Compare & Contrast: Book vs Movie vs Show

[dwmarch]

On 11/15/2022 at 6:58 PM, magdalene said:

I am curious about that too.  Since  they actually changed who "kills" Lestat in the show.

It's possible. Lestat has already name-dropped Those Who Must Be Kept so by the time he meets Louis he's already had blood from Akasha (which should be the explanation for why Lestat is so much stronger than Louis and can do all kinds of neat things that Louis can't do). Claudia had an encounter with Killer, who is the maker of Baby Jenks in Queen of the Damned. Baby Jenks was a vampire in her teens like Claudia is in this show. So it seems like they could just mush the two characters together and have Claudia appear in modern times only to be toasted by Akasha like Baby Jenks was in the book. I don't see how Armand could kill Claudia and still end up as Louis' great love unless there is some mind control mojo going on.

[magdalene]

2 hours ago, dwmarch said:

I don't see how Armand could kill Claudia and still end up as Louis' great love unless there is some mind control mojo going on.

Me neither. I don't like Armand.  I admit I am looking at him through Lestat's eyes which is hardly objective. One of the shittiest things Armand does is make Lestat believe  for a long time that Louis is also dead.  Claudia wasn't just executed because she attempted to kill her maker - a big no-no. They also kill her because she was made at such a young age, also a big no-no. Since they changed her age for the TV show, anything goes now.

[Snow Apple]

I saw the movie this weekend and I'd forgotten how over the top Tom Cruise was in a good way. He was hilarious and seemed to be having a blast with the role, especially compared to Brad Pitt who was having a hard time in his personal life at that time. 

I liked movie Lestat's relationship with Claudia in the movie. Yes, he turned her to keep Louie with him but he seemed to love her too and had fun with her. He seemed hurt when they were fighting.

The TV show only show a little fun in the beginning when Claudia was first turned, but then seem to despise each other after that.

And uh, I don't know how I missed gay subtext (and just text) back in the day. Looks so obvious to me now.

[Scarlett45]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:03 PM, Snow Apple said:

I saw the movie this weekend and I'd forgotten how over the top Tom Cruise was in a good way. He was hilarious and seemed to be having a blast with the role, especially compared to Brad Pitt who was having a hard time in his personal life at that time. 

I liked movie Lestat's relationship with Claudia in the movie. Yes, he turned her to keep Louie with him but he seemed to love her too and had fun with her. He seemed hurt when they were fighting.

The TV show only show a little fun in the beginning when Claudia was first turned, but then seem to despise each other after that.

And uh, I don't know how I missed gay subtext (and just text) back in the day. Looks so obvious to me now.

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I think that it’s harder to see Lestat and Claudia having any sort of relationship in the show version because Claudia has been aged up. Book Claudia needed parents for a lot longer, and it seems that movie Lestat was way less possessive of Louis than show Lestat was portrayed to be. Perhaps that’s because they could be explicit with their sexual relationship in the show?

[ALKOHOLIC]

Why is there discussion about the consequences of publishing the new memoirs of Louis, i.e., vampires climbing the Dubai towers as mentioned in the AMC series?  The initial book was transcribed from the cassette tapes and published by David.  Educate me.   

[ALKOHOLIC]

Armand is not a cool vampire. I rather see Marius or Gabrielle. Louis is decent but I forgot about him after the first book and found it hilarious how Lestat chided David's first publishing of Louis's initial account.  

Edited December 10, 2022 by ALKOHOLIC
I am learning about forum posting.

[Scarlett45]

1 hour ago, ALKOHOLIC said:

Why is there discussion about the consequences of publishing the new memoirs of Louis, i.e., vampires climbing the Dubai towers as mentioned in the AMC series?  The initial book was transcribed from the cassette tapes and published by David.  Educate me.   

They haven’t really dived into that yet. I’m kinda of waiting for it but they spend about 80% of each episode in the past that I am not sure when that will happen. 

[dwmarch]

2 hours ago, ALKOHOLIC said:

Why is there discussion about the consequences of publishing the new memoirs of Louis, i.e., vampires climbing the Dubai towers as mentioned in the AMC series?  The initial book was transcribed from the cassette tapes and published by David.  Educate me. 

