Ep. 7 of Interview with the Vampire will kick you in the shins at Comic-Con
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2022
- A one-sided point of view is not the same thing as a lying/unreliable narrator.
Support Vampire Reviews on Patreon: / mavenoftheeventide
The Company of Death by Elisa Hansen: amzn.to/2DgH8rx (this link is for USA. Search your own country's Amazon site, if you are international)
The Maven of the Eventide Discord server: / discord
A list of ALL the vampire books (and films etc) in the Vampire Library: www.amazon.com/shop/mavenofth...
Mailing address:
Elisa Hansen
PO Box 480749
Charlotte, NC 28269 - Zábava
When Louis said that Armand is the love of his life, I literally yelled, "That man murdered your child!" I can't wait to see how the show explains that change.
The missing pages are the pages that will incriminate him. He hides them and does some “I’m an elder” mind fuckiness on him and viola! That’s my theory but I can wait to see!
An argentinian friend told me that in the period when Lestat mentions about going to Buenos Aires, this city was pretty much like Paris, so I think it makes a lot of sense that he talks about going there
Hii! I'm Argentinian and that's totally true. I thought the same. Lestat would have rocked my country😊
For sure! Buenos Aires was HAPPENING during that time, The Place to Be ✨
Lástima que no vinieron, te imaginás si filmaban acá?
I think the whole point of season one and the big reveal from Rasheed is supposed to show that Louis was never telling a true to his own experience story as I suspect Armand has altered his memories and thoughts. That’s how I took the first season anyway 🤷🏻♂️
I feel like that last scene was Loius deluding himself. Him and Armand are codependent and it's easy to see how that may look to him as true love.
44:38
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe that Louis only slit Lestat’s throat to purge him of the poisoned blood.
It’s the same reason he sent him to the landfill- he knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to keep Lestat alive ;)
Omg I didn’t think of that! Bc he had to know he would not die from that!
YESS! I thought the same thing -- Louis was letting out all the bad blood and saving Lestat!
I felt like that, at very least, certainly might have been a part of what Daniel was suggesting[ when he was questioning Louis about it] too.
@@NicoleM_radiantbaby Hmmm.🤔 Considering of course that in the novel it was a 5 year old Claudia who slit his throat out of hatred.
"the books will always be right here" is the most important thing to remember when watching any adaptation. They can't ruin your memories unless you let them. ETA I am totally on board for this version, faithful or not. It gay, it's bloody, it's compelling.
I feel like I'm the only one who, after considering the particular changes that have been made(like age-ups, slight increases in active agency for Louis, and race!bends), this version actually _is_ a very faithful adaptation.😅😅 ((But I also get why it's difficult to get past the domino effects of those changes and accept it, when for some people those changes make all the difference in what meant everything to them about the originals.))
Perhaps I'm overthinking, but I seriously doubt either of the vampires in the room would trust the general public with accurate information on how to kill a vampire... So I fully believe he lied there.
Armand saying he always protects Louis from himself was a red flag!
Yes indeed! I said it somewhere else and I’ll say it again: even though Armand is rarely shown in any film adaptation of Anne Rice‘s work, from what I’ve read, I definitely get the impression he is a meticulous mastermind of manipulating other vampires/humans.
Right Louie just went from one abuser to another
I mean.. (oyy-saying the correct name here is going to take me some getting used to, I think🙃 😅🤭🤭😁)Armand may even genuinely have the best of intentions, but you can't truly protect someone without giving proper consideration to what they themself actually do or don't want, and not just what you think they should want or what you think is best for them no matter if they actually want it or not, so it can be a pretty fine line too easy to cross sometimes. 👀
You blew through the fact that on the phone Armand mentions something about “when will it arrive?” What going to arrive? A coffin?
Ok girl. I need to say a few things. One, I watched every single one of these, so obviously I've enjoyed them and found value in them. THAT BEING SAID, I'm more than a little miffed at the "serious fans don't like this show" comment. I've been a fan for over thirty years. I've grown up with these books. Anne Rice is a major figure in my life; she has informed my views on art, culture, music, books. I spent a big portion of the early 2000's DEEP in the wacky fandom. My husband recently asked me how many times have I read IWtV and TVL, and I honestly couldn't answer, it's that many times.
