real world ever was, because on paper, their own real-life struggles of alienation, loneliness, longing, pain, and the desire for some measure of transcendence was materialised and *understood*. The reason why some fans are so keen on protecting the integrity of Anne's work is because for those kinds of fans, the Chronicles was more than just a story about blood-sucking monsters - *it was a lifeline. Anne provided the rope.* And for that she deserves the respect, admiration, and the *devotion* the fans you call 'toxic' showcase.
'the vampires regularly demonstrated desires for each other that humans would consider sexual or sensual.'
This was never a matter of doubt or question.
'Marius did a lot of sexual things with Armand before he turned him and then they both did sexual things with Bianca. Marius had sex with Pandora too.'
This was also not a matter of doubt or question, but this sensuality was not so readily and casually summed up as 'dicc in, dicc out, gloop goes the jizzm'. The sex and sensuality of the books was both carnal *and transcendental*. And there have been many a film where such eroticism has been displayed, so it really isn't a matter of 'oh, this wouldn't translate well into film'.
'He just didn't get a erection or have a human orgasm, which, again, you don't actually need to have sex.'
Yes he did. In Blood and Gold. Pandora is a size-queen who loves being 'filled up', and she has asked Marius to do this *twice* in the books. The first time after she is turned and they fed on living blood, and Pandora demands that Marius p-netrate her while they were atop each other in a shared sarcophagus in his Venetian hideaway just a room away from Those Who Must Be Kept, and a second time before Pandora leaves Marius for good. And in those scenes, it wasn't the 'sex' or the 'orgasm' that mattered, but the idea of 'I am one with my beloved and my beloved is one with me,' - a strongly *Christian* sentiment echoed by mystic poets like San Juan dela Cruz, who Rice is more than familiar with.
People forget that the books take what 'regular humans' consider to be 'a natural act' or a 'carnal act', and adds depth to it that only creatures capable of extremes of feeling feel.
So please, go ahead and call me toxic. I am not saying what I am saying for you or others like you. I am saying what I say in memory of someone who means the whole world to me.
I agree with you completely. The ones who are fine with butchering her work, in a way she and her son hated, isnāt a good thing, and isnāt what a true fan wants.
Omg grow the fuck up!
I'm voicing my opinion and not adding any ad-hominem attacks. And you have the audacity to say I make a fandom toxic for voicing my opinions?
How fucking dare you. You literally just pulled that out of your ass. No where did I state anything about real fans. Nowhere did I throw insults at any other person.
You're clearly incapable of having an adult conversation without taking someone else's opinion as a personal attack. It's ironic that you accuse someone of making a fandom toxic when you're the one who showed up here and poisoned the thread.
Lestat didn't have an erection! Akasha's blood has made his skin so resilient that it's "like marble" - that's why his genitals are like that. He literally states his dick doesn't know how to do that anymore. They didn't have sex. Pandora states, "We drank each other's blood - that was our marriage."
God, what a jerk. You're blocked!
Good for you! The projection is real with that one.
Also, I agree with you about the sex. I found it revolutionary that she made the act of sex not a thing for her vampires. She was talented enough to make her books very erotic without cheap sex scenes. The relationships went deeper than just cheap sex.
What a ridiculous comment. Itās the ones like you who make the fandom toxic. The ones who are too horny to see sex instead of a fabulous story that didnāt make sex a priority. Youāre too thirsty to be a true fan.
I like that theyāre horny and have sex. I think it adds a new dimension of existential horror that translates well to an audience that hasnāt read the books. Because letās be honest, theyāre not going for the original fans; itās a television shows that needs views. But! Hear me out:
If youāre an Anne Rice vampire in the books, it makes sense that not having sex is part of the horror of being immortal. This in part because Anne started writing in a time where purity culture was still a thing, despite how much we are told that the 60s opened sexual liberation for all. The other part though, I like to think, relates to the kind of person a reader is. Thereās more patience involved when it comes to reading novels vs watching TV. So the concept of not having sex or just making sex meaningless in a prose context works well. The horrors and existential crises can be explored with other plot points and with more depth and detail because a reader will read.
If youāre an Anne Rice vampire in the TV series, with the added ācan have sexā part you can portray a different kind of horror: the undying afterlife is full of sensual pleasures but becoming bored with everything that entails generates another kind of existential crisis that audiences more used to consuming screen media can understand: overconsumption becomes meaningless after a while once youāve had your fill, and because youāre still undying you will find yourself alone eventually after every mortal you y care for will inevitably die.
Iām not trying to say TV audiences are smarter/dumber than book audiences. Iām trying to think about how the different ways of media consumption impact the way characters and stories are written and developed.
With all this said, I understand your frustration and respect your opinion. My problem with the series relies more on several toxic tropes other comments have mentioned: portraying bisexual people as morally corrupt and incapable of being loyal in relationships, Claudiaās very unnecessary rape plot line, the change to Armandās ethnicity and religious identity that stinks of tokenism. The series is obviously a very loose adaptation of the novels and, while itās not the first time a thing like this happens, Iād still recommend appreciating the positive aspects of it: the drama is still well written even if the plot points donāt make sense, cinematography is good, and the acting is great. Iām personally impressed with how Sam Reid plays and is being directed as this rendition of Lestat, but maybe itās because Iām horny for Lestat already anyway. I also enjoy touching upon the subject of queer relationships in eras that were even more conservative and using the story as a way of navigating underground queer life in the past and present, even if sometimes itās problematic. But as a queer person myself, I want to be patient with how messy queerness is still represented on TV. Itās still new territory where you have to balance toxic stereotypes vs shitty people that just happened to be queer.
Edit: grammar and spelling
I also hate how they dumbed down or removed so much of the vampire reason for being. The tv show is so heavy handed and blunt. They wanted to get the easy accolades by making the story about race and homosexuality, but they lost all the passion. What I loved about Riceās vampire relationships was that they were irrelevant of everything superficial, their passion/love for each other was being so enamored with the soul of the other. It was a love that transcended all previous human issues, and then the show was like letās cheapen it to make it about modern issues and make it cancel proof because anyone who criticizes it must be a racist or homophobic. Sex is a human necessity, vampires donāt reproduce this way, have no need of it. Blood is all they desire, and the only thing that gives them ecstasy.