This isn't in Interview With the Vampire but seems to be adapted from two different sources in later books. First and foremost, this happens when Lestat becomes a rock star and releases a bunch of songs and videos detailing deep, secret vampire lore (Those Who Must Be Kept - Akasha and Enkil who were the very first vampires). Vampires declare open season on him because they do not take kindly to these secrets being revealed. This culminates in a big vampire attack at a Lestat concert (which starts at the end of The Vampire Lestat and continues in Queen of the Damned). Akasha shows up and starts toasting fools left and right but leaves Lestat's crew alone because she has Lestat in her thrall. I don't know how much of this will find its way into the show. The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned could cover a couple of seasons in and of themselves and Louis is a minor character in both books.

Second, Armand's origin story (which is covered from several angles in several of the books) features a very similar attack where a group of Satan-worshiping vampires climb the walls and grab him (back in the day but shortly after he has been vamped), separating him from Marius. I don't remember the exact motivation for the attack but I think it was along the lines that Marius' lifestyle was too close to humanity and he was endangering vampires by being so open.

So long stories short, the first rule of Vampire Club is don't talk about Vampire Club.

[nodorothyparker]

I'm honestly not sure IWtV as a book actually exists in this telling yet. It's entirely possible I missed something but I got the impression from the way they're framing it that Louis attacked a drugged out Daniel at the end of their 1973 interview and the tapes kind of moldered after that like a bad fever dream until now. Given how badly we see the vampire world reacting to IWtV and then Lestat's memoir and "coming out" so to speak both in that book and in QotD because the first rule of vampire club is indeed that you don't tell mortals about vampire club (or at least any of the real names or specifics of it to confirm that it's not just genre fiction), it makes me think they'll at least keep some version of that plotline intact.

[dwmarch]

Season 2, episode 1 has some interesting contrasts to the book. The feral vampires do exist but I don't recall Louis and Claudia having a particularly significant encounter with them. The "mother" of the feral vamps is a new character but she is also a reference to Magnus, who threw himself onto a fire after siring Lestat (in the next book).

The ghost of Lestat doesn't haunt Louis but there are ghost characters in later novels including the ghosts of vampires. This could also be telepathic trickery although I don't think there is much of that in the books from vampire to vampire.

We also had a reference to "ancient" vampires not needing blood. I don't know how much this show is going to embrace the books but Armand is by no means ancient. He is still just a puppy by vampire standards and of vampires we get to know, he's actually one of the youngest at a mere 500 years old. The show has already referenced Those Who Must be Kept. Now those two are ancient. But there is certainly precedent in the books for the blood of an ancient conferring similar powers on a young vampire. They haven't come out and said it on the show yet but I think this is why Lestat is so much stronger than Louis.

[Ohiopirate02]

24 minutes ago, dwmarch said:

Season 2, episode 1 has some interesting contrasts to the book. The feral vampires do exist but I don't recall Louis and Claudia having a particularly significant encounter with them. The "mother" of the feral vamps is a new character but she is also a reference to Magnus, who threw himself onto a fire after siring Lestat (in the next book).

They do meet and kill a feral vampire in the book.  The show used that part of the book in tonight's episode even including the random Englishman in Romania who's bride gets attacked.  The female vampire is a show creation.  

[nodorothyparker]

I initially thought the sad "mother" vampire was maybe some version of the mad vampire queen Armand ushers into the fire as the Paris cemetery coven is breaking up, but I guess in the end it doesn't matter. She was their introduction to the kinder, gentler vampires Claudia has convinced herself must be out there somewhere. She was also an object lesson in what being a vampire alone in the world may lead to. Sort of like when they're all in about going on to Paris I just keep wanting to ask, the only old world or Parisian vampire you've met up to this point was Lestat, who warned you about monsters out there. What possibly makes you think anyone there is A. going to really be any better or B. not potentially have known Lestat?

I promised myself I'd try to keep an open mind to this version/casting of Armand, but it's still really not landing for me.