I love the show. I did notice some of the continuity errors, like Louis' birthday, and those are things I will hope they fix in the next season. I hope they get better about that, because if they want recognition from mainstream awards, as a queer black goth show, they have to be *impecable.* and they weren't. BUT I did think they got the essence of the characters. I felt Lestat. Haven't you seen the fandom memes that Sam Reid is possessed by Lestat? How can so many people feel that way if he isn't getting the essence of the character? Louis was LOUIS. Claudia.... I will agree that Claudia was completely different, but aging her up the way the did would automatically change the character significantly. I thought New Orleans was exactly the way it's described by Louis in the book. I can't wait to see more Armand (I called it right off the bat, too).
If they had changed the names of the characters, the title, and all other relevant detail and put it out there as something else, we would all be screaming about how they were ripping off Interview and Anne.
But there were so many illogical things. Like why did Louis even kill Lestate... Or planned to?
In the movie it's comprehensible.
But here they even lifed apart for 4 years and Lestate wouldnt and didnt force himself on them.
He also isnt as evil, he finds pleasure in killing but so ist she.
And Louis realy didnt bother all that much.
It's just odd.
And then Amande? Why is she disgusing or dropping it? I mean 🤷♂️
And why did Louis even get upset in the first place?
I think they made Louis weak and borderline crazy, a whimp who I lost sympathy with in this episode, who murdered his big love without reason, who couldnt protect nor Talk to his daughter or do anything alone at all and that seems his reason to murder Lestate... But even that he couldnt go through with... They made Louis the epitome of a Loser. 😬
I agree. I inherited the fandom from my mother (by that I mean she went to book signings in costume when she was my age, and has passed down the love of the books to me), so obviously they have a profound and meaningful place in my heart. I am currently taking a class at my university centered on book to film adaptations, and I think the central question of that class is relevant here. What makes a "good adaptation"? For a lot of people (perhaps Maven), unless a thing is very, very, very book-accurate, it is a bad adaptation. For others, some creative liberties are fine, and for some, as long as the "spirit" is kept, it's great. All of this is very subjective. I wish fandom conversations in general, but especially around this show, kept in mind the nuances involved in adaptation. No film adaptation is EVER going to be the book, it's impossible, since the book already exists. I for one, think that the vast majority of changes they made are either interesting enough that they add new layers of depth to the story, or at the least, can be logically explained from a production standpoint. I love the books, and I am obsessed with this show. Your last point is especially poignant, also. It's impossible to please everyone, and I for one applaud their bravery in the artistic choices they made, if nothing else. Sometimes people just want to be outraged no matter what, and that's fine. I just wish it could be less vitriolic.
@@isabellp.5730Lord of the Rings managed.. 🤷♂️
I, for one, wanted to finally see The Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned brought to life in all it's glory. Trim the fat for the adaptation. Focus it. But, if you're going to change everyone's personality and destroy the core lore of the universe, why not just make it an original story?
*speaking as a fan that had my teenage mind blown in the early nineties who owns a treasured signed copy of Merrick by the genius, herself. (she was wearing the most fabulous shoes that day)
🖤
I came here to say this. Thank you for saving me time. ♥️
I think that it is interesting, really, that the season decided to drop the Armand reveal almost exclusively for the book readers because based on what we know of Armand and his capacity for doing whatever it is that he likes doing, I am thoroughly enjoying the wildest and most utterly unhinged theories out there coming from piecing together the scantest of evidence (from Louis loving books and the bookshelves being only accessible by a flying vampire which means Armand dictates what Louis reads) to Louis' personality changes from the cold, reserved distant one during most of the interview, and the panicked one whenever Daniel points out the inconsistencies (the rain, and then later Lestat), to things being present in the bowl of blood beings served to Louis to Armand psyching Louis somehow by offering his own blood (or the bowl of blood basically being Armand's blood), and so so so many more. It is going to be a mad wait until season 2, but what makes me happier is that I have managed to indoctrinate at least 3 more people to read the Chronicles and ultimately, that is what matters the most.
🙌🏽🙌🏽🙌🏽
indoctrinating normies to the cult of anne rice is indeed the best thing to do with the show 🧛♂
and I think the mind control thing, is more about the powers: A powerful vampire should be able to project thoughts into a fledgling. Plus that feels consistent with Armand's characterization: He's controlling of Louie, just like Lestat, but in different ways. Lestat not being able to control a fledging he himself made seems somewhere this show would go.
But for Louis to say Armand is the love of his life, maybe Armand makes it seem like it's all super romantic and doting or something-like, who needs ladders, we can totes just fly up together and read anytime!! (Or something like that!) 😏😅🤭🤭👀
Spirit means essence, I think the show definitely has the essence. It’s a fresh, modern reimagining of a 50 year old story. Can’t wait for season 2.
