Compare & Contrast: Book vs Movie vs Show

[Scarlett45]

A place to compare and contrast the novel by Anne Rice (published 1976), the 1994 film staring Brad Pitt & Tom Cruise (there is a thread in the Movies Forum) and the tv show on AMC. 

[methodwriter85]

I already talked about the race swap, the time period change, and Claudia being aged up, but there's one choice that is baffling me- why is Daniel Molloy being played by an older guy? Why would a vampire even bother changing an old person unless there's going to be some kind of whacky fountain of youth stuff being in play? If I'm getting this right, the idea seems to be that this is actually a second interview, Daniel was never turned, but he's going back to an old well in order to try and revive his career.

Edited to add: Yes, they confirmed in this article that this is actually the second interview and Daniel is in his 60's.

I'm really disappointed because I thought the idea of a young journalist getting in over his head and chasing immortality would have been really interesting.

Edited July 26, 2022 by methodwriter85

[Scarlett45]

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I already talking about the race swap, the time period change, and Claudia being aged up, but there's one choice that is baffling me- why is Daniel Molloy being played by an older guy? Why would a vampire even bother changing an old person unless there's going to be some kind of whacky fountain of youth stuff being in play? If I'm getting this right, the idea seems to be that this is actually a second interview, Daniel was never turned, but he's going back to an old well in order to try and revive his career.

Edited to add: Yes, they confirmed in this article that this is actually the second interview and Daniel is in his 60's.

I'm really disappointed because I thought the idea of a young journalist getting in over his head and chasing immortality would have been really interesting.

I get what you’re saying. 
 

It truly depends on how they write it- given that it’s a series and not a movie, I think they want continuation options. It could be interesting if the 1990s interview was still a part of this world, and they are building off of that. 
 

I would think turning in your 60s would be a different type of temptation than in your 20s. Yes you’re older, but not so old that you’re infirm (in developed countries in the 21st century) and if you wanted to partner or have biological children you’ve had a chance to do that. Also you are now looking straight at the effects of aging in a way you weren’t at 20, you have likely lost all of your caregivers and parents- the idea of an immortal life, no more “down hill” could be tempting. 
 

Claudia being aged up bothers me less than it used to- the actress is very petite (short and small), between her figure and styling, she is going to look a YOUNG 14. The story is still going to work. But having an adult actress is just logistically so much easier for production. Also if they get more seasons, no worries about a growth spurt.

[methodwriter85]

12 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

It truly depends on how they write it- given that it’s a series and not a movie, I think they want continuation options. It could be interesting if the 1990s interview was still a part of this world, and they are building off of that. 

I just realized that if Daniel Molloy was a 32-year old in 1994, he'd be 60 now. My god, time flies. LOL

Eric Bogosian for that matter was in his early 30's at the the time the movie came out and my god I can't get over how long ago 1994 was. LOL

Edited July 26, 2022 by methodwriter85

[Scarlett45]

3 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

I just realized that if Daniel Molloy was a 32-year old in 1994, he'd be 60 now. My god, time flies. LOL

Eric Bogosian for that matter was in his early 30's at the the time the movie came out and my god I can't get over how long ago 1994 was. LOL

That’s what I was thinking they were doing! The movie interview was the first one, and this is the second in present day, so acknowledging the movie/book but not being beholden to it, especially since Anne Rice was involved.

We are they same age, we were kids in 1994! Lol

[Hiyo]

This is almost more a reboot and less an adaptation.

[ShadowHunter]

On 7/26/2022 at 1:28 PM, Hiyo said:

This is almost more a reboot and less an adaptation.

Yeah that seems to be the case. I'm still interested enough to see how it goes. I just hope this opens the door for more Vampire shows. I'm so tired of Zombies.

[nodorothyparker]

On 7/25/2022 at 10:33 AM, Scarlett45 said:

Claudia being aged up bothers me less than it used to- the actress is very petite (short and small), between her figure and styling, she is going to look a YOUNG 14. The story is still going to work. But having an adult actress is just logistically so much easier for production. Also if they get more seasons, no worries about a growth spurt.

I totally get this, but of all the changes the show is making, if I'm being honest aging up Claudia is the one that works least for me. At least until I see it. I say this with the caveat I usually go by in discussions like this, which is that I won't fully know or be able to judge until I see it play out. But right now it's the one I'm struggling with. Claudia as a bratty teenager is just Jessica from True Blood. The real horror of book Claudia is that after a point, she's an adult trapped forever in a small child's body. She can't ever go on solitary walkabout as the vampires in this series are periodically prone to do because people who don't notice much about vampires in their midst will notice a child living and traveling alone. She can't go off and start her own coven. She can't ever really be free, which is where so much of her vitriol for Lestat lies. She's beholden to her maker forever, a pretty plaything forever in an existence where forever actually means something. The world sexualizes teenage girls so much that a 14-year-old might as well be a grown woman in many people's eyes, so the horror of what Claudia is seems likely to be somewhat muted.