Edited May 13 by nodorothyparker

[dwmarch]

3 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

I initially thought the sad "mother" vampire was maybe some version of the mad vampire queen Armand ushers into the fire as the Paris cemetery coven is breaking up

I vaguely remember her, she's one of the characters who shows up way later (like Prince Lestat era, shortly before Anne Rice died) as a ghost. I thought the character in the episode (Daciana) was also somewhat reminiscent of Gabrielle, Lestat's mom, who mostly lives in the bush and doesn't really care what she looks like.

I'm not sure what to make of the blood lore in this episode. Blood being tainted by sadness or human suffering wasn't really a thing in the books. But here it seems to have a physical effect on the vampires (perhaps as a subtle way of hanging a lampshade on the actress switch for Claudia?). We also have Daciana saying Claudia's blood is "like cream from the top of a milk bucket" which is somewhat consistent with the novels except that Claudia has already been established on this show as having blood so weak she cannot even create another vampire. But I guess Daciana hasn't had a good meal for a while and I think Louis did say they were up in the thousands for kills so I guess Claudia's blood would be markedly better than that of post-WW2 peasants in Soviet-occupied Romania. We may have also seen Daciana going into a trance and having a vision from the blood which is again something from the books but again not something Claudia should be able to do.

I am pretty sure the show is messing with us on what will kill vampires. Louis seemed almost amused by the gunfire into the corpses. The superstitious villagers behead that poor woman which I believe is fatal in the books (in Vittorio the Vampire, several vamps are beheaded but then the heads are thrown into direct sunlight) but Daciana kills the feral vampire by bashing its skull in and kills one of her attempted vampires by slitting the throat. I feel like this was done to suggest that vampires could die this way, making us think Lestat is truly gone. In any case, this episode certainly established that not all vampires are created equal.

[nodorothyparker]

Since we've been shown that liquor or poison in human blood can at least temporarily affect vampires enough to immobilize them, I'm guessing the show decided to take that one step further with the "sadness" of the absolute destruction of World War II being the reason why the only Eastern European vampires they meet are a total bust. We're never really given a satisfactory explanation for it in the book.

I thought too that they were being pretty lackadaisical with vampire lore in suggesting that bashing a head in or slitting a throat was a permanent death. Even Claudia scratching the first "child's" eyes out should have been a temporary inconvenience at best. There are instances in the first couple of books of hands or limbs being taken as punishments and later reattached via the magic of healing vampire blood and we're told that Maharet for example has been stealing mortal eyes for thousands of years to replace the ones she lost. But again, maybe the vampire mother in her isolation doesn't know you can do that and apparently the "sadness" has weakened her to the point that she can only make weak damaged things that can't survive. She also can't adapt enough to imagine doing things any other way even when offered an out.

[Ohiopirate02]

7 hours ago, dwmarch said:

I vaguely remember her, she's one of the characters who shows up way later (like Prince Lestat era, shortly before Anne Rice died) as a ghost. I thought the character in the episode (Daciana) was also somewhat reminiscent of Gabrielle, Lestat's mom, who mostly lives in the bush and doesn't really care what she looks like.

I'm not sure what to make of the blood lore in this episode. Blood being tainted by sadness or human suffering wasn't really a thing in the books. But here it seems to have a physical effect on the vampires (perhaps as a subtle way of hanging a lampshade on the actress switch for Claudia?). We also have Daciana saying Claudia's blood is "like cream from the top of a milk bucket" which is somewhat consistent with the novels except that Claudia has already been established on this show as having blood so weak she cannot even create another vampire. But I guess Daciana hasn't had a good meal for a while and I think Louis did say they were up in the thousands for kills so I guess Claudia's blood would be markedly better than that of post-WW2 peasants in Soviet-occupied Romania. We may have also seen Daciana going into a trance and having a vision from the blood which is again something from the books but again not something Claudia should be able to do.

I am pretty sure the show is messing with us on what will kill vampires. Louis seemed almost amused by the gunfire into the corpses. The superstitious villagers behead that poor woman which I believe is fatal in the books (in Vittorio the Vampire, several vamps are beheaded but then the heads are thrown into direct sunlight) but Daciana kills the feral vampire by bashing its skull in and kills one of her attempted vampires by slitting the throat. I feel like this was done to suggest that vampires could die this way, making us think Lestat is truly gone. In any case, this episode certainly established that not all vampires are created equal.