I agree, I dont like how Hollywood always want to change the story. I mean theres a reason why the books are so great. Keep it the same dont change anything and maybe you would have more viewers.Ā
I lost interest in the episode whereĀ Louis said to Armand take off your clothes and lay face down in coffin so I can F$#%! YOU that was a little much for my tasteĀ some things are better left to imagination I liked the first season but not too much of the 2nd maybe the books are different I have themĀ will read them it's fine that others like it I agree it's oversexualized in a mortal way it was better Anne's way I stopped watching it because too much sex and throwing F word around too much It was more romantic between Lestat and Louis in season 1 less sex more on a sensual level mentally IMO I like Louis better with LestatĀ and saying F@!# makes it less erotic in my eyes I would've liked it better without being I can't pick the right words it's just not as romantic it's just sexĀ
Because it isn't really an adaptation of Anne's work. It's a whole different story, with characters and minor plot elements taken from Anne's Vampire Chronicles. No matter how much fans of the series claim it is an 'adaptation', it isn't. It's a *bastardisation*.
I don't know why you're downvoted, you're right.
If someone posted the show in written form on fanfic sites it would fall under the category of complete alternate universe/using known character dynamics to write your own story.
I swear if they changed character names and forewent the interview part of the story for something like an investigator or archivist finding one of their old diaries, they could have had their own show and just tacked "inspired by Vampire Chronicles" before the credits.
I'm downvoted because that's how mob-mentality works. When one is part of a rabid mob, one ceases to think. One just reacts irrationally, in the same way their fellows do, because if they don't, or if they say anything contrary to the 'commonly accepted answers / sentiments', they're ousted and shunned.
Exactly. Itās a complete destruction of her work. They completely destroyed Claudiaās character and motivations. If she can pass for a woman, which she clearly did in season 1, that removes the main problem her character had. How people canāt see that is beyond me.
Ah, their take on Claudia... where do I ever begin?
Most 'current' 'fans' will say if you dislike the character the show has which is named after Claudia, you're somehow 'racist'. This is a load of b-ll-cks. They could have done a quadroon or mulatto Claudia \[note: these terms are *not intended to be racist words, because these terms, within an historical context, and within the context of Rice's work, were used. See* Feast of All Saints*,* Interview with the Vampire*, and* Merrick\], and it would still be quite alright, had they only retained the fact that Claudia should have been a *child*. Even the movie adaptation got this somewhat right in their choice of actress (Kirsten Dunst) who was aged 11 at the time she played the character. Yes, there is no way a literal five-year old can pull off such a character. Yes, it can be argued that such a role will be difficult for most eleven-year-olds. But the least they could have done was try for the same effect Rice was going for with the character, and which is the primary root of the character's own dilemma - perpetual childhood, maturity halted. This cannot work if you have a character who is played by a twenty-something year old who they attempt to pass off as an adolescent, who, historically speaking, would have at the time period they set it in, been considered 'eligible for engagement'. It does away entirely with the primary gripe of Claudia's character - an adult perpetually trapped in a child's body longing to live and experience and be treated *as her age*, while being able to present only as what her body is (which, in hindsight can also be understood as being sympathetic to the plight of people who suffer from body dysmorphic disorder / gender dysphoria). So what's current 14-year old pseudo-Claudia's gripe? 'Not being able to be a woman'? Most definitely not. 'Not being able to stand as equals to my sires?' From the looks of things, not really. So it isn't 'Claudia', the way 'Claudia' is supposed to be.
I feel you. At least Queen of the Damned *tried* *to some extent* to stick with the source material - even if it ended up being a mashup of two books that ended up being a shipwreck. The music was good, their Akasha was good, Townsend *tried* to Lestat as well he could. But this hackneyed take on 'Interview' isn't even 'Interview'. It's only 'Interview' thanks to the characters' names. But plot-wise, anyone who watches this series as an 'intro' to Rice and decides to pick up the books will be shocked to discover that the series and the books and two entirely different stories. This 'Interview' is more like a pandering to what fanfiction writers want 'Interview' to be, not what Anne intended the story to be.
The same can be said for their take on the 'Mayfair Witches'.
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better.
Daniel was my favourite book character - because he represents the contemporary audience contrasted with these characters that are hundreds of years old. Daniel, to me, was me. We were the same age, the same physical features. But I absolutely hate this old-ass man! I don't care that he was young when he first interviewed Louis. It's just garbage.
People make the excuse "It's an adaptation of the books."
No! Harry Potter is an adaptation of the books. This is just a bastardisation.
I agree with you completely, although I found myself sympathising / finding commonality more in the characters of Gabrielle (as a pre-adolescent), then Merrique (as a teen / young adult) and later in life Marius (as an adult). But I understand completely where you're coming from with Daniel. Daniel was the proverbial everyman who saw something that *shouldn't be*, was given a hefty dose of a morality lesson, and decides on a *very human, very young, very impulsive whim* to say, 'You know what, you're old and jaded. Give me it. Give me immortality and I can - I *will* - do better.' He didn't do better. None of them 'do' better beyond becoming finer, more beautiful, more obsessive, more *terrifying* versions of what they already were. 'The world changes, we do not. Therein lies the irony that finally kills us.' \[Interview with the Vampire\]. The only seeming exception to this rule is Lestat - who seems to be more into the 'crush' of life compared to all of them. That's why they're drawn to him. That's why he's their 'Brat Prince'. But even Lestat is imprisoned in his own way in his constant need for rebellion. Rebellion for a greater cause is wonderful, but rebellion solely for the sake of rebelling eventually becomes hollow (as he'd later eventually realise post Memnoch the Devil, Blood Canticle, and even well into Prince Lestat).
Rice wrote these characters as social and spiritual commentary. And this modern show cheapens that by filling it up with glamour, violence, and regular 'human' s-x - with small 'Easter eggs' here and there to keep some readily placated fans 'happy' - suffusing the whole with, to quote Shakespeare: 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.' It's sad. Anne's work deserves better.
I donāt like what they did with Daniel either.
And how about the fact that they had Lestat commit horrific domestic violence against Louis? How the hell are they supposed to redeem him after that? Itās not his character either. I know he manipulates Louis and keeps him in the dark, but he never beat the shit out of him.
At least the made him French. lol
In one of the last books Anne wrote *Prince* *Lestat* 2014, a scientist develops a way for male vampires to get erect to literally harness Lestatās semen & create a viable clone. š¤£ Why not just skip all the those silly steps & make the vampires able to have sex in the show? They already kiss passionately in the books , lay naked with other immortals & mortals, & stimulate them to orgasm/ejaculation. She literally made the change herself. Come off it. Literally.
Silly steps? Do you hobestly not understand the subplot???
Anne asked herself, "Why wouldn't vampires take scientists and make them vampires to study vampires through science?"
She didn't do that because she wanted them to have sex!
Good lord. It's amazing how you actually read the book and totally misunderstood what was actually going on.
The idea of Vampire sex really has you tweaking, no? Frothing at the mouth. Well, I promise you itās ok. Not everyone is as opposed or upset with the change in the vampireās ability to have sexual intercourse as you are, & thatās also okay too. š
They understood, and made the intentional choice of taking it in a different direction. Because it's 2024 and they wanted to tell a story that wasn't just subtextual. Agree or disagree with that change, but don't act like it was due to a lack of understanding or respect. It's an adaptation, not a copy - paste of the original.