[Glade]

Anne Rice described Louis as being Creole, a term generally associated with POC, so his race is up for interpretation and has not been swapped.  The 1994 film made him white and straight (making up a fictional dead wife and child to try and counteract the queercoding, and then leaving him out of QOTD altogether) so the film would be more marketable.  Now we get an overtly gay and POC Louis instead, and that's not a further departure from the books than the movie was. 

[dwmarch]

I don't mind the updates to the setting or the characters but I have to object to the trailer's depiction of Lestat as being a totally messy eater! The books did have some scenes like that (QoTD has a scene where Pandora - spoiler coded for nastiness

Spoiler

busts a dude's chest open so she can squeeze his heart like a grape

) but in general, Anne Rice's vampires are very discreet when feeding and will sometimes even use their own blood to seal up the wounds on their victims. But maybe it's a dream sequence. We'll see.

[nodorothyparker]

That caught my attention too. Because my immediate sense in that two-second clip was that the showrunners wanted that visual more than having any concern about being true to the spirit of the books, where the vampires of this universe by and large are fairly fastidious eaters.

I get wanting that visual and Lestat certainly has his moments throughout the series, but it immediately made me worry the showrunner doesn't really have a handle on Lestat's gentleman death persona. Because you've really got to get Lestat right or the whole thing falls apart.

[methodwriter85]

On 7/27/2022 at 8:25 PM, nodorothyparker said:

The world sexualizes teenage girls so much that a 14-year-old might as well be a grown woman in many people's eyes, so the horror of what Claudia is seems likely to be somewhat muted.

I mean, before child labor laws intensified in the 1930's, most 14-year olds who didn't come from a rich background were working full-time. A lot of people were done with schooling by that age. 

Of course I feel like they're going to have it both ways and have Claudia still dress up like she's a 10-year old. Hollywood tends to do that a lot with characters that are 12-14 where they have them still act like little girls.

[supposebly]

On 7/30/2022 at 2:02 AM, Glade said:

Anne Rice described Louis as being Creole, a term generally associated with POC, so his race is up for interpretation and has not been swapped.

Sounds like I need to read the book again. I haven't read it in decades and the 1994 movie is more in my head than the book at this point. Wasn't it that Louis's brother died in the book?

On 7/30/2022 at 2:02 AM, Glade said:

The 1994 film made him white and straight (making up a fictional dead wife and child to try and counteract the queercoding, and then leaving him out of QOTD altogether) so the film would be more marketable.

Methinks they were not very successful in counteracting the queercoding in the movie. At least not with me.

I can't help but compare the trailer to the movie. The back shot of Lestat in the street could have been Tom Cruise's Lestat (it's the hat and the coat!) and the shot of Louie turning around at the window after: "So, how long have you been dead" reminds me of the movie too. Not sure about the casting of Lestat, to be honest. Not bad but Lestat is one of the very few roles where I found Tom Cruise to be a terrific actor. I thought he was pretty much perfect, even after I read the book. I saw the movie before I read the books.

Jacob Anderson as Louis works for me quite nicely. Not sure about Claudia yet. I'm still not ok about the aging up.

Kristen Dunst was so wonderful. Her transformation scene always pops in my head when someone asks me about favorite movie scenes.

Edited August 11, 2022 by supposebly

[Hiyo]

Quote

Anne Rice described Louis as being Creole, a term generally associated with POC, so his race is up for interpretation and has not been swapped.

Between there being white Creoles and that Anne also described him as having white skin (the color of bleached bone), well...

Quote

Methinks they were not very successful in counteracting the queercoding in the movie. At least not with me.

The queer coding in the movie was definitely there.

[nodorothyparker]

Creole can mean a lot of things in southern Louisiana. 

I've been skimming the original trilogy a bit lately, which ye gods is way more high pitched than I remembered on some points which I know appealed to me as a melodramatic teenager. He is described as the color of bleached bone there, although Lestat definitely spends a lot more time waxing about Louis' brilliant green eyes. I really don't care either way, although I do know a couple of hardcore Anne Rice fans who are really unhappy with all the changes. I'm also really struck by how a lot of things that seemed just ambiguous enough to '80s sensibilities are so very right there when you see them with modern eyes. In hindsight, I don't think small town pre-internet teenage me really understood or appreciated how very queer coded this series really is. 

The movie? Yeah. It's one of the very few roles I actually really liked Tom Cruise in or thought he was at all sensual as opposed to hey everybody, it's Tom Cruise and I'm acting sexy now as the script calls for. He and Brad Pitt definitely had some real chemistry in that direction.

[Hiyo]

I mean, even pre-gay teen me noticed the coding...look at the scene where Louis says farewell to Armand in the movie.

[methodwriter85]

On 8/11/2022 at 3:10 PM, supposebly said:

I'm still not ok about the aging up.

I get it in the sense that if they're trying to go for a multiple season show they can't cast an actual 10-12 year old because they're going to go through growth spurts as opposed to a 19-year old playing "14." 