It's not the show, but the book where bashing the head of a vampire to oblivion kills him.  This is the passage where Louis and Claudia kill the feral vampire.

[ruby24]

I can't help wondering what's going to happen when they get to the next books and Lestat becomes the main character in the series. It's not just that either, Louis is basically a side character after that. I know they'll probably change it, but I still wonder how they're going to do it.

I also can't wait for Lestat to come back. I think the show just needs him. And I want to see him as a rock star, lol. 

Also, Armand and Louis weren't a couple for this long in the books- is this real? I don't like that change, if it is. 

[dwmarch]

I'm watching reviews of the episode and it reminded me of another reference to the books. When Claudia jumps that soldier, rips his heart out and throws it to Louis, this is similar to a scene in Queen of the Damned where Pandora also cracks a dude's chest so she can enjoy his heart as a separate meal.

Weird that they insist again that one is not supposed to drink the blood of dead people (and the feral vamp doesn't seem bothered by this either). By the time that heart gets to Louis, that dude is guaranteed dead. Vampire five second rule perhaps?

6 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Also, Armand and Louis weren't a couple for this long in the books- is this real? I don't like that change, if it is. 

In Queen of the Damned, it's Armand and Daniel who are the couple. It will be interesting to see if any of that plays out in the show.

[ruby24]

I don't like the change that Armand and Lestat were also a couple. They definitely weren't in the books- Armand wanted him but Lestat completely rejected him and that's one of the big reasons Armand hates him. They should have kept that.

I also don't think Armand and Louis were together for anywhere near 77 years- I don't like that change either.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I don't like the change that Armand and Lestat were also a couple. They definitely weren't in the books- Armand wanted him but Lestat completely rejected him and that's one of the big reasons Armand hates him. They should have kept that.

I also don't think Armand and Louis were together for anywhere near 77 years- I don't like that change either.

I interpreted the part in the books where Louis and Armand traveled the world together as them being a couple.  The part where Armand leaves Louis reads like a breakup.  They were together for decades, maybe not 77 years but decades.

[dwmarch]

My biggest gripe in terms of a difference from the books is how messy the vampires are when they are eating. In the books they were skilled at never missing a drop but I guess this doesn't have enough visual flair for television so instead we get blood everywhere. But we saw in 2x02 that a pack of vampires can descend on a single person and leave a series of tastefully clean bites so I guess when they spill a bunch of blood they are doing it to be dramatic. Or maybe based on 2x01, vampires are a little more animalistic and it takes training to become an eater who only needs a napkin instead of a beach towel.

If anyone is looking for some really deep dives into the lore and differences between the books and show, Maven of the Eventide at Youtube does hour-long reviews of each episode. She's an encyclopedia of Anne Rice lore and where there is a deviation from the books she'll get into the details. Be advised though, she starts each video off with an exaggerated faux vampire accent.

[nodorothyparker]

21 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I don't like the change that Armand and Lestat were also a couple. They definitely weren't in the books- Armand wanted him but Lestat completely rejected him and that's one of the big reasons Armand hates him. They should have kept that.

I thought they were implying that Armand and Lestat had had a fling but not a full-blown relationship. Because in this imaging the vampires most explicitly can have sex, they're apparently having sex with anybody and everybody. Which if everybody's beautiful and immortal, sure, go for it. Armand (and I'm sorry but while the actor is certainly beautiful, he is NOT right as book Armand) did describe Lestat as tasting of "vermouth and annihilation." That's funny as hell but not a particular endearment of a former lover. He's also weirdly competitive of Lestat, pointedly mentioning that he and Louis have been together twice as long as Louis was with Lestat.

At least I hope they managed to keep the bones of the book Lestat-Armand relationship intact. Book Lestat didn't want him, all but saying that Armand was far too  limited in his thinking or experience for a newly minted vampire who was off to see the world and making it up as he went along. This becomes Armand's stated reason for basically doing the bare minimum in passing the sentence on Claudia but refusing to otherwise help Lestat recover from his injuries or reclaim Louis. Armand is furious that Lestat came back to Paris most definitely wanting something, but still not wanting Armand.