šš¼
Yeah but I agree a little with OP, now a days everything is so over-sexualized, and I mean Iām all for gay representation but with the vampires in Anne rice novels thereās not really a gay or straight or anything like that theyāre all pretty pan & sapiosexual, theyāve broken free of the spectrum, no labels no boxes just passion and desire in its purest form. Drinking each others blood is their sex, they experience each other on a much deeper level and it goes with the whole idea of them being āaboveā or more āevolvedā than humans, that theyāve escaped the confines of the basic human desires of sex and now experience a whole different set of wants and cravings leaving love & āthe lonelinessā or deep desire to connect as their last true human emotion. I mean even if you edited out all the sex scenes itās still incredibly fucking obvious Louis and Lestat were a couple same with Louis and Armand. I dunno, I just feel like it adds another level of depth to their relationships.
One of my favorite changes. I always thought it was incredibly dumb they couldn't fuck. Now we get to see Lestat and Louis makeout and I am here for it
Anne Rice even invented a way for them to have sex later in the series so she clearly wasn't opposed to the idea. She was constrained by the time she was originally writing in. I mean, the woman wrote some straight up erotica under a pen name.
Two pen names: Rampling (Exit to Eden) and Roquelaure (the Beauty books) Amazingly hot stuff
That she did. In Blood Communion and Realms of Atlantis. But consider the caveat of it: they are unable to do it *by default*. They had to be *infused with living blood*. Lestat even managed to impregnate a woman, but only after having been temporarily 'de-vampirised' through Fareed and Seth's experimentations. The capacity for sex - and, subsequently, the *need* of it (whether because of attraction, or for affection, or just because) - still does not exist on a vampiric vessel, and only ever 're-manifests' itself if the vessel is 'de-vampirised', albeit temporarily. That made their state of undeath more poignant in that they're using cutting-edge science to find ways to *not be 'dead'*. Giving your regular, run-of-the-mill vampire the capacity to f-rnicate, eat, and drink (rather than to simply be content with sniffing and holding mugs of warm beverages or staring and smelling plates of food), basically gives their existence all the perks of living *plus the powers that come with un-death*, which hardly makes for the existential dilemma that Rice was trying to establish in her work. Also, her erotica is divorced from the Vampire Chronicles work - hence the pen name. So...
Imagine living forever and never having an orgasm lol
y even live?
More power to you. But I thought it made sense because they're dead - they're vampires. Sex has no purpose for vampires, only drinking blood does.
This is a confusing take. Sex doesn't need a purpose other than the characters are attracted to each other want to bang
It's not confusing - in the context of a world where vampires and mortals exist, it makes sense.
You literally said nothing to support your point that vampires don't have a purpose to have sex. I know there are mortals and undead in this universe, I've read the books several times, what does that have to do with that you said
I just see no purpose in adding sex. I don't think it makes it more interesting. I just think it's much more interesting that they can't, because drinking blood has replaced that.
Because people can relate to having sex; and it's easier to communicate on screen visually. The blood drinking is there and they do a good job likening it to a drug.
There's already a vampire story where blood is a drug. It's called 'True Blood', and Anne was a fan of both the show *and the books*, and the author of True Blood / Sookie Stackhouse novels, Charlaine Harris, was likewise an admirer of Rice. If AMC is gunning for another 'True Blood', this ain't it. But one can't expect much from the same channel that butchered The Walking Dead.
This show is much better than True Blood lol Its wild to see ppl suggest its a failure because of changes when its a massive critical and commercial success
It's a massive critical and commercial success not because it is good, but because it is designed to cater to a specific demographic of unthinking thralls.
Because the equivalent blood exchanges are not something your average TV viewer can get behind. They need to appeal to the general audience as well as the Anne Rice fans.
If they wanted to appeal to the actual fans they wouldn't have butchered her story
Um the havnt butchers crap. I love the take on the series. It's interesting and differnt but in a good way. I'm super excited for the new season and can't wait to watch it with my mom.
Go ask her son. See what he thinks.
Good thing he's just one person. Who cares if that's what he thinks? I was just sharing my opinion. If he thinks they butchered it that's okay. I was just saying I don't feel like the butchered it at all.
Oh, please.
Let's ask her son what he thinks... Oh wait.
Why in the world do we care what he thinks? He didn't write it. Is every family member of every dead author supposed to sign off on adaptations to their work for it to be valid now?
You don't know much about his relationship with his mom huh. Like the fact they co wrote books together. Also Anne herself said she didn't want this shit. There are plenty of interviews where she says so
Anne has a known tendency to hate things until she sees the finished product - remember that article condemning Tom Cruise and the follow up apology? And Christopher has been riding Anneās coat tails for years. I wouldnāt put stock in his opinions.
You misunderstand Anne's 'ick' when it came to Interview. She was already 'icked' from the get-go at having to change key elements of the story, like Claudia's age, or the character of Armand, or the doing away of Louis' brother Paul, etc. Yes, she was screenwriter, but that didn't mean she had full creative control over the project. She was simply afraid that the movie would be less and less *her* 'Interview', and more and more what Geffen films wanted 'Interview' to be. When she saw Cruise's performance (and found out that Cruise, among all the others in the cast, was the only one who read the books), she changed her mind because Cruise *did Lestat justice*. Above all else, Anne was very concerned about maintaining the integrity of her work - hence divorcing herself from 'Queen of the Damned'. It isn't that much of a stretch to assume - considering what is known about Anne - that the way the showrunners going about 'Interview' and the rest of her intellectual property, that the ensuing result wouldn't sit well with her. Would she have praised Sam Reid? We can assume she would. Reid does a decent Lestat. Would she have enjoyed their choice of Jacob Anderson as Louis? She probably would, considering she wrote an amazing novel about the *gens de couleur libre* (Feast of All Saints). Would she have liked Assad Zaman's Armand? Probably not, especially considering there's already an Islamically-inclined vampire (Fareed in Prince Lestat; Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis; Blood Communion: A Tale of Prince Lestat). Overall, would this new 'Interview' scratch her long-standing itch of being '*my Interview'*? Nope. Speaking of opinions, whose opinions should actually hold more weight in the matter: a mob of rabid fanboiz and fanghorlz, or that of her actual offspring who lived, breathed, ate, and existed alongside her while she was still in the thick of it writing all the books so many people have come to love and so sorely miss?
On one hand it doesnāt work with the lore but goddamn weāve been waiting fifty years to see them fuck and god bless them for finally doing it
Speak for your own horny self.