Although it does make me wonder- if they've moved this to the 20th century, aren't they going to have to eventually start explaining why Claudia isn't in school? I believe during the Great Depression they started ramping up on child labor laws and enforcing school attendance. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by methodwriter85

[dwmarch]

There are some deep cuts in the first episode straight from the books that impressed me:

Lestat telling the story of how his mom gave him his first mastiff, flintlock and money to go to Paris. All of this is covered in detail in The Vampire Lestat along with Lestat's father being a dick.
Nicki gets a mention although I am not sure if he was named. He's the violinist that Lestat mentions. Lestat turned him and I am pretty sure Nicki ended up walking into the sunlight although he may have been pushed.
Lestat has glassy fingernails!
We also see Lestat use his blood to seal up a wound on Louis' neck. I'm pretty sure this first appeared in Queen of the Damned.
All the Vampire Chronicles jargon is in there - dark gift, savage garden, little drink, etc.

As for powers, we see levitation, telepathy, freezing time, super speed, super strength, resilience (Lestat doesn't even blink when Louis stabs him a bunch of times) and possibly pyrokinesis. I don't remember freezing time being a thing Anne Rice vampires can do although their telepathy as described in the books can certainly cause mortals to lose track of time or forget what they were worrying about.

For nitpicking, as mentioned upthread these vampires are supremely messy eaters and no self-respecting Anne Rice vampire would outright waste that much blood. We see Louis eating food when he is human and he doesn't slop all over himself so why can't he eat like a civilized vampire? Although I guess that was his first time so maybe he'll figure it out eventually but Lestat ate with his whole face too. Y'all need bibs or something.

Also, I don't recall Lestat ever murdering a human by punching through their head because that would be another waste of good blood. In the books, blood from dead creatures is stale and vampires are disgusted by it.

I wonder who Louis' assistant in the 21st century is? He could be Benji although that character doesn't appear until way later in the series. I'm also assuming we might eventually see Gabrielle (Lestat's mom) since we got a Nicki mention already.

[PurpleTentacle]

So the tape that is played in the first episode, it is the exact dialouge that is in the movie. Is that dialouge also in the books or does that confirm that this is a sequel to the movie?

Of course they did change from them meating in an alley to a gay club... unless the gay club was called "the alley". 😄

Edited October 2, 2022 by PurpleTentacle

[nodorothyparker]

On 10/1/2022 at 2:26 AM, WatcherUatl10 said:

I haven't read anything about this series, but the theme could very well take some aspects of Rice's "The Tale of the Body Thief", which I immediately thought of when they introduced the older journo.

Having recently revisited Tale of the Body Thief as I was doing a general skim of the earlier books in anticipation of this series, that thought randomly occurred to me as well. As clunky as some of the exposition in this episode was, it did sort of remind me of some of the conversations Lestat and an aging weakened David are having in the first half of that book, which to be honest resonated a lot more with me now in middle age than when I first read it as a teenager. I'm really trying to reserve judgment on aging up Daniel as they have until we see how it plays out.

Until I see more of their specific powers, I'm not sure if we're supposed to think this version of the vampires can actually "freeze time" as much as it was this show's attempt to show what we're often told is their abilities to confuse mortals' perceptions. Also color me unimpressed by the messy blood trail and the cartoon punch through the head. Rice's creations are rarely that sloppy when the last thing they want to do is leave a mess that can't easily be explained away by a "fever."

At least this version of Lestat, unlike Tom Cruise's, remembers that he's a Frenchman.

[AngieBee1]

Someone spliced together Lestat's "You are a killer" rant against the scene in 1x2.

Edited October 2, 2022 by AngieBee1

[Scarlett45]

@PurpleTentacle Replying to you from episode 1- there was a LOT of homoeroticism in the movie.(and the book, which I read as an adult)

So much so that eight year old me, when I first saw the film, although I didn’t know the meaning of the word, got that they weren’t “just friends”. It was there. 
 

It’s now 2022 so they can be much more explicit with it in this version (compared to the book in the 70s and the movie in 1994). 

[dwmarch]

Episode 2 gives us a Marius name-drop so I imagine we'll be seeing him sooner or later. I don't know why Louis would have a painting from Marius, they were not particularly close in the books.

Louis' assistant was named in the episode and he's not Benji. I am not sure if his line about "I serve a God" was meant to indicate that he is a devout Muslim and this is just a weird job to him or if he considers Louis to be a god. There is some vampire worship in the books, particularly in Queen of the Damned.

So they do go back to the idea of consuming blood from the dead with Lestat saying it could cause the vampire to die. As I recall from the books they had a similar concern but this never amounted to anything. And I don't see how the blood Louis consumed from the IV bag could be considered fresh so I think Lestat is just talking trash here. In QotD, Pandora rips a dude's heart out and squeezes it to get every last drop out. That dude was definitely dead but Pandora didn't seem to mind. Is there a vampire version of the five-second rule?

They keep the idea from the books where a fledgling cannot hear the thoughts of their maker although in this episode I could have sworn Lestat said something to Louis telepathically after turning him. Maybe he was just sub-vocalizing in a way only a vampire could hear.

The vampires of this show eat and drink although Louis says it is not at all enjoyable. The vampires of the books don't eat or drink human food at all although I don't remember if any of them actually try to.

Speaking of playing with one's food, that dude being able to talk while Louis is feeding on him is not consistent with the books. Victims in the books go into a swoon and only come out of it if the vampire lets them go. In the books, Armand does this to Daniel a bunch of times. But in this show, Daniel seems to have been attacked by Louis at the end of the old interview and he's not really talking so much as screaming.