I'm going to be sorely disappointed if any conflict between Lestat and Armand is reduced to who currently has custody of Louis. 

Edited May 22 by nodorothyparker

[magdalene]

On 5/21/2024 at 4:43 PM, nodorothyparker said:

At least I hope they managed to keep the bones of the book Lestat-Armand relationship intact. Book Lestat didn't want him, all but saying that Armand was far too  limited in his thinking or experience for a newly minted vampire who was off to see the world and making it up as he went along. This become

For what it's worth I watched an interview on youtube where Sam Reid was asked about the relationship between Lestat and Armand and he basically said that he couldn't go into details because of spoilers, but that the relationship was "complicated" and "rather one-sided", with Lestat not caring whether he ever saw Armand again. Grins. That doesn't sound like some great love story to me.

[Mari]

So, in the books Nicky was huge for Lestat--are we thinking that Armand is simply lying or minimizing, that Armand didn't know quite how much it impacted Lestat, or that the show runners are doing something else with that story?

[Ohiopirate02]

24 minutes ago, Mari said:

So, in the books Nicky was huge for Lestat--are we thinking that Armand is simply lying or minimizing, that Armand didn't know quite how much it impacted Lestat, or that the show runners are doing something else with that story?

I think the show wants us to know Armand and also Louis are not giving Daniel the whole story.  As to why they are omitting details or flat out lying, that is what remains to be seen.  I personally think Armand has an agenda with Daniel and cannot wait to see what it is.  Louis, OTOH, comes across as more of a troubled soul who did not set out to lie to Daniel.  He has memory gaps (again why does he have them) and seems to want to fill in the blanks.  It also sets up next season when we get Lestat's version of these events.

ETA--the show may also be pulling from other books in the series like The Vampire Armand and Merrick as they craft their story.  One thing with the books is the overlapping stories found in a few of them.  I would not be surprised if the showrunners decide to use them in their narrative.  

Edited May 30 by Ohiopirate02

[nodorothyparker]

9 hours ago, Mari said:

So, in the books Nicky was huge for Lestat--are we thinking that Armand is simply lying or minimizing, that Armand didn't know quite how much it impacted Lestat, or that the show runners are doing something else with that story?

Could be a combination of the two. Nicky matters to Lestat. He's a means to an end for Armand at that point and will go into the fire not long after the events of this particular story take place. So why would Armand choose to dwell on that detail in his telling?

Notice that he didn't mention Gabrielle at all, but she's very much in the story at this point and part of the equation for why Lestat doesn't stick around Paris or show any interest in partnering up with Armand. He tells Lestat point blank that she'll leave him sooner than later (and does) in making his pitch for Lestat to stay with him but Lestat chooses literally anything and anyone else over him. No, in this telling he simply "disappears into the night."

[magdalene]

There isn't any chance that they would have changed Claudia's ultimate fate for this series, is there?

Who is the body wrapped in plastic?

[Mr. Sparkle]

44 minutes ago, magdalene said:

There isn't any chance that they would have changed Claudia's ultimate fate for this series, is there?

I doubt it. I think that would really hurt the story, even though it's changed a lot from the novel. 

45 minutes ago, magdalene said:

Who is the body wrapped in plastic?

In pure speculation, I think it's someone Daniel killed in the past. 

[iMonrey]

Can someone help me out with the premise here? From what I can gather, Daniel once interviewed Louis in San Francisco back in the 1970s, but nothing ever came of that interview, right? And now he's interviewing him again? In present day? And with Armand present. 

I do not remember this scenario from either the book or the movie. As I recall there was only one interview, with only Louis and Daniel, and Armand was out of the picture by then. 

Do I have this right?

[Mr. Sparkle]

Yes, the book is Daniel interviewing Louis one time, and Daniel is described as "the boy" IIRC. This second interview with Daniel as an older man is from the series only. Armand is also only present in Louis' recollection of his time in Paris. 