I personally think that Louis is still the same person as in the books. He’s still depressed and brooding, it’s just because of Armond that he can put on this facade of confidence and swagger. In reality he’s so sad about everything that has happened, and his life is still falling apart. He’s only been able to not crack his shell when previous contradictions came up because they didn’t hit him as hard. If you remember he said that he can read the moments where he failed her, I think that is the moment or one of them that he was talking about. I think Armond cut those pages out “for Louis’s sake” and has essentially just filled the hole of Lestat. He sits in the chair as an older partner, who wears the pants in the relationship. He is someone Louis can cling to like he did Lestat, and someone who can direct him as needed. He still needs someone to take care of him and he’s found his replacement in Armond.
I remember the show being advertised as being not the book or the movie but creating its own third thing and from the first episode I felt like it thoroughly established itself to tell the story in a new way. To me the framing of the interview and Louis unreliability as a narrator is built into the story with Daniel being a stand in for the audience calling out Louis on his inconsistencies and how he is retelling the story entirely different from the first time, the unreliability isn't a bug of the storytelling it's a feature.
I’m so tired of other book fans whining about the changes, none of them break the story or characters, the show was fantastic
I remember that too. It was one of the first things said in the 45 min long behind the scenes video released before premiere. I'm so glad they went in this new direction. The story needed an update. This is so fresh. The original and movie is there, who wants more of the same?
@𝕋𝟛𝕚𝕣 the last time I checked, the levitation scenes are VERY different. In the show they are in the throes of physical passion while floating off the floor a mere few inches butt naked, he’s not being turned. In the movie they are flying into the sky and he’s turning him. Completely different. But to each their own LOL can't please everyone. Stay annoyed. 😘
@𝕋𝟛𝕚𝕣 I love the gifs and the endless fan edits. thank you AMC for that amazing scene 🤩
To me, I though that one of the main themes of the show is that memory is unreliable and ephemeral, and that there is no such thing as a true, definite version of events. All we can ever have are unreliable memories and points of view. I doubt that Louis is deliberately lying, but he is biased just as he was in the 1970's, and his memory focuses on things that he found important.
As for Armand, my theory would be that he wanted to be able to read Daniel's thoughts without the filter of Daniel knowing that he could do that. Possibly out of caution that Daniel might want to harm them, possibly just to ensure that he keeps his part of the bargain. Season 2 will probably explain more.
I feel the same about the story, the story will never be truthfully told, N just like any story, I hope the next season we see some narration from another side.
Are we forgetting the odyssey of recollection conversation from episode 3? Is that not show canon? Isn’t it literally Daniel finding holes in Louis’ story? Doesn’t Louis say something to the tune of allow me to romanticize my story? I have always thought (especially after that scene) he is an unreliable narrator.
Just like I don’t believe we need scenes of racism every episode to know it still bothers the black characters. Racism a lot of times is an annoying thing in the background of life that doesn’t need to be highlighted in our every thoughts and experiences. So I completely understand after Louis is no longer dealing in human affairs he stops talking about it. It’s clear from the scene in the bus this episode and Claudia in the train, they still experience racism even as vampires. I get the surprise the cop or Anderson didn’t throw out a slur on top of the homophobia. But I gotta say for me it wasn’t missed. Since racism is as common as homophobia at that time, I don’t really need the show to constantly remind me they usually coexist in the thoughts of bigots.
Like, I don't mean to be rude, but Maven's comment about the racism not happening since episode three had me rolling my eyes. As a black person, racism isn't always overt things. That bus scene in EP7 - with Louis and Claudia sitting together in the back and Lestat and Attonette (who we see later) sitting in the front - also spoke such volumes. Racism isn't always overt things like what we saw with the Alderman. It's also little systemic things black people face every day but STILL keep going on and living their lives while they deal with it. That bus scene showed the power dynamic and imbalance going on on multiple levels that added to the story that doesn't beat you over the head. Black people don't talk about racism every damn day, even when you have to deal with it every damn day, especially people like Louis and Claudia living in the segregated south their whole lives.
@@cbrownjc7633 exactly! When Claudia left and was on her own and the way she was being treated before "Killer" intervened was some of that racist behavior that often times gets ignored, dismissed or excused because there wasn't an explicit racial slur being hurled. I KNOW it when I see it because I've FELT it.
@@trmartin6821 The whole scene with Claudia and that college guy was overt racism. Claudia had to pretend to be a cleaning maid's daughter just to access the library, and that WASN'T because she wasn't technically enrolled at that school. That was NOT why that white frat boy jock was telling her she didn't belong there.
Did people *really* need him throwing a racial slur at her to make that obvious!? Like, really.