We get an estimate from Lestat as to how many vampires there are in the world and he guesses about a hundred. Louis also mentions a worldwide vampire population and how they have some big plot in the works. So is this going to lead into an updated version of Queen of the Damned?

I forgot to mention from last episode, there was also a Mayfair witches shout out. There was a crossover in the books so they may end up popping up. I believe there is a Mayfair witches show in production right now.

Lestat gives his age as 200ish which is consistent with the books however the books are set much earlier to the point where Lestat is actually caring for his mortal father in New Orleans. That is obviously not going to possible in this story.

Lestat is also doing a lot more exposition than he did in the books. That was a point of contention in the novel Interview With The Vampire. Lestat wasn't telling Louis anything about vampires to the point where Louis basically said to Claudia "if we want to figure anything out about ourselves we're going to have to find these answers on our own."

The glassy fingernails are called out in this episode. If one has not read the books I would say the show has done a poor job of explaining it so far but the long and short of it is that vampires for some reason have glassy, almost translucent fingernails. Anne Rice had a thing for gloves I guess.

We also saw the mortal body death that accompanies being vamped and a bit of the heightened vampire senses. That is from the books. I'm glad they went for gore discretion here. It is similarly vague in the books but my impression is that it is not a pleasant process. They also don't bother with the ritual of preparing the human body as in cutting the hair to the desired length (because it will grow back to that length every night if cut) or shaving away that five o'clock shadow that 20th century Louis has but 21st century Louis does not have. Well, I guess we could say that Louis shaves every day but I would be surprised if they mention it at all.

These vampires don't seem to be quite as adverse to the sun although this hasn't been entirely consistent in the books either. In some cases it's instant death and in other cases, really old vampires will sleep fully exposed to the sun so they can get a nice tan that will make them look more human. After QotD, Lestat is basically immune to the sun.

That reminds me of another slight difference I noticed. In the books, Lestat is a late sleeper and an early riser. Other vampires, especially young ones, get into their coffins and conk straight out, a slumber from which they will not emerge even to save their own lives. Vittorio the Vampire (the only one-off book in the Vampire Chronicles that has almost no connection to other books except for a passing mention in the framing story) kills a whole coven like this, opening coffins and chopping heads off. I thought we were going to get a humorous moment where Lestat would be talking to Louis about how he felt bad about earlier and then would lift up Louis' coffin lid to find him deadass asleep. But no, these vampires are happy to party past dawn provided the curtains are drawn.

[sugarbaker design]

On 8/11/2022 at 3:10 PM, supposebly said:

Wasn't it that Louis's brother died in the book?

Yes.  Louis was mourning in the book.  Still mourning even after Lestat vamped him.  That's why Lestat vamped Claudia, to draw Louis closer, to enmesh him in this makeshift family.

12 hours ago, dwmarch said:

The vampires of the books don't eat or drink human food at all although I don't remember if any of them actually try to.

There is a scene in IWTV where Louis and Lestat just mime eating dinner, the servants notice and think it's odd.

12 hours ago, dwmarch said:

In some cases it's instant death and in other cases, really old vampires will sleep fully exposed to the sun so they can get a nice tan that will make them look more human.

Like Maharet.

On 10/1/2022 at 2:26 AM, WatcherUatl10 said:

and we do find that Lestat as narrated by Lestat is quite a different person than Lestat as described by Louis in his self-narrative.

Absolutely.  Lestat had a very inflated view of himself.

[iMonrey]

One thing I remember distinctly from the book is that when Lestat turned Louis he opened a vein in his chest and made Louis drink from that. Since this show is clearly veering directly into the homoeroticism, I was surprised they changed it to his wrist like they did in the movie. 

[Linda956]

I read Interview With A Vampire when it first came out and have read all the subsequent Vampire Lestat novels by Anne Rice (as well as The Mayfair Witches series). I'm a huge fan, but this bears no resemblance to the book other than the names of the characters and the fact that Louis is giving an interview.  The setting and time period has changed, Louis is black and not a plantation owner with slaves.  Claudia is older, etc..  They have yet to portray Lestat as Anne Rice described him in an interview once ("around six feet tall, white blonde hair and androgynous looking - like David Bowie during his Ziggy Stardust period").  If I just watched this as another vampire series, I would have to say that I'm enjoying it very much, but I simply cannot identify it with the books or the characters in the books at all.  This has been renewed for a second season already, but Louis is only really the main character in the first book.  After that, all the stories are about Lestat.  We also know Claudia's fate after the first book so how long can they drag out the story with these 3 characters?  I would like to see them tackle each book with a new season, as the books do end up in modern day and they always flash back to what happened previously. But how much are they going change each successive book?  I will continue to watch and enjoy this series, but not as Interview With A Vampire, just "A new Vampire series".

[nodorothyparker]

It's more of a reimaging than a shot by shot adaptation, sure, but in the general story and spirit, it's still pretty much there. The Cruise/Pitt movie for example, probably to downplay the homoeroticism that was always in the source material, gave Louis a dead wife and child he was grieving himself to death over. I liked that the show brought us back to the religious mystic/possibly mentally unwell brother that Louis couldn't save from himself, with all the guilt that implies that left him so open to Lestat.