[Ohiopirate02]

16 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Can someone help me out with the premise here? From what I can gather, Daniel once interviewed Louis in San Francisco back in the 1970s, but nothing ever came of that interview, right? And now he's interviewing him again? In present day? And with Armand present. 

I do not remember this scenario from either the book or the movie. As I recall there was only one interview, with only Louis and Daniel, and Armand was out of the picture by then. 

Do I have this right?

The present day interview is a show conceit.  In the books, Daniel only ever interviews Louis once in San Francisco back in the 70s and that interview is the first book.  Daniel shows up in later books with a whole section of The Queen of the Damned devoted to Daniel and Armand.

[nodorothyparker]

One interview in the books, which is the basis for the book Interview with the Vampire. Lestat being Lestat of course responds with The Vampire Lestat, the second book in the series.  These books exist within this universe. You also only get the one interview in the movie as well, and Armand is only past tense in both.

The show has been treating that initial interview in the '70s almost like a fever dream that Daniel tried to forget about afterward until the tapes of the interview showed up on his doorstep. Show Daniel has admitted being high throughout some of it and doesn't remember it clearly, only vaguely remembering last season that Armand was also there. This second interview is a show-only thing where Louis claims to be trying to set the record straight.

You find out in the third book, Queen of the Damned, where we next see Daniel again that Louis drained Daniel pretty badly scaring the hell out of him at the end of the interview and he hasn't really been right since. I assume from the previews and bits of interview tape we've already heard that the show is about to give us some version of that, now with Louis-Armand tag team action.

Edited June 4 by nodorothyparker

[ruby24]

So, the Paris stuff seems to be following the last half of the book pretty faithfully, so I'm hoping this means we get the real Lestat back soon. Maybe episode 7? But the real question for me is how they fudged the timeline from the 70's to the present day regarding the book stuff and everything that happens in The Vampire Lestat.

I'm guessing...they're going to move all the rock star Lestat stuff up to the present day? I hope so- they can't deny us that part, I need it! But it can't still have happened in the 80's given that present day Louis seems to be under mind control of Armand and still thinks Lestat is dead. Or am I wrong- have they mentioned The Vampire Lestat (the book) existing at all?

 

[ruby24]

I'm also very interested in seeing how Lestat is different from his own POV, because in the books he's very different and lot less evil. Actually from Vampire Lestat on he has a lot of regrets and emotions about Claudia that we never knew about before- I wonder if they'll stay accurate to that.

[ruby24]

So in the book when Lestat came back at the end, I remember him being all apologetic and kind of crazy- he wasn't his normal self. I don't think that's what they're doing here with him now though in this next episode. I wonder what he's going to do.

[nodorothyparker]

In the book, Armand had locked up a very weakened Lestat until he gave in to telling the story Armand wanted him to tell to condemn Claudia and spare Louis. So he was very definitely less than his full self, at least as Louis tells it. Lestat looks pretty healthy as far as vampires go in the promos, so I'm hoping we can skip some of Armand fucking with him because I'm just over this version of Armand's mind games on everyone.

I am enjoying the Easter eggs they're throwing at book readers: Claudia in her bright yellow dress and Raglan James saying he wished he could switch bodies with Daniel to get closer to the vampires.

[dwmarch]

I thought the body switch line was a little clunky. Like why Daniel? That didn't really make a lot of sense in context. I wonder if anyone who hasn't read the books (or who hasn't gotten as far as The Tale of the Body Thief) found that to be a weirdly specific thing for Raglan to say. It also takes me out of the story a little seeing Justin Kirk in the role, as I will forever associate him with Andy from Weeds. Now there's a reference I'd like to see them drop. Have Raglan meet the vampires and start telling them the joys of microwaving a banana peel.

[Glade]

This was thrilling, beautiful, and absolutely insane!  I love how they addressed Lestat dropping Louis, and how they recapped their entire relationship.  I also love all the development given to Madeline this season, including this episode, where it makes sense she has no idea what's going on, since she never even met Lestat and Antoinette. The courtroom theatre openly addressing her innocence and giving her some agency was a huge improvement over the book/film.  And even though she was labelled a selfish traitor, a collaborationist, she did not forsake Claudia to save herself and sign on to joining the coven of these ghouls.  The real Lestat can be quite worse off then Louis saw/remembered him being in these scenes.  And it looks like Armand is going to come clean next week about his bullshit lies here, I can't wait for that!  This is so much better than Anne Rice's plan to let the movie stand on it's own and begin the tv series with TVL. 