PSA: it is possible to like the books and the show. I have read the books and thinking about re-reading them. But I love this show and I love the entire cast!
I am rereading them and i must have forgotten how harshly Louis talks about Lestat in Interview. Louis describes him as an idiot, unintelligent, impulsive, and he describes his hatred for him. I'm waiting for the romance to pick up but early on in the book, it CERTAINLY isn't that way. I think I last read Interview with the Vampire back in 2000 maybe. Idk
@@darknyght3962 I think I forgot that too. I feel that this Louis or the show Louis has more compassion and love for Lestat.
I do think Louis is telling the truth!! Or at least he thinks he is. His memories are deeeefinitely being manipulated by Armand and his mind gift. I think Louis genuinely believes what he’s recalling- but those memories are… not whole. Based in truth, but missing details.
Specifically I theorize that Lestat DID indeed do many of the awful things he was shown to do…
Minus the drop.
That drop is WAYYYYY too similar to the flying drop Armand did to Lestat in their books. So I’m sceptical about it.
However I believe the bulk of the manipulation is in taking away Louis’s positive memories of Lestat. Kinda- withholding them from him, the same way Armand is withholding books and nature.
Not quite “mind control” like you said, but certainly… some tampering. The truth is there. But we’re missing pieces of the puzzle.
I understand the frustration of some books fans, but as an outsider I loved what I watched, I think there are some problems but overall I'm satisfied with the result, the trajectory of louis during the episodes, the idea of his false emotional freedom nowadays, the concept in general got me invested!
I think that’s awesome, in a way I really appreciate the series for even getting people mildly interested in these characters and I just hope that some people do eventually branch out and seek out source material.
@Erick It’s not all book fans. I am one and I think the show is doing a great job! It’s not perfect but it’s one hell of a roller coaster ride and gives a fresh twist and new energy to a literary tale I know far too well.
They shouldn't have said they would be true to the books. But hey even with the changes it's still a lot better than Rings of Power.
@@michaelthomas5433 Is RoP really that bad? Like, would you say that it is at least ‘staying true to the spirit of the source material’? Because I’m pretty sure that the guy that owns Amazon was saying how much of a fan he and his kids are of the books.
@@redacted8525 RoP will in a very general way tell the same story. Almost all the details are wrong though. Add to that changes or not I kinda like Interview while overall I got tired of Rings. RoP is not as bad as they say but it has larger issues than just changing the source material.
I’m near certain Armand is using his mind gift on Louis, and manipulating his memory. What he can and can’t remember about Lestat, specifically.
What his intentions are? Now that’s my question. Is it a matter of
“I want you to hate Lestat like I do, so you come running to me instead. See how much he hurt you? I’m the only one who won’t do that to you- stay with me!”
Or
“I know how much you loved Lestat, but he’s gone now. If you remember him as a bad person, the loss will be less devastating. I don’t want you to live your life broken by guilt. I’m protecting you from your emotions because I care for you”.
In the books, Armand is shown to feel genuine love (EVEN FOR HUMANS!!)… but it’s naive and childlike. He’s like a little kid who traps a beautiful butterfly in a jar, to admire it forever. But when it begins to wither and die, he doesn’t understand or learn from it. Even if his love is genuine, the way he shows it is inherently toxic. Which is why I really hope they don’t go “shallow antagonist” with him.
I actually think (and hope) Devil's Minion DID happen in 70s/80s and Armand just wiped himself from Daniel's memories and that's why, not the drugs, he doesn't remember him. Daniel could have entire months/years of fuzzy memories and blame that on his addiction, when it was actually Armand that made him forget. Maybe the murder gremlin decided to do one good thing and put Daniel's ass in rehab when he saw how destructive their reletionship was. Or maybe it was Louis who made him leave Daniel, coz tbh in that last shot neither Louis nor Armand look particualry happy and in love. As for the unreliable narrator, I think that Armand over the years may have manipulated Louis' memories at least a bit, Not to the point that what happened in a show didn't happen, but that Lestat came off more unhinged than he was
In her EP1 review Maven said that the 1973 encounter had Daniel turning his life around, getting off drugs, etc. But in EP1 we learned, from Daniel's own mouth, that he was still using drugs in 1978. 5 years *after* that encounter with Louis. It hit me *then* that The Devil's Minion could have still very well happened. And that the drugs Daniel was still taking didn't necessarily have to be drugs.
My suspicions grew by EP4 when Daniel said he was dreaming about the encounter at the bar, and the shadiness that was going on with Rashid. I called it then, right after that episode, that Rashid was Armand, and it would be confirmed in EP6, and that he likely had a hand in Daniel's missing memories. EPS 6 & 7 just confirmed it all IMO.