I've only made it through the first episode so far, but I was also really taken with Lestat's speech at the du Lac family dinner table about God and what his family of origin had done there. We don't even get that story in the books until The Vampire Lestat, where Lestat tells us as the younger son of the local lord he was sent to the monks to learn to read and write and instead was completely consumed with religious scholarship to the point of wanting to chuck his minor aristocrat status to become a monk. His father and brothers drag him back home and burn his books as punishment for losing sight of the reality that he's the lord's son and the lord's son doesn't throw himself away on the church if his father can't buy a high office befitting his rank. It's one of a couple of limiting events he's forever bitter about. For all his aristocratic airs, the actor really nailed that just right to show how deeply he still feels that more than a century later here.

In announcing that they're already renewed for a second season, there was also a mention that next season will be set in Paris. So I'm assuming we're only going to get the IWTV book story up until Louis and Claudia try to kill Lestat and make off for the continent this season, with the French Quarter townhouse fire being the season ender.

[Snow Apple]

I haven't read the book in decades although of course I remember the gist of it. I may read it again after this season is over so the two don't overlap as much.

During the first episode, I saw a promo for the Mayfair Witch series. I didn't know they were making that too. 

[peacheslatour]

Quote

The world sexualizes teenage girls so much that a 14-year-old might as well be a grown woman in many people's eyes, so the horror of what Claudia is seems likely to be somewhat muted.

I've always been bothered by the aging up of Claudia in both the movie and this series. I was telling my husband last night about it (we've both read the book) and he asked me if I would let my five year old child be in something like this and I had to agree I wouldn't.

This may sound funny to some people in light if subsequent events but when they first cast the movie, I wanted Johnny Depp for Louis because back then, nobody could do brooding melancholy like him and I wanted Val Kilmer for Lestat. If you think about his take on Jim Morrison, you can see it.

Edited October 3, 2022 by peacheslatour

[sugarbaker design]

15 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

This may sound funny to some people in light if subsequent events but when they first cast the movie, I wanted Jihnny Depp for Louis because back then, nobody could do brooding melancholy like him and I wanted Val Kilmer for Lestat. If you think about his take on Jim Morrison, you can see it.

It doesn't sound funny at all.  I first read IWTV back in 1985, followed by all the sequels (and The Witching Hour books too).  Every decade it seemed there was to be a new version of it filmed for movies or TV, so I've had several different casting ideas for Lestat and Louis, depending on the decade.  I was partial for Julian Sand for a long time for Lestat, but that never happened, alas.  I could definitely see Kilmer as Lestat.  VK could bring the intensity back in the day.

[Scarlett45]

16 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

I've always been bothered by the aging up of Claudia in both the movie and this series. I was telling my husband last night about it (we've both read the book) and he asked me if I would let my five year old child be in something like this and I had to agree I wouldn't.

There’s also no way they could find a 5yrs old who could handle the material on an acting level. Even an 8-9yrs old that was very small for their age. That’s why they cast Kristen Dunst as a 12yrs old who hadn’t had her growth spurt yet and they filmed her scenes first. 
 

These days you could cast an adult and use CGI to age them down, but more money. 

16 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

His father and brothers drag him back home and burn his books as punishment for losing sight of the reality that he's the lord's son and the lord's son doesn't throw himself away on the church if his father can't buy a high office befitting his rank. It's one of a couple of limiting events he's forever bitter about. For all his aristocratic airs, the actor really nailed that just right to show how deeply he still feels that more than a century later here.

I noticed that. I also noticed that even though Lestat consistently tells Louis he needs to cut ties with his human family (which he does), his devotion to them is something he admires about him. 

[nodorothyparker]

Since they seem to be keeping Lestat's story and timeline intact, it's unfortunate that by moving the New Orleans story from the 1790s to 1910s in this telling there's really no way to keep the small odd bit in the books about Lestat setting up his elderly mortal father to live out his days in Louis' house as the sole family survivor and refugee of the French Revolution. It doesn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things I guess, but I've always thought it interesting that Louis' telling is so self absorbed that he never really contemplates what that means: Namely that Lestat is also a fairly recent vampire and that for all his insistence on letting go of your mortal ties, Lestat is also not able to do that even for a man he clearly has a fair amount of resentment toward. Louis is so deep in his own suffering and dissatisfaction that it all blows right past him.

[AuntieMame]

On 7/25/2022 at 8:33 AM, Scarlett45 said:

I would think turning in your 60s would be a different type of temptation than in your 20s. Yes you’re older, but not so old that you’re infirm (in developed countries in the 21st century) and if you wanted to partner or have biological children you’ve had a chance to do that. Also you are now looking straight at the effects of aging in a way you weren’t at 20, you have likely lost all of your caregivers and parents- the idea of an immortal life, no more “down hill” could be tempting. 
 

Claudia being aged up bothers me less than it used to- the actress is very petite (short and small), between her figure and styling, she is going to look a YOUNG 14. The story is still going to work. But having an adult actress is just logistically so much easier for production. Also if they get more seasons, no worries about a growth spurt.