Edited June 23 by Glade

[ruby24]

So if the show keeps going (fingers crossed!) and they get to The Vampire Lestat, we're going to get Akasha, right? I can't wait.

I have a feeling on this show they will make her have a torrid affair with Lestat- despite the fact that the books aren't like, explicitly sexual or romantic like the show has made it, whatever was going on with Lestat and Akasha seemed to be to me, at least her obsession with him. That will be very interesting to see what they do with it onscreen. Even though he always loves Louis.

I hope they reveal to us that Armand is the one who masterminded all of this that happened in this episode- in the book he was controlling Lestat, who is still weakened, and he definitely wanted Claudia out of the way, so it seems ridiculous to me that Louis believes that one dude standing in front of him was somehow "blocking" him from getting out. Really? 

Edited June 24 by ruby24

[Mari]

Did Lestat have a lot of choice in the Akasha thing?  Because my spotty recall thinks of it as questionable consent.

And the production team has said that Lestat and Louis are endgame, so how do you think they're going to keep Louis around when they do The Vampire Lestat?  Subconscious Louis won't work for a lot of Lestat's story and they're surely going to have to figure some way to incorporate the actor?

[ruby24]

Yeah, I'm wondering how they do that too. My guess is they will probably be incorporating material from the other books as well? Also, whatever's going on in the present day is made up, I think, since the timeline's completely different. But they pulled in the Talamasca already, so that's one subplot that can be done.

Louis and Armand are going to have to break up in the present day, so that has to happen.

I don't know how they keep doing all the other books in the structure of the same interview/flashback, given some of what's supposed to happen here.

Didn't they mention something in the first season about a potential war/conflict with humans and vampires? That's ultimately the Akasha stuff, so I'm assuming all of that, with the vampires coming together to defeat her, is going to happen in the present.

But we also have to meet some of the other vamps first, like Marius. And Gabrielle, probably.

Maybe...Lestat comes into the interview somehow so he can give his life story? After Armand is kicked out once his betrayals are revealed? Something like that?

[dwmarch]

I'm watching the latest Maven of the Eventide review on Youtube and she reminded me that there is a significant difference between this episode and what we learn in The Vampire Armand. In this episode she gets chewed on by some rats and that's basically it for her torture. In The Vampire Armand, Armand cuts her head off and tries sewing it onto the body of an adult vampire. I'm glad we didn't see that filmed.

[Mari]

16 minutes ago, dwmarch said:

 In The Vampire Armand, Armand cuts her head off and tries sewing it onto the body of an adult vampire. I'm glad we didn't see that filmed.

Okay.  Not convinced of ShowArmand's stability at all, but he does seem to be slightly less horrible than BookArmand.   

[ruby24]

Oh wow, I don't remember that part.

[ruby24]

Yay! The show's renewed for Season 3! And it's going to be about Lestat starting a band and going on tour, woo-hoo! Promises to include Gabrielle, Marius, etc.

So, The Vampire Lestat, here we come! My only question is when is all this taking place? In the past or the present? 

[Ohiopirate02]

44 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Yay! The show's renewed for Season 3! And it's going to be about Lestat starting a band and going on tour, woo-hoo! Promises to include Gabrielle, Marius, etc.

So, The Vampire Lestat, here we come! My only question is when is all this taking place? In the past or the present? 

My best guess is that it will be a hybrid much like the novel, but Rockstar Lestat will be present day.

I also think that new Talamasca show will heavily include Jesse to make way for when this show gets around to adapting The Queen of the Damned. 

[dwmarch]

After the finale, some thoughts about differences from the books.

First, yes Armand does make Daniel into a vampire. However, it is very very different from what we see here. In The Queen of the Damned, Armand and Daniel have this around-the-world chase/romance thing going on and Daniel ends up nearly drinking himself to death which leads to Armand turning him to save him.