Catering to book purists alone isn't enough to keep the show running. They needed to get many more viewers, and sex still sells and is easier to explain. Subtext and sensuality might work well in written form but don't always translate to the screen. Also, different readers have different opinions (which leads to interesting discussions). A tv show can't encompass that all and needs to settle for something more generally relatable, in this case, sexual desire. Additionally, the show runners would be accused of queerbaiting if the main couple(s) had to remain on 1994 movie level subtext. I always thought Louis and Lestat would if they could, so them having a "full relationship" this time is great.
I genuinely wonder how much of it was fan service, considering the piles and piles of fanfiction being written about them back in the day š
I mean. I agree 100% Anne specifically didn't want her novels changed for tv. She said so in an interview. The network did it anyway immediately after she died. Like fucking scumbags. Her son won't comment on the show due to an nda not being able to speak negatively about it. That should speak volumes to Anne's actual fans.
I remember the days when Anne was super active on Facebook and continuously discussed her vision for the televised Vampire Chronicles series. Asking the fans our ideas on casting and having live sessions with her and Christopher. You could tell how excited and passionate they were about it. Sadly it was never to be, not any of it. What we got was AMC fan fiction. I'm not going to lie, I watch the show and I do enjoy it, but it is not Anne's Vampire Chronicles. I know her name is in the title for brand recognition but I can't help thinking about what could have been. The show runners will only change more and more as the series continues.
She sold the rights, it doesn't matter.
That's like saying a s-x worker loses all autonomy simply because you have bought their time with money. Even if the rights are no longer under the Rice 'estate', for Anne's sake, it will *always matter* that her work be represented properly.
No, no, it's not. Y'all really like to forget that AR herself canonically enable the vampires to have sex and that it's been stated that they are incorporating all the books into the show and creative license exists.
Yeah. By having Fareed experiment on them. The only exception to this was when Pandora was turned by Marius and she insisted that Marius stick his *gladius* into her *cunae*, which she would later realise does nothing for her, but that the feeling of 'being filled up' was welcome (Blood and Gold). And then that was only possible because both of them had fed prior to shimmying away into their sarcophagi. The show isn't 'The Vampire Chronicles', and 'The Vampire Chronicles' isn't the show. They can take all the 'creative license' they want, and they're well within the rights to do so, but fanfiction is fanfiction and canon is canon. And the Rice *canon* is written in black-and-white, in Janson font, on acid free paper.
This! A thousand times this. Merrick is right. You articulated that so well. In 'The Tale of the Body Thief,' Lestat talks about having sex again for the first time when he switches bodies. Why? Because he couldn't have sex before!
And in the same book, he goes on at great length to comment about things like beverages, food, the feeling of warmth *and coldness*. Because while vampires aren't 'numb' by any means, the way they feel things is different from that of humans. That's why it's 'The Dark Trick' before Lestat called it 'The Dark Gift'. It's a trick. You get to live forever, at the cost of a life spent in the crush of life but forever set apart from it. You end up paying more than you bargained for. Lestat turned the 'trick' into a 'gift', where one is given the privilege of becoming witness to living history *as part of it*, not just a detached 'passerby'. One might even hazard that Lestat's diatribe in 'Interview' about how a vampire's 'all seeing eyes were meant to give them detachment' isn't really Lestat-Lestat, but part-Lestat and part-Louis' mischaracterisation of Lestat, because Louis is a notorious unreliable narrator. The only good thing this show might potentially do is introduce a new roster of readers to Anne's work, where they will find far more gems of great value than all the paste jewellery and rhinestone glimmer any 'adaptation' can currently deliver.
Yes! I'm sure Fareed's exact words to Lestat in Prince Lestat was asking if he wanted to feel erotic pleasure again for the first time in 200 hundred years. After having sex, Lestat states it pales in comparison to blood-drinking. He even talks about how he almost completely forgets about having sex as soon as he finishes because it's so meaningless.
Yes. Although he was quite taken by the girl who 'shamelessly offered herself to me'. F-cking manwh-re. Lol. People *need to read the books.* The series doesn't even try to do justice to the books, by Maharet's name!
Because sex sells, and if you think about it, if your prey is humans what better way to lure them, keep them?
They can attract victims without having sex with them.
Yes, but itās still a powerful lure, and one that doesnāt necessarily cost vitae
Because it serves fans. Viewers want to see sex on television
I dont know what makes me more uncomfortable, the characters having a set sexuality (Louis is gay, Lestat is bi, etc) instead of them all being pansexual ish, the fact that they actually have sex, or the fact that they eat and drink and smoke ā¦ why ????
Anne was trying for fluidity. 'The limits of sexuality and gender roles no longer apply to moi, because I am forever and beyond the trappings of human norms. In fact, I will now proceed to Frenchie my own mother as proof!' - Lestat (quote not verbatim). 'Here's a tiny kid monster who is my adopted daughter but also my sorta-kinda-maybe-wife who is also my kinda-maybe-*sister* from the same maker.' * Louis to Armand regarding Claudia (quote not verbatim). Anne even went above and beyond this in Blackwood Farm and Wolves of Midwinter, where she featured an hermaphroditic / intersex character (Petronia), and hinted at a possible *transgender* character (the house-help at Nideck Point). Anne was leagues in advance of the whole 'let's break boundaries when it comes to sex and gender', and somehow, giving her characters set sexualities defeats the purpose altogether. It only serves to reiterate what already *is*, and challenges nothing beyond whatever makes 'the cishet' uncomfortable. That's hardly a challenge. And the eating and drinking. Unlife, with all the perks of living. So why the need to be all emo, Louis? It isn't a curse. It's just the nightlife, nonstop, plus UV proof glass so you can go enjoy your sunrises without going *poof*. It's just... ugh.
Couldnāt agree more on the sexuality thing. Aside from the fact that it takes away some very important features the books had, itās also not done very well. Like, it got me so mad when Lestat said that he cheats on Louis because he needs variety. I mean seriously? The whole ābisexuals canāt be loyal to their partners because they need sexual and/or romantic varietyā has been such a bad bi-stereotype since like forever. I was so disappointed especially because the show clearly tries to be super inclusive and representative and yet they still do that? And yes I know, thereās a reason for Lestat constantly cheating, which hasnāt anything to do with his sexuality but rather with his personality and his general feelings for Louis. I still think that it pushes that bad stereotype. Iām not trying to accuse the writers of biphobia because it seems to been have done unintentionally. This whole problem couldāve been solved though, if the characters didnāt had sexualities in the first place.
I completely forgot about that!! It gave me the āLouis the moral monogamic āgoodā homosexual and Lestat the immoral evil cheating bisexualā . Itās completely irrelevant to the books, and it hurts bisexual people in real life. As you pointed out, it promotes the same old stereotype. I also hate how Claudia goes through a traumatic implied rape in the show, it was unnecessary nothing like this happens in the books (that I remember even from the comics through Claudiaās POV), it was done just to dramatize the plot and itās disgusting . Something so hurtful and serious shouldnāt be used to reach for views . Itās not a plot device, it doesnāt create character development, itās something traumatic that hurts and kills women all over the fkkn globe . And imo it should be talked about as such.