Turning an older person is Rice canon. David, the head of the Talamasca was turned in the books, I believe at the end of Tale of the Body Thief. Becoming a vampire at that age removes ill health and aging and emphasizes the good points of every stage in life. Experience and wisdom and the good looks of that age would be in absolute ascendance. I think it might be a great time to be turned as you would have the potential for both the height of human and vampiric wisdom. 

Speaking of the Talamasca, I always thought that was a rich vein of unexplored story in Rice’s work as it stands. Much is hinted but only tantalizing glimpses are given. If this becomes a series of long standing I would be thrilled beyond all measure to have new Talamasca material wedded to the old. 

Aging Claudia up does ruin the tragedy of her. There isn’t any way around that, but as others have pointed out, there isn’t an easy way for a child actress to channel that tragedy easily. 

So far I’m happy with the reboot and think it is mostly true to the spirit of the works. Louis’s race was indeterminate in the books and the homoerotic subtext of the books was commented on even in the seventies and eighties.

One change I do find interesting (and a bit disappointing) is that the vampires can consummate sex when they couldn’t in the books. The idea was that genitals are, well generative and that vampires are creatures of death and lost their generative abilities even as a source of pleasure. For Rice’s vampires it was all spiritual passion and romantic longing.

This idea has been criticized over the years but I thought it was logical and clever, especially in works that another poster described as “high-toned”. A better description might be prose so over the top purple that a seventh grader on crack writing their first breathless slash fiction blushes at some of the excesses. 

On 10/1/2022 at 12:26 AM, WatcherUatl10 said:

One thing I might go back a look into, though, is the hatred for Catholicism. I know Anne Rice herself had belief, but in the book I didn't recall the hate being so on display. But, then, I read the books in order as they came out, which spaced everything quite a bit, and we do find that Lestat as narrated by Lestat is quite a different person than Lestat as described by Louis in his self-narrative.

Rice has always been mega-conflicted about her congenital Catholicism. In the first part of her career she was a critical lapsed Catholic that seemed agnostic. Then she had a late midlife re-conversion and disavowed her entire trashy body of work and publicly announced that she would have no truck with vampires or witches any longer and wrote (bad) books about Jesus and angels. Then about ten years ago she went back to a spiritual agnosticism and back to her roots. If I had to guess I think that apologetics on the reason for evil just don’t work for her no matter how hard she tries to make it so. 

I make fun of Rice’s prose and much of it is pretty bad, but I was handed a copy of The Vampire Lestat by a bar customer as a seventeen year old barmaid. I remember reading it in my fifth floor attic walk up in bed with minimal heat and the descriptions of the wonders of the modern world and Lestat the French aristocrat turned rock star vampire enchanted me and beat back the cold, fear and loneliness of my actual circumstances. I was still young enough to be a reader who loved both the ridiculous and the sublime and read across every genre and the classics with joy and without judgment. I still remember looking out at the snow on the fire escape and deep dormer windows and diving back into my bed and Lestat’s wolf hunt in his freezing winter and for that I bless Rice a little. 

[peacheslatour]

Quote

I make fun of Rice’s prose and much of it is pretty bad, but I was handed a copy of The Vampire Lestat by a bar customer as a seventeen year old barmaid. I remember reading it in my fifth floor attic walk up in bed with minimal heat and the descriptions of the wonders of the modern world and Lestat the French aristocrat turned rock star vampire enchanted me and beat back the cold, fear and loneliness of my actual circumstances. I was still young enough to be a reader who loved both the ridiculous and the sublime and read across every genre and the classics with joy and without judgment. I still remember looking out at the snow on the fire escape and deep dormer windows and diving back into my bed and Lestat’s wolf hunt in his freezing winter and for that I bless Rice a little. 

This is fantastic. You're  a very good writer yourself.

[sugarbaker design]

1 hour ago, AuntieMame said:

For Rice’s vampires it was all spiritual passion and romantic longing.

Right, not lust.

1 hour ago, AuntieMame said:

Speaking of the Talamasca, I always thought that was a rich vein of unexplored story in Rice’s work as it stands. Much is hinted but only tantalizing glimpses are given. If this becomes a series of long standing I would be thrilled beyond all measure to have new Talamasca material wedded to the old. 

And there's the Talamasca of the Mayfair Witches, like Aaron Lightner.  What was their mission statement?  We have always been here, we have always been watching?  Or something like that.

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

One change I do find interesting (and a bit disappointing) is that the vampires can consummate sex when they couldn’t in the books. The idea was that genitals are, well generative and that vampires are creatures of death and lost their generative abilities even as a source of pleasure. For Rice’s vampires it was all spiritual passion and romantic longing.

I’m okay with how sexuality is portrayed here. Sexual pleasure begins in the mind, and is separate from procreative capabilities (now vampires being fertile would be a little weird). 

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I’m okay with how sexuality is portrayed here. Sexual pleasure begins in the mind, and is separate from procreative capabilities (now vampires being fertile would be a little weird). 