The Devil's Minion happened IMO. In some slightly altered form (Louis was there when it did), but it still happened
If it did really happen... I just want to know if they were _both_ Daniel's lovers, in the tv series' version. 😏 😁🤭🤭🤣
(Maybe it was Louis who made Armand put Daniel's ass eventually in rehab? 🤔🤔 Lol)
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 Maybe in a ‘If you let him go, I’ll stay with you however long you want’. Especially if they were all together and we know how much of a martyr Louis loves to be.
@@Neyllya Yeah-Could be! ^^
Personally, I think the series did EXACTLY what it needed to do... REVAMP the public interest in THE BOOKS. I LOVE the series for what it is and I know I'm not the ONLY viewer who wants to reread and BUY what I haven't' read. Love finding your channel! xoxo
(∩ ͡ ° ʖ ͡ °) ⊃-(===>
Yu are not! I’m goin to Barnes and nobles today 🤣❤️
_SAME!_
(I went got them all in ebook-because I can't get to my physical copies at the moment, and I currently forget exactly which ones I did or didn't have yet toward the end of the book series anyhow)
I love that I feel as if the tv series honors both the books, and the movie, and yet also stands apart totally on its own & all without eliminating any need for anyone to ever read or re-read the books for themself! That's literally everything I ever could have hoped for. ^-^
Really? Then reader will be dissapointed... No domestic violence, very different motivations for main characters... I really think they did not read Anne Rice's book. Perhaps sumary on wikipedia😏
@@renatabednarova8296 Nah, because we're reading it specifically for seeing all the differences. We'd only be disappointed if we were reading or watching one thing expecting it to be exactly like the other thing-or if we were unhappy about the differences.
And, all-in-all, I really don't think the motivations actually _are_ all that different, honestly, I think it's the same motivations just expressed in slightly different ways.
I mean.. one person could try and push a person out of danger, while another person could try and pull a person out of danger instead. It's expressed in a different way, but the motivation was actually the same, because in both cases the motivation was to try and protect the person from danger.
I think it's a similar situation, comparing what is done in the IWTV tv series versus what was done in the IWTV book; and pretty much everything that happens in a different way in the tv series, I think has a legitimate or probably-intentional reason why things are expressed in different ways than in the books.
(The tv series wants Louis to be more likable. Because many people actually don't like Louis the way he is depicted in the books[ or at least prefer a lot of other characters a whole lot more], either because they dislike Louis for portraying Lestat so negatively in the first book when later books portray Lestat for positively OR because they just don't like how passive &/or depressed that Louis is. So the tv series makes Louis a little less passive, and a little less constantly-depressed; and it shows that there were probably really valid reasons why Louis might have portrayed Lestat so negatively.
The tv series needed Claudia to be older... so the tv series had to depict her being capable of things a 5 year old couldn't be expected to be capable of doing.
By extension, the conflict between both of them and Lestat becomes magnified and even morr volatile than in the books...because it's a lot easier to restrain your full strength against someone who can't or doesn't fight back than it is to hold your strength back against someone who is actively require _some_ measure of strength actually be used against them in order to be able to even subdue or restrain them at all.
I mean, just imagine lifting your hand to stop a baby's hand from hitting you...versus trying to stop a grown adult's hand that has a running start behind it. The latter is obviously going to require much more strength to stop than the aforementioned.
I think pretty much all the changes can be explained similarly. Although, yes, of course some people will like things expressed one way much better than they like them being expressed in the other way; and that is totally fine, and totally understandable.)
But maybe that's just me. 🤷 🤷♀️ 🤷🏻♂️ Lol
That hand grab by Armand at the end seemed overly quick and forced and Louis’ proclamation of “the love of my life” seemed very strained. I think Louis is up to something. If not brainwashed or gaslit, he is definitely looking for an “out” in his relationship with Armand. As for Louis having drugs at his apartment in the 70s, I got the sense that Louis (and Armand) had been spying on Daniel for awhile before their meeting in the bar. In that scene, you’ll see Louis enters the bar soon after Daniel. He knows that Daniel is a writer…and a drug user. Of course, he read Daniel’s mind, but I felt he knew this before approaching him and already had the drugs at his home, knowing this would be the lure.
Thank you so much for doing these breakdowns for each episode. You have been so wonderful and I cant wait to hear your input on Part II.
I've been thinking about the show since Sunday and I think I've figured out what they are trying to do.
Let me just say that Episode 7 was my favorite of the season and primarily because there is so much symbolism in the imagery.