Heavy on the Claudia one. As you said, it was completely unnecessary and did nothing for the plot. What makes the whole thing even worse, is that the director said that this incident made her āstrongerā. Like, I canāt express how much I hate the whole āwomen experience sexual violence to grow as a characterā kind of trope. Itās disgusting and teaches a completely wrong message, yet it has been done so many times, especially in the past, which is why I donāt understand why they went with this change in the first place, since their mane goal for the show was to make it more modern.
Honestly? The show feels like a fanfiction. I had no problems with Louis being black, and Armand being Muslim . I think Armand being Muslim promotes a bad stereotype that all Muslims are religious extremists specially nowadays with whatās going on in Gaza. When Armandās religious extremism (and all his moral and spiritual quarrels) are so important for him to grow as a character . And also it seems they made him Muslim but ignore all the important dogmas of Islam unless is plot convenient. But right now ? It all feels like a fanfiction, written by a fan who loves MarySue 2dimensional characters. Lestat is not a bratty diva with his own spiritual and moral quarrels anymore he is just evil and cruel. Armand is STILL with Louis, Louis is younger, Claudia is not only older she didnāt go through the whole āI will never grow upā phase and you could argue that she did, but has she really? A horny teenager who canāt lose their VCard is not the same as a toddler(or a young child) who āknows too muchā for their age. Lestat did not baby trap Louis it was the opposite. My favorite lines from the book were butchered. Who tf is Antoinette ? Everyone tells me is Antoine but if she is why was she alive for so long ? The most accurate scene in the entire show has been the death of Paul, and even then it wasnāt portrayed as it was in the book. The show is good, has beautiful cinematics, and great actors. But the story telling is lacking. I feel like theyāve been trying to pander to a nonexistent audience and create their own universe. They ignored all the world building and development from Anne Riceās original work unless itās convenient or to their liking . This show wasnāt made for fans of the book. It was made for the average viewer. Who is not going to read the books but comment online on how āhotā the vampires are . The show superficially touches Danielās addiction, uses raping a teenager as a plot device (say whatchu want Claudia in the show looks and acts like a teen). Portrays bisexual people as morally corrupt. Badly represents Armand religious trauma(they surely did not know what they were doing did they?). And can someone please please PLEASE tell me how theyāre planning on turning Daniel into a vampire now that heās old and not twink anymore? Also when is Marius going to show up? Are they planning a 3rd season with Lestat appearing mad at Louis podcast ? How is it all going to play out in the 21st century? The audacity amc has been to feed the fans regurgitated crumbs from the books has been killing me. All the time when Iām watching the show I say out loud āwell at least is not The Queen of the Damnedā . Iām excited for new season? Yeah. Do I think the show is a good adaptation? No I donāt, the first movie did it better, the fkkn musical was more accurate than the show . And I cringed at most songs . And I know I will never see baby faced curly red haired angel Armand on a screen in my lifetime.
I did not see the need to make Armand Muslim, when his personal spiritual and existential struggle, and the religious undertone of it all, was clearly fuelled by the fact that he was from the Kievan Rus and was an icon painter who since childhood *sincerely and devoutly believed in 'god'*. His loss and reclaiming of faith, the corruption of it, and his eventual disavowal of any limitations faith might impose on him, as well as his realisation of the *dangers* of unquestioning, blind, dogmatic belief, could have just as easily been translated into the adaptation *without* appealing to the need for some 'diversification' that does away entirely with that struggle while simultaneously *misrepresenting the religion they want to represent*. Because in Islam, if you 'doubt' your faith (apostasy / *irtidad*), becoming a *murtadd*, is a *grave sin, and is blatantly haraam*. So it creates a character that cannot even make up its mind on *what it is*, let alone *why* it is.
I do not see the need either. As I said they made him Muslim ignoring all the dogmas unless itās convenient. They could make him a Muslim if they knew how his religion and him trying to meet god, and all his religious questionings would affect him as Muslim, āwould he walk into the sun?ā āWould he join the Satanists if he was a Muslim? Would he even return to the religion if he refused it before?ā . All of Anne Riceās characters have a religious turmoil that reflexes her own religious turmoils. Making Armand Muslim could work, he could be an Ottoman child kidnapped and sold into slavery in Venice . But how could they change his most important characteristics without adapting the rest of his personal story ? How they plan to make him okay with joining the Satanists? How would he act with being gay ? And How would he react to Venetian society ? Would he still be an apprentice ? Being a vampire is inherently haram (is also haram to eat human flesh and practice magic isnāt it?) . And Iām saying that could work just from the basis of āIf Iām evil Iām gonna be fucking evilā which he did for awhile . Questioning your faith as a Christian is also a sin in Christianity. Islam and Christianity have actually a lot in common to the point that changing a characterās religion could work if you know how the taboos, dogmas and culture practices of said religion change from one to the other .
'(is also haram to eat human flesh and practice magic isnāt it?)' Very haraam. If they wanted a Muslim character who happens to be a vampire, they could have taken a cue from World of Darkness franchise with their take on Middle Eastern vampires in the *Ashirrah*, the *Banu Haqim,* and the *Assammites*. Armand as Orthodox Christian makes sense because his 'fall' to the Satanic coven was his 'surrender' to the 'evil' of his nature (or what the Children of Darkness convinced him was), because Marius never came back for him, and he thought himself abandoned not just by his mentor, but by his god. In his erroneous perception of Marius 'turning his back on him \[Armand\],' he likewise 'turned his back on God.' He became a 'scourge of God' under the Children of Darkness, and he was *so good at it*, he eventually became a bigshot in the coven. But how do they reconcile that with a *Muslim* Armand, when the goal of Islam is 'submission to the Will of God \[Allah\]', and wanton murder and blood-drinking is *not* submission to God's will, but being *abominable before God*. The same can be said for Armand's sexuality (although it can be argued that more progressive iterations of Islam do not hold such views). World of Darkness works a caveat into this dogma by creating a heretical concept among the *Ashirrah* that 'Allah promises redemption to any and all Kindred who follow the tenets of Islam,' but also that 'The Kindred are Allah's scourge upon the sinners of humankind, and to *be a scourge is to do God's work'* (same 'justification' that the Children of Darkness had in Anne's corpus). The way the showrunners go about it is appears to be more 'tokenism' than any actual intention of adding further depth to an already pre-established complex character.