Tell me about it.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

4 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

Rice has always been mega-conflicted about her congenital Catholicism. In the first part of her career she was a critical lapsed Catholic that seemed agnostic. Then she had a late midlife re-conversion and disavowed her entire trashy body of work and publicly announced that she would have no truck with vampires or witches any longer and wrote (bad) books about Jesus and angels. Then about ten years ago she went back to a spiritual agnosticism and back to her roots. If I had to guess I think that apologetics on the reason for evil just don’t work for her no matter how hard she tries to make it so. 

https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128930526/writer-anne-rice-today-i-quit-being-a-christian#:~:text=Press-,Writer Anne Rice%3A 'Today I Quit Being A Christian',to prevent same-sex marriage.  

In the article she says it's not because her son is gay, but I believe she was very close to him, so how could it not make a difference?

[sugarbaker design]

29 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

https://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128930526/writer-anne-rice-today-i-quit-being-a-christian#:~:text=Press-,Writer Anne Rice%3A 'Today I Quit Being A Christian',to prevent same-sex marriage.  

In the article she says it's not because her son is gay, but I believe she was very close to him, so how could it not make a difference?

I believe she meant it just wasn't about her son, but gay people as a whole.  Even if Chris were straight, she would have problems with the Church.  I remember when this happened, she was interviewed on TV, I was watching with my elderly mother.  AR said she had three profound problems with the church:  financially supporting organizations against the legalization of secular same-sex marriage, the treatment of women as 2nd class citizens, and the handling of the pedophile scandals.  My mom, a Catholic all her life, said "I'm with Anne Rice!"

[Glade]

6 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

One change I do find interesting (and a bit disappointing) is that the vampires can consummate sex when they couldn’t in the books. The idea was that genitals are, well generative and that vampires are creatures of death and lost their generative abilities even as a source of pleasure.

I'd think that at least some of the massive amounts of blood they drink every night would lead to swelling in the nether regions, and coupled with the surging hormones of the hunt, I can't see why, even if they don't produce sperm or eggs, they couldn't have sex.  Especially since what we saw on screen thus far was a vampire using sex to seduce a mortal who he knew would be very into that.  If, as has been hinted by the showrunner, we are going to see the relationship between young mortal Daniel Molloy/Armand presented in flashbacks at some point, I imagine there would be more such sex.

[Scarlett45]

7 hours ago, peacheslatour said:

Tell me about it.

That does not bother me because in that lore Vampires are a separate species- not humans turned into vampires. So it makes sense they have families based on procreation. 😂

4 hours ago, Glade said:

I'd think that at least some of the massive amounts of blood they drink every night would lead to swelling in the nether regions, and coupled with the surging hormones of the hunt, I can't see why, even if they don't produce sperm or eggs, they couldn't have sex.  Especially since what we saw on screen thus far was a vampire using sex to seduce a mortal who he knew would be very into that.  If, as has been hinted by the showrunner, we are going to see the relationship between young mortal Daniel Molloy/Armand presented in flashbacks at some point, I imagine there would be more such sex.

Edited so my post better reflects my intention, rather than dismissing others, as @Glade pointed out: 

The clitoris has nothing to do with procreation, that’s one example of sexual pleasure having no connection to procreation that I’m personally familiar with. 

[Glade]

52 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Tl😂

Yes, and sexual pleasure is not connected to procreation for persons assigned female at birth the way it is for persons assigned male at birth. I wonder if we will see any women vampires. 

I'm very uncomfortable with this sweeping statement and it's attempt to box in transgender people and ignore the presence of the prostate which makes gay male sex so pleasurable. Human sexual pleasure is not limited to or tied exclusively to procreation, period.

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, Glade said:

I'm very uncomfortable with this sweeping statement and it's attempt to box in transgender people and ignore the presence of the prostate which makes gay male sex so pleasurable. Human sexual pleasure is not limited to or tied exclusively to procreation, period.

You’re right- let me edit. 

[Glade]

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

You’re right- let me edit. 

Thanks, I appreciate your clarification! And we likely will see adult female vampires in future seasons at least (there are a number in the books, including 2 main characters who could get their own seasons.)

[sugarbaker design]

9 hours ago, Glade said:

Thanks, I appreciate your clarification! And we likely will see adult female vampires in future seasons at least (there are a number in the books, including 2 main characters who could get their own seasons.)

Madeline should make an appearance in upcoming episodes.

[AuntieMame]

On 10/4/2022 at 8:21 AM, peacheslatour said:

This is fantastic. You're  a very good writer yourself.

Oh man, thank you. You’ve made my day. 

On 10/4/2022 at 9:43 AM, sugarbaker design said:

Right, not lust.

And there's the Talamasca of the Mayfair Witches, like Aaron Lightner.  What was their mission statement?  We have always been here, we have always been watching?  Or something like that.

The Talamasca of the Mayfair witches and of the Vampire Chronicles is the same organization just at different points in time and different members and leaders characterized. It’s hinted a couple of times that the Talamasca has a hidden agenda of which most of the members are unaware. I’d love to see this explored. 

On 10/4/2022 at 9:53 AM, Scarlett45 said:

I’m okay with how sexuality is portrayed here. Sexual pleasure begins in the mind, and is separate from procreative capabilities (now vampires being fertile would be a little weird). 