We see Lestat and Louis dressed in all white dancing and kissing in a room full of people like it's their wedding night. Contrast that with Louis and Armand in the final shot with Armand standing a step above Louis showing they are not equal, both dressed in all black (as they have all season) as if in mourning.
Here's the interesting thing Louis outside of this 2nd interview typically always wears a lot of color even when we see him in the 70's with Daniel he's wearing light blue and side note his nails are filed in that scene to hide them.
I think Armand is definitely using a combination of the Mind and Spell gift on Louis but I have two thought's on the reasoning.
So in the 1st Interview Armand stopped Louis from killing Daniel but we know Louis typically attacks Daniel for asking to be made a vampire, but if you remember Louis said that Daniel asked that question when they we're talking about Claudia's 2nd attempt at leaving the family.
That doesn't make sense that Louis would snap at that point. I think that Daniel actually broke Armand's spell on Louis memory then which caused him to remember truths about Claudia's death.
Louis in the present almost seems to mimic Armand in many ways, they dress the same, they talk the same and there's a is power
imbalance. Louis didn't like Lestat withholding information but Louis who loves to read can't access his own Library without Armand using the cloud gift.
So yes, Armand definitely has a high level of control over Louis but I'm trying figure out if he's being imprisoned as Louis has called his home a coffin or if Armand feels responsible for his mental/emotional decline and trying to keep him from self-harm.
One last thing about the timeline. I think I understand why they've made two interviews. So I noticed during the Daniel Flashback that Louis bank car said issued in 73 but valid until 74. I don't know why that time is so short but the important part is that the interview is still around the same time as the book says. I think Lestat did awake in the 80's from the sound of Rock Music but without the book as a catalyst to become a Star. That may piss fans off because it's very similar to how the QOD movie started but IDK.
I do however think it's important that we see TVL and QOD event's happen in the mid to late 80's because there's a 30 years or so gap between that time period and Prince Lestat which would be the present.
I do think Louis and Lestat were reunited in that decade but something tells me by the end Armand got a hold of Louis again, like I said Louis personality is very different from when we see him in IWTV and when he first met Daniel.
I think Fareed definitely is a nod to the PL period and I think he hides his vampire nails like Louis did and eyes like Armand. I'm assuming this 2nd interview is a prelude to Prince Lestat meant to twist in the event's of IWTV. If that's true that means Lestat is in self imposed exile right now and wouldn't know what's going on with Louis and Armand.
That's all my thought so far please poke holes, rip it to shreds, I just had to get this all out. 😂😂😂
The finale was great. I have so many questions about Armand. Did anyone notice Louis face when he said Here’s Armand the love of my life ? It didn’t sound convincing lol Louis likes to read but Armand has the books high up where he can’t reach them. Armand’s comments were also creepy. I care more about him then does himself. I protect him from himself hmmm 🧐I can’t wait see what unfolds in season 2
"...however he is not feeling so friendly to Louis and Lestat now, after they ghosted him for seventeen years..." is frankly one of the best lines ever in the history of youtube videos. 😂
A friendly reminder, stake doesn't kill a vampire in the folklore because in the folklore the body of the vampire is just a meat puppet for a demon, the demon is puppeteering the corpse. So the stake through the hart is just so the demon cannot lift that body again, but the demon will find another body to take, you are not killing anything only sabotaging.
I'm gay and I can confirm that we do in fact...have butts.
I laughed out loud at that. I'll miss these videos. Can't wait til season 2.
Are you a vampire? I have it on good authority that being gay leads to vampirism.
As a queer, with a confirmed marvelous butt, I can safely say that I am unsure whether or not I am not a vampire.
@@StrawberryShorty I can neither confirm nor deny that at this time.
@@redacted8525 Bwhaha. Good one.
Did anyone else watch how Sam moved as Lestat? He glides up stairs and down to the floor with the Cancer guy.
Rolin Jones is the one who said Louis has been telling us a story that's been told to him. So anything is suspect. Especially ep 5 after the mirror crack
but why would he need to tell a story told to him, if he was in it? I do not get it.
@@corpeter Armand can do alot of things with someone's mind.
@@roseclarity1493 I know. But for me sounds like a cop out. But I will not judge until I know what they do. Right now I am not convinced by the direction.
@@corpeter yes but I'm thinking this was the "clever" plan all along.