Interesting that Lestat directly name-drops Akasha and tells Armand and Louis that they won't be able to kill him on account of her blood. For what it is worth, Akasha was killed by a simple beheading (followed by her heart and brain being eaten) but yes, fire would probably just tickle her. In QotD, Khayman who is as old as Akasha tries to use the fire gift on her but she shrugs it off effortlessly. Akasha on the other hand toasts a ton of vampires who are older than Lestat and Armand put together and who have consumed better blood. I guess in the show, the fire gift works they way they need it to work based on the circumstances.

Speaking of fire, the fire gift is not a Super Mario-style fireball that vampires conjure in their hands to throw at people. The fire gift is deciding you want that other vampire to be on fire and then they catch fire, from the inside out. You can't burn someone's sleeve with it. Well, you can but the clothes would be the last thing to burn after the vampire was consumed. I imagine that like the messy eating, this was done solely for the audience as there isn't really a way to have the vampires just make a face that conveys pryokinetic rage (as opposed to constipation).

I am pretty sure there are absolutely no scenes in the books where Daniel is interviewed about the interview. I think there is some stuff in the Prince Lestat era about vampire podcasts though.

[ruby24]

We still don't exactly know how Daniel wound up turned. I'm sure we could get a flashback where it's similar to to how it happened in the books. Because when we see him this is some time later, isn't it?

I'm so excited about the next season! So rock star Lestat is going to be in the present day, which is awesome. I can't wait to see who they cast for Gabrielle, Marius and Akasha- they've done a really good job casting all the vamps so far. Ben Daniels was so great as Santiago and I barely even remember him from the book.

Even though Akasha's obsession with Lestat isn't entirely consensual he is pretty entranced by her, so I can't wait to see how they do that. Although, that's more Queen of the Damned I guess.

It's interesting that they had Lestat mention that he already has Akasha's blood in him. He didn't at the end of the first book did he? I thought it's revealed in The Vampire Lestat that he had seen Akasha and Enkil when Marius showed him them but he doesn't bite her until later on when she kidnaps him after his concert. Maybe they'll have it so she wakes up briefly when he first sees them in this one.

Edited July 1 by ruby24

[nodorothyparker]

Lestat drinks from Akasha during his time with Marius, which happens in TVL before he ever goes to New Orleans. Marius makes a point of asking him if he's sure he wants to do that because the combo of Magnus, then Marius, then Akasha's blood is likely to make him pretty much beyond killing even if he's horribly injured. It's such a lovely little Easter egg for book readers. Armand at this point in the original book wouldn't have had any idea who Akasha was -- he isn't even sure if Marius is still alive anywhere at the time -- although I think there was a bit of retconning that later in The Vampire Armand.

I'm chalking the fire in the hand thing up to it making for better visuals for TV in the same way that these vampires are pretty messy bloody eaters even if they're pretty fastidious in the books about not wasting a drop. 

I'm really good with the cast the show has of this being more of an ensemble piece as they seem to be signaling, just as it makes sense with this version of Armand for him to have made a much older Daniel a vampire seemingly out of spite after he blew everything with Louis to hell. There's so many interesting characters in the books who disappear for entire books at a time and so many things that seem to be hinted at just off page. I'm ridiculously excited to see what they do with Gabrielle. The books are a bit of a sausage fest at this point and I love how she's just over being anything to anybody even before Lestat turns her. I'm also curious to see in this Game of Thrones-era of incest for everybody what they do with their quasi-Oedipal relationship.

Edited July 1 by nodorothyparker

[iMonrey]

I remember in the movie they put Claudia and Madeline in a well and waiting for the sun to come up. Is that how it happened in the book too? I actually preferred that scenario to the theater performance which I found tedious. To be fair I found all the theater stuff tedious.

[ruby24]

They definitely dragged the theater stuff out to fill the whole season with it. I never liked that stuff in the book either but I enjoyed it on the show for the most part.

But when you think about how many years spanned in the first season (30) compared to this season (5), you can see it was dragged out. I mean, all the Paris stuff only took place from 1940-45.