Literally. I also donāt think the show itself is bad. It works, especially for people who have not read the book but for fans of the original work? Not so sure if I would recommend..On that note, I donāt really understand what exactly this show is trying to be in the first place. While it constantly drives the āwe want to be different from the original workā road, it still takes place after the interview in San Francisco. Many questions will come up, the most important ones you already mentioned, like why isnāt Daniel a vampire? Why is Louis still with Armand? And so on and so on. And donāt even get me started on the whole āthis is the real storyā thing. This makes me wonder, who is this show really made for? Youāre saying itās made for the average viewer and while I partly agree, I feel like they in some way also try to attract fans of the original work. And I donāt think that works. Either you do your own thing or you completely stick to the original work without making any changes whatsoever. Itās just all very confusing especially since they said that they want to adapt the whole series (or at least thatās what I think they said, I could be wrong though). You were talking about Armand and while I get your points, I will probably wait until season 2 drops before I make up my whole opinion on him. Season 1 only fed us crumbs of his character, not really anything I can work with at the moment, so I am looking forward to season 2, hoping that they donāt mess his character up. I also heavily relate to your last sentence. Assad Zaman for sure does not look like book Armand, though I do think that he kind of gives of similar vibes. He, in my eyes, definitely delivers that āinnocent beautyā they always talk about in the books. And letās be honest, itās definitely an improvement from Antonio Banderas. You were mentioning Lestats character and my god I couldnāt agree more. What have they done to him??! Lestat, especially in the first book, is an asshole BUT HEāS NOT THAT KIND OF AN ASSHOLE. Seeing him being changed up so much really hurts since for me, he was one of the best things about IWTV. He does so many things in the show that book Lestat would never do. For example the whole train scene (which btw was also completely unnecessary) and the huge mess that the end of episode 5 was. The directors explanation for this change is, that they wanted to make the reason why Louis and Claudia decide to kill Lestat more reasonable. And this brings me to my next point: Louis and Lestats relationship. Where do I even start on this one? Iāll try to make it as simple as possible. Louis and Lestats relationship is complex due to them being literal vampires. The show does not understand that. They make their relationship appear like some kind of dark romance-Wattpad kind of thingy. Like I already mentioned, vampires relationships are complex and itās never really clear to tell what most of them have going on. But one thing is for sure. Louis and Lestats relationship was always supposed to be understood as romantic. I absolutely hate how the show is trying to be representative by making their relationship more āexplicitā, but letās be real, what kind of representation is that? Itās abusive, toxic and nothing like their relationship in the book. And itās also not like Anne Rice isnāt explicit about their relationship in the later books, just not in IWTV and this has a good reason. Aside from the fact that the whole Loustat thing was kind of unintentional, the first book is also told from Louis perspective, which explains a lot especially after reading the books that follow. In my opinion, Louis and Lestats relationship was perfect in the books and I donāt understand why they felt the need to change that up. I also do not really like what they did with Louis character. They victimise him way too much and itās clear that they want to make him the good guy even though heās really not. Heās a vampire and with that heās just as bad as everyone else. One thing I always loved about TVC series is, that there are no real protagonists nor antagonists. I feel like the show does not understand that. They are constantly pushing these ideas of what is good and what is bad on us and with that they are completely missing the point if the original story. Thats why I also completely agree with your point, that they only use the original work when itās convenient or to their liking. We should definitely find a way to talk about this whole thing again after season 2 drops. Iād loved to hear your opinions on it!
Hey, I donāt know if youāll see this but I basically just wanted to tell you that I donāt have Discord :( I was trying to tell you that via chat but it for some reason didnāt work (the message apparently didnāt go through idk)š Just wanted to ask if theres another way, if not Iāll try downloading Discord! If you have Instagram you could also DM me there (nameās in bio) and we could try figuring out the whole thing over there so we now donāt need to do it over Reddit! Whateverās fitting for you!
Hi thanks for letting me know, I havenāt been using Instagram very much. We can keep talking through Reddit as well I donāt mind :)
I hated the sa scene too
Omg the bi stereotypes like we donāt get that enough
Tv show and movie characters smoking seems on the rise once more in general, at least imo. Maybe the tabacco industry is contributing financially again, but more secretly this time. The majority being smokers in Iwtv is historically accurate though it doesn't make much sense for vampires. Why are they also smoking among themselves and not just when they want to fit in with humans? My guess it's mainly for visual appeal, them lightning each other's cigarettes is sharing a brief, sweet moment of intimacy.
I also hated that they smoke and drink!
Thank you! The smoking especially seems so weird to me. But whatever, Iām enjoying the show!
Its been a while but I sort of remember The Vampire Armand being full of sex.
I've read your post and the comments you've made on it. I mean this in the politest way possible, you're coming across like the kind of fan that makes a fandom toxic. Ranting about what a deceased author or their living kin would think, demanding purity, and going on about "real fans". Adaptations aren't just for the old fans, they're also meant to create new fans. And sex sells. The show runners are very aware of what they're doing. They're making a show that will sell, so they can keep making it and making money. Ultimately, it's just a TV show. You don't have to like it. Let it go and move on. You'll be better off for it. Trust me. (Don't get me started on how I acted about some Sherlock Holmes adaptations back in the day.) Vampires did have sex and sexuality in the books, by the way. Just not typically in the way most humans do and when they did do sexual acts in human ways, they didn't use human primary sex organs. But even humans don't always use their primary sex organs or have orgasms during sex. You really seem to be limiting your definition of sex. Even discounting the erection Lastat got after drinking Akasha's blood or the injections he had that let him have sex to make a kid because those situations are out of the ordinary, the vampires regularly demonstrated desires for each other that humans would consider sexual or sensual. Marius did a lot of sexual things with Armand before he turned him and then they both did sexual things with Bianca. Marius had sex with Pandora too. He just didn't get a erection or have a human orgasm, which, again, you don't actually need to have sex.