@@roseclarity1493 I love to be surprised 🙂
I think Louis is smug at the end b/c Daniel had just accused him of being so messed up over Lestat he’d misremembered a key detail about Lestat’s killing (that both Louis and Claudia didn’t want to burn him). Louis had a mental break, where he remembered that he and he alone had spared Lestat, then Armand intervened. And Louis pointed to his totally wonderful, healthy, not-problematic-at-all relationship with Armand as a sort of proof (both to Daniel and to himself) that he was not still a mess over Lestat. That he had moved on.
I think we as viewers are supposed to doubt that he has. :)
Great analysis,
I think you're really on to something, there, too! ^-^
I love this show. My hubby watch me when I heard when Lestat whispered the word "Those Who Must Be Kept." when my mouth drop. My hubby is like what does that mean? I had to tell them about 'Those Who Must Be Kept.' and how they became a vampire. I am looking forward to the second season. I can't wait to see what happend with the book adaption of the rest of the Chronicles. I am looking forward to Memnoch The Devil my favorite book in The Chronicles.
I think it's weird for Maven to say that we aren't going to see another side of this story when that is the very premise of "The Vampire Lestat": Lestat telling his side of the story. The story sets up that Louis is an unreliable narrator and directly questions the authenticity of what he's saying. This isn't to say that there will be a big reveal sometime in the future, but it is a feature of the show that we are meant to question Louis (especially with the reveal that he might be manipulated by Armand).
The Showrunners explained back before it even came out that the very premise of the show using a second interview (instead of the first interview) was to already incorporate Lestat’s later version of the story, so that we saw everything that Anne Rice added in the later books right up front in this new version, instead of telling one wrong version then refuting it later. They specifically said they were showing the “Prince Lestat” version of him in their show, NOT the version from the first book.
Lestat’s side of the story will explain WHY he did all these extra-horrible things now, but it won’t say he never did them. This is really how the showrunners see Lestat’s full character based on the entire series of how he changed in later books. And they somehow think their version makes him look better than he did in the first book.
@@MavenoftheEventide Really? That’s definitely not how I understood it. I heard them say this Lestat would be an amalgamation of all the versions which he was. He was charming, loving but also violent, tempered, bratty etc. Definitely never took it as us getting so much of the truth that there would be no need for “The Vampire Lestat” retelling. If they did intend on that im glad they actually didn’t do it. It wouldn’t feel like IWTV if they fused the stories. I expect to get a somewhat jaded perspective from Louis even if it is the more nuanced of the two interviews. That’s what makes Lestat’s version so epic, when you get to hear it in direct contrast to Louis’s. I doubt events will be completely erased but I definitely think things will be altered once Lestat tells his side. For example I can see that fight being far more mutal in Lestats perspective, also now that Armand is in this there’s even more room for Louis’s memories to be somewhat faulty. That fall in episode 5 looked very reminiscent of Lestat and Armand not Louis and Lestat.
Lestat never actually retells IWTV from his perspective. His book is all about his life before he meets Louis, then he talks about Louis/Claudia for ONE page, correcting only a couple things very quickly (that he only kills evildoers (specifically Freneire and the sex workers were evil but Louis didn’t know), that he and Louis had happy loving times often and it wasn’t all fighting, that Louis was just too modest to admit how much Lestat was attracted to him and didn’t just want his money, and that the last scene where he and Louis reunited and Louis rescued the baby never happened. That’s it) then he talks about what happened to him after Louis burned him. He never tells Louis’s book from his own point of view. He just tells us about his own philosophies and deep love and respect of humanity in his pre-Louis life that Louis never knew about.
I don’t think the show is going to redo/show this story from Lestat’s point of view either. It’s going to show other stories and Lestat’s early life, but we’ll never see these scenes actually re-enacted out again, just like we never did in the books.
@@MavenoftheEventide We definitely got loving moments from them in the show, louis didn’t shy away from the romantic side of their relationship at all, we got a little insight into his love of the arts etc. I never expected this show to tell us about his life before Louis tho cause wouldn’t that require Lestat to tell Louis about those things? Just feels like it would have been a different story if we legit got Lestat going into detail about his family, Nicholas, his time in Paris etc. That seemed to be the crux of some of their issues, Lestat refusing to open up. It’s like every now and then you got a window peak into his past but not a full view. We heard a little bit about nicki, he did give a brief story on how he was made but they were really reaching if they ever planned to combine both those books into one season. Im not sure what things he will choose to slightly touch on or correct but I suspect that won’t even occur until season 3. Season 2 is probably just the other half of the first book.
I agree that no-one should base their final judgement of this show on the hope that Lestat's abuse of Louis will be retconned. I personally think this take on Lestat and Louis is very interesting and emotional and just what I wanted out of the show and *I don't care if it gets retconned and I don't think it will be totally*.