I understand that sexuality is multifaceted and that mind body dualism is a continuing ideological evil in terms of how humans think of themselves and order their world. Rice’s point was that sexuality is definitive of life whether generative or pleasurable emotionally or physically and was thus inimical to vampires. Rice also hinted that this loss was the price of immortality and the other vampiric gifts. Like I said, I thought it was an interesting idea even though back in the day she was criticized as it being homophobic. 
It wasn’t my intention to say that sex was only reproductive or didn’t have other components or deny the realities of human anatomy or physiology. I thought that all of these things were assumed as a given by other adults. 
 

Edited October 5, 2022 by AuntieMame
Typos and Additions

[AuntieMame]

On 10/4/2022 at 2:07 PM, Glade said:

I'd think that at least some of the massive amounts of blood they drink every night would lead to swelling in the nether regions, and coupled with the surging hormones of the hunt, I can't see why, even if they don't produce sperm or eggs, they couldn't have sex.  Especially since what we saw on screen thus far was a vampire using sex to seduce a mortal who he knew would be very into that.  If, as has been hinted by the showrunner, we are going to see the relationship between young mortal Daniel Molloy/Armand presented in flashbacks at some point, I imagine there would be more such sex.

Just that this isn’t how Rice wrote it in the novels. This is compare and contrast the novels and the new show. In Rice’s books the vampires lose functional physical sexuality as part of the nature and price of vampirism. It was interpreted as homophobic which never sat right with me even when I wasn’t knowledgeable enough to say why. The show is interpreting this differently. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by AuntieMame

[Glade]

7 hours ago, AuntieMame said:

Just that this isn’t how Rice wrote it in the novels. This is compare and contrast the novels and the new show. In Rice’s books the vampires lose functional physical sexuality as part of the nature and price of vampirism. It was interpreted as homophobic which never sat right with me even when I wasn’t knowledgeable enough to say why. The show is interpreting this differently. 

I've also read most of the books, and I prefer this shows approach thus far.  I don't think it can be denied that homophobia on the part of society, the publishing industry in 1976 and Hollywood in 1994 had an influence on whether or not vampires could be depicted as having gay sex.  Anne herself admitted that she was rejected by many publishers and that she was the one who wrote Louis' fake dead wife into the screenplay for the 1994 film and even suggested turning Louis into a woman played by Cher during it's development hell all to make it less gay/ more palatable to straight movie audiences.  So it is progress to show them having some sex, that they don't have to be chaste and sexless.

[AuntieMame]

Homophobia on the part of society I absolutely agree with you. But a fair bit of the criticism back in the day tried to spin Rice as homophobic and I never agreed with that given the intense love between many of her same sex characters. 

8 hours ago, Glade said:

I've also read most of the books, and I prefer this shows approach thus far.  I don't think it can be denied that homophobia on the part of society, the publishing industry in 1976 and Hollywood in 1994 had an influence on whether or not vampires could be depicted as having gay sex.  Anne herself admitted that she was rejected by many publishers and that she was the one who wrote Louis' fake dead wife into the screenplay for the 1994 film and even suggested turning Louis into a woman played by Cher during it's development hell all to make it less gay/ more palatable to straight movie audiences.  So it is progress to show them having some sex, that they don't have to be chaste and sexless.

[nodorothyparker]

20 hours ago, Glade said:

I don't think it can be denied that homophobia on the part of society, the publishing industry in 1976 and Hollywood in 1994 had an influence on whether or not vampires could be depicted as having gay sex.  Anne herself admitted that she was rejected by many publishers and that she was the one who wrote Louis' fake dead wife into the screenplay for the 1994 film and even suggested turning Louis into a woman played by Cher during it's development hell all to make it less gay/ more palatable to straight movie audiences.  So it is progress to show them having some sex, that they don't have to be chaste and sexless.

I know over the years I've read interviews where it fell somewhere between hinting at and all but saying outright that in writing these books in the '70s and '80s and trying to find a market for them in that same era when the news was terrifying the public with stories about "gay cancer" that Rice pretty much had to give herself some degree of plausible deniability if she didn't want to be stuffed into some tiny niche corner if she could sell the books at all before she ever had a chance to find an audience. Were the vampires gay? Weeeeeell ... That's been one of the more interesting things for me going back and rereading bits now, just how much was implied but was still written so it could be open to interpretation by '80s sensibilities. I also remember when she rebooted the boys for the last couple of books just how much more overt it all seemed and how some people seemed to be so taken aback by that. But those last three books came out between 2014 and 2018, which was a very very different world than 1985 or especially 1976 when IWtV came out.

This subject is particularly interesting to me because so many of us found these books in our teens as they were being released and I know similarly aged fans of the series who really didn't pick up on how queer coded the series was, to the point that I've been in an ongoing argument with someone who refuses to give the show a shot. I knew it was going to be a hard sell because he tends to be a pain in the ass canon purist on most things anyway, but one of his objections was "now that everybody's gay." Okay. You really didn't pick up on that before? No, he really didn't. The vampires were written as being physically incapable of sex so in his mind they weren't.