'I've read your post and the comments you've made on it. I mean this in the politest way possible, you're coming across like the kind of fan that makes a fandom toxic.' Sorry. No. The kind of 'fan' that makes fandoms toxic are the kind of people who think it's perfectly alright to butcher an entire compendium of work that took up an author's entire lifetime, for the sole reason of 'sex sells', 'representation', 'get in with what's new,' 'they sold the rights, deal with it.' Those are the kind of 'fans' that are 'fans' because it's 'the in thing that everybody is talking about on the interwebs', and not the kind of fans who are fans because during those times when being gay, bi, lesbian, or trans meant a *literal death sentence to some people*, they found a glimmer of commonality and companionship with fictional characters who became more real to them than the real world ever was, because on paper, their own real-life struggles of alienation, loneliness, longing, pain, and the desire for some measure of transcendence was materialised and *understood*. The reason why some fans are so keen on protecting the integrity of Anne's work is because for those kinds of fans, the Chronicles was more than just a story about blood-sucking monsters - *it was a lifeline. Anne provided the rope.* And for that she deserves the respect, admiration, and the *devotion* the fans you call 'toxic' showcase. 'the vampires regularly demonstrated desires for each other that humans would consider sexual or sensual.' This was never a matter of doubt or question. 'Marius did a lot of sexual things with Armand before he turned him and then they both did sexual things with Bianca. Marius had sex with Pandora too.' This was also not a matter of doubt or question, but this sensuality was not so readily and casually summed up as 'dicc in, dicc out, gloop goes the jizzm'. The sex and sensuality of the books was both carnal *and transcendental*. And there have been many a film where such eroticism has been displayed, so it really isn't a matter of 'oh, this wouldn't translate well into film'. 'He just didn't get a erection or have a human orgasm, which, again, you don't actually need to have sex.' Yes he did. In Blood and Gold. Pandora is a size-queen who loves being 'filled up', and she has asked Marius to do this *twice* in the books. The first time after she is turned and they fed on living blood, and Pandora demands that Marius p-netrate her while they were atop each other in a shared sarcophagus in his Venetian hideaway just a room away from Those Who Must Be Kept, and a second time before Pandora leaves Marius for good. And in those scenes, it wasn't the 'sex' or the 'orgasm' that mattered, but the idea of 'I am one with my beloved and my beloved is one with me,' - a strongly *Christian* sentiment echoed by mystic poets like San Juan dela Cruz, who Rice is more than familiar with. People forget that the books take what 'regular humans' consider to be 'a natural act' or a 'carnal act', and adds depth to it that only creatures capable of extremes of feeling feel. So please, go ahead and call me toxic. I am not saying what I am saying for you or others like you. I am saying what I say in memory of someone who means the whole world to me.
I agree with you completely. The ones who are fine with butchering her work, in a way she and her son hated, isnāt a good thing, and isnāt what a true fan wants.
Omg grow the fuck up! I'm voicing my opinion and not adding any ad-hominem attacks. And you have the audacity to say I make a fandom toxic for voicing my opinions? How fucking dare you. You literally just pulled that out of your ass. No where did I state anything about real fans. Nowhere did I throw insults at any other person. You're clearly incapable of having an adult conversation without taking someone else's opinion as a personal attack. It's ironic that you accuse someone of making a fandom toxic when you're the one who showed up here and poisoned the thread. Lestat didn't have an erection! Akasha's blood has made his skin so resilient that it's "like marble" - that's why his genitals are like that. He literally states his dick doesn't know how to do that anymore. They didn't have sex. Pandora states, "We drank each other's blood - that was our marriage." God, what a jerk. You're blocked!
Good for you! The projection is real with that one. Also, I agree with you about the sex. I found it revolutionary that she made the act of sex not a thing for her vampires. She was talented enough to make her books very erotic without cheap sex scenes. The relationships went deeper than just cheap sex.
What a ridiculous comment. Itās the ones like you who make the fandom toxic. The ones who are too horny to see sex instead of a fabulous story that didnāt make sex a priority. Youāre too thirsty to be a true fan.
It's the vampire true blood count show and iam down for it
I like that theyāre horny and have sex. I think it adds a new dimension of existential horror that translates well to an audience that hasnāt read the books. Because letās be honest, theyāre not going for the original fans; itās a television shows that needs views. But! Hear me out: If youāre an Anne Rice vampire in the books, it makes sense that not having sex is part of the horror of being immortal. This in part because Anne started writing in a time where purity culture was still a thing, despite how much we are told that the 60s opened sexual liberation for all. The other part though, I like to think, relates to the kind of person a reader is. Thereās more patience involved when it comes to reading novels vs watching TV. So the concept of not having sex or just making sex meaningless in a prose context works well. The horrors and existential crises can be explored with other plot points and with more depth and detail because a reader will read. If youāre an Anne Rice vampire in the TV series, with the added ācan have sexā part you can portray a different kind of horror: the undying afterlife is full of sensual pleasures but becoming bored with everything that entails generates another kind of existential crisis that audiences more used to consuming screen media can understand: overconsumption becomes meaningless after a while once youāve had your fill, and because youāre still undying you will find yourself alone eventually after every mortal you y care for will inevitably die. Iām not trying to say TV audiences are smarter/dumber than book audiences. Iām trying to think about how the different ways of media consumption impact the way characters and stories are written and developed. With all this said, I understand your frustration and respect your opinion. My problem with the series relies more on several toxic tropes other comments have mentioned: portraying bisexual people as morally corrupt and incapable of being loyal in relationships, Claudiaās very unnecessary rape plot line, the change to Armandās ethnicity and religious identity that stinks of tokenism. The series is obviously a very loose adaptation of the novels and, while itās not the first time a thing like this happens, Iād still recommend appreciating the positive aspects of it: the drama is still well written even if the plot points donāt make sense, cinematography is good, and the acting is great. Iām personally impressed with how Sam Reid plays and is being directed as this rendition of Lestat, but maybe itās because Iām horny for Lestat already anyway. I also enjoy touching upon the subject of queer relationships in eras that were even more conservative and using the story as a way of navigating underground queer life in the past and present, even if sometimes itās problematic. But as a queer person myself, I want to be patient with how messy queerness is still represented on TV. Itās still new territory where you have to balance toxic stereotypes vs shitty people that just happened to be queer. Edit: grammar and spelling
I also hate how they dumbed down or removed so much of the vampire reason for being. The tv show is so heavy handed and blunt. They wanted to get the easy accolades by making the story about race and homosexuality, but they lost all the passion. What I loved about Riceās vampire relationships was that they were irrelevant of everything superficial, their passion/love for each other was being so enamored with the soul of the other. It was a love that transcended all previous human issues, and then the show was like letās cheapen it to make it about modern issues and make it cancel proof because anyone who criticizes it must be a racist or homophobic. Sex is a human necessity, vampires donāt reproduce this way, have no need of it. Blood is all they desire, and the only thing that gives them ecstasy.
I agree, I dont like how Hollywood always want to change the story. I mean theres a reason why the books are so great. Keep it the same dont change anything and maybe you would have more viewers.Ā
I lost interest in the episode whereĀ Louis said to Armand take off your clothes and lay face down in coffin so I can F$#%! YOU that was a little much for my tasteĀ some things are better left to imagination I liked the first season but not too much of the 2nd maybe the books are different I have themĀ will read them it's fine that others like it I agree it's oversexualized in a mortal way it was better Anne's way I stopped watching it because too much sex and throwing F word around too much It was more romantic between Lestat and Louis in season 1 less sex more on a sensual level mentally IMO I like Louis better with LestatĀ and saying F@!# makes it less erotic in my eyes I would've liked it better without being I can't pick the right words it's just not as romantic it's just sexĀ
Because it isn't really an adaptation of Anne's work. It's a whole different story, with characters and minor plot elements taken from Anne's Vampire Chronicles. No matter how much fans of the series claim it is an 'adaptation', it isn't. It's a *bastardisation*.
I don't know why you're downvoted, you're right. If someone posted the show in written form on fanfic sites it would fall under the category of complete alternate universe/using known character dynamics to write your own story. I swear if they changed character names and forewent the interview part of the story for something like an investigator or archivist finding one of their old diaries, they could have had their own show and just tacked "inspired by Vampire Chronicles" before the credits.
I'm downvoted because that's how mob-mentality works. When one is part of a rabid mob, one ceases to think. One just reacts irrationally, in the same way their fellows do, because if they don't, or if they say anything contrary to the 'commonly accepted answers / sentiments', they're ousted and shunned.
Too true. Yet they call the book-lovers toxic. š¤¦š»āāļø
Exactly.
Exactly. Itās a complete destruction of her work. They completely destroyed Claudiaās character and motivations. If she can pass for a woman, which she clearly did in season 1, that removes the main problem her character had. How people canāt see that is beyond me.
Ah, their take on Claudia... where do I ever begin? Most 'current' 'fans' will say if you dislike the character the show has which is named after Claudia, you're somehow 'racist'. This is a load of b-ll-cks. They could have done a quadroon or mulatto Claudia \[note: these terms are *not intended to be racist words, because these terms, within an historical context, and within the context of Rice's work, were used. See* Feast of All Saints*,* Interview with the Vampire*, and* Merrick\], and it would still be quite alright, had they only retained the fact that Claudia should have been a *child*. Even the movie adaptation got this somewhat right in their choice of actress (Kirsten Dunst) who was aged 11 at the time she played the character. Yes, there is no way a literal five-year old can pull off such a character. Yes, it can be argued that such a role will be difficult for most eleven-year-olds. But the least they could have done was try for the same effect Rice was going for with the character, and which is the primary root of the character's own dilemma - perpetual childhood, maturity halted. This cannot work if you have a character who is played by a twenty-something year old who they attempt to pass off as an adolescent, who, historically speaking, would have at the time period they set it in, been considered 'eligible for engagement'. It does away entirely with the primary gripe of Claudia's character - an adult perpetually trapped in a child's body longing to live and experience and be treated *as her age*, while being able to present only as what her body is (which, in hindsight can also be understood as being sympathetic to the plight of people who suffer from body dysmorphic disorder / gender dysphoria). So what's current 14-year old pseudo-Claudia's gripe? 'Not being able to be a woman'? Most definitely not. 'Not being able to stand as equals to my sires?' From the looks of things, not really. So it isn't 'Claudia', the way 'Claudia' is supposed to be.
It just pisses me off. First Queen of The Damned, and now this!
I feel you. At least Queen of the Damned *tried* *to some extent* to stick with the source material - even if it ended up being a mashup of two books that ended up being a shipwreck. The music was good, their Akasha was good, Townsend *tried* to Lestat as well he could. But this hackneyed take on 'Interview' isn't even 'Interview'. It's only 'Interview' thanks to the characters' names. But plot-wise, anyone who watches this series as an 'intro' to Rice and decides to pick up the books will be shocked to discover that the series and the books and two entirely different stories. This 'Interview' is more like a pandering to what fanfiction writers want 'Interview' to be, not what Anne intended the story to be. The same can be said for their take on the 'Mayfair Witches'.
Exactly! Couldn't have said it better. Daniel was my favourite book character - because he represents the contemporary audience contrasted with these characters that are hundreds of years old. Daniel, to me, was me. We were the same age, the same physical features. But I absolutely hate this old-ass man! I don't care that he was young when he first interviewed Louis. It's just garbage. People make the excuse "It's an adaptation of the books." No! Harry Potter is an adaptation of the books. This is just a bastardisation.
I agree with you completely, although I found myself sympathising / finding commonality more in the characters of Gabrielle (as a pre-adolescent), then Merrique (as a teen / young adult) and later in life Marius (as an adult). But I understand completely where you're coming from with Daniel. Daniel was the proverbial everyman who saw something that *shouldn't be*, was given a hefty dose of a morality lesson, and decides on a *very human, very young, very impulsive whim* to say, 'You know what, you're old and jaded. Give me it. Give me immortality and I can - I *will* - do better.' He didn't do better. None of them 'do' better beyond becoming finer, more beautiful, more obsessive, more *terrifying* versions of what they already were. 'The world changes, we do not. Therein lies the irony that finally kills us.' \[Interview with the Vampire\]. The only seeming exception to this rule is Lestat - who seems to be more into the 'crush' of life compared to all of them. That's why they're drawn to him. That's why he's their 'Brat Prince'. But even Lestat is imprisoned in his own way in his constant need for rebellion. Rebellion for a greater cause is wonderful, but rebellion solely for the sake of rebelling eventually becomes hollow (as he'd later eventually realise post Memnoch the Devil, Blood Canticle, and even well into Prince Lestat). Rice wrote these characters as social and spiritual commentary. And this modern show cheapens that by filling it up with glamour, violence, and regular 'human' s-x - with small 'Easter eggs' here and there to keep some readily placated fans 'happy' - suffusing the whole with, to quote Shakespeare: 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.' It's sad. Anne's work deserves better.
Again, perfectly articulated! I couldn't agree more.
I donāt like what they did with Daniel either. And how about the fact that they had Lestat commit horrific domestic violence against Louis? How the hell are they supposed to redeem him after that? Itās not his character either. I know he manipulates Louis and keeps him in the dark, but he never beat the shit out of him. At least the made him French. lol
I agree but I like other parts of it
Itās part of what made them scary. One of many sins of the writers.
In one of the last books Anne wrote *Prince* *Lestat* 2014, a scientist develops a way for male vampires to get erect to literally harness Lestatās semen & create a viable clone. š¤£ Why not just skip all the those silly steps & make the vampires able to have sex in the show? They already kiss passionately in the books , lay naked with other immortals & mortals, & stimulate them to orgasm/ejaculation. She literally made the change herself. Come off it. Literally.
Silly steps? Do you hobestly not understand the subplot??? Anne asked herself, "Why wouldn't vampires take scientists and make them vampires to study vampires through science?" She didn't do that because she wanted them to have sex! Good lord. It's amazing how you actually read the book and totally misunderstood what was actually going on.
The idea of Vampire sex really has you tweaking, no? Frothing at the mouth. Well, I promise you itās ok. Not everyone is as opposed or upset with the change in the vampireās ability to have sexual intercourse as you are, & thatās also okay too. š
What're you, 18? Grow up. Blocked