But I also think the show is making it very clear that the story Louis is telling Daniel should be examined critically and is not the absolute truth of what happened. We get this with the rain, with Claudia's assault, with HIS assault of Claudia, and his decision to keep Lestat alive. Not to mention he has been lying to Daniel about Armand. There is some very obvious deception going on here that I think is a key part of the story.
I presumed, honestly, that it wasn't so much that Lestat _couldn't_ drink the blood-cancer as it was just that he didn't *_like_* how the cancer tasted, or maybe because it wasn't just any old cancer but specifically a cancer of the blood itself[ rather than say a cancer of the brain or something]. I mean, he didn't seem ill to me after that, just mentally disturbed by the metaphorical walls closing in around them.
Maybe as much because he's more desperate than ever to keep their family together, and yet also more convinced than ever before that their family is not actually particularly together at all anymore and may never again ever be, as because of the city[/cityfolk] all around them inevitably beginning to turn on them?.
I dunno.
It's another one of those moments where, nothing is actually outright said, so it's left entirely up to the viewer to surmise or imagine exactly what is and isn't going on entirely for themself.
(The expected drawbacks perhaps of a visual medium, versus a written one, I suppose! 😁)
🤷🏾 I personally loved the series. The books and movies are still there for people that adore them. Jacob, Sam, and Bailey's version is the visuals and entertainment I need in 2022 and beyond.🌹🏆
Thank you 🙏 to you and your team for walking us through all 7 episodes. Truly a joy watching you and learning about the parts I missed! 🎉
Honestly...I'm loving this show. I love the changes, eventhouhg I thought I would hate them. And I hope that they let Lestat keep being a bastard, the latest books just portray him as great and good...and, in my opinion, Lestat lost a lot of personality because of it.
I agree 100%
I am with you on this
I think therein lies my take on the show. I heard and saw Anne Rice and her son talk about getting the rights back and whatever info they had I went with. I honestly didnt watch any kind of interview with the showrunners and skipped from trailer to trailer until the show premiered. I dont expect any kind of adaptation to follow it's source material to the T because we've seen the results with other works so keeping my palette from being beriddled with expectations. That being said, I find that if the rules of vampirism are revealed on the by, its much better in thelong run. We shouldnt expect all the nuances to present themselves in the first season, because Anne Rice herself added or revised them as she went along. For example the differing accounts of seeing spirits, which wasnt a thing until it was.
I for one, am hopeful for Akasha, The First brood. Even though they may not appear as "the books". Like Shakespeare, not every take is going to be the same.
I almost think that the interview is Louis's Machiavellian plan... that he somehow is using Daniel to draw out the truth that Armand is responsible for Claudia's death. That it's an elaborate break-up performance. That Louis is throwing Lestat under the bus yet again, and forcing Armand into a degrading charade, all as a part of his plot, which is why he fought back against Malloy's insistence that he spared Lestat on purpose (by sending him to the dump). Maybe he took Lestat's lessons in secrets and subterfuge to heart... at least that's what I hope. Otherwise, I don't know what the hell is going on.
That's an idea!
I can think of a few other possibilities too, I think; but this one could also work. 🙂
I feel as if the operative word, here, is that they swore that it kept true to the _'spirit'_ of Anne Rice's work.
But different people are inevitably going feel very very differently about what exactly the 'spirit' of a thing actually is or isn't, sometimes. And many book readers are[ even more than they often consciously realize] typically looking not just for the 'spirit' but for as direct a translation as possible.
I mean..... It could be said that the phrases 'F--- you!' and 'Go, take a hike!' may both have the same general "spirit" as each other-but of course they're each going to land pretty differently with different sorts of people. 🙂
Armand did something to him, i know Armand did weird things to Louis
Sits over here in my weirdo corner, loving both the books and the show.👉🏽👈🏽 Even though there are changes in characterization, they still FEEL like the characters in the books. I’ve been rereading iwtv and Lestat WAS that terrible, if less abusive, but Louis certainly doesn’t describe him warmly or fondly. I feel like we’re viewing the show with the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight of the rest of the series. Sam is playing pretty much every variation of Lestat, it’s just he’s playing them all at the same time, which is jarring for those of us familiar with how Lestat changes in each book. Maybe the show is fundamentally different when it comes to specific lore and some character details, but it still FEELS like Anne Rice, especially when actual parts of the text are used. Idk I just feel a lot less negativity about it as an adaptation than I do about say Amazon’s Rings of Power. It’s making huge changes and taking risks, but I think the writers understand the source material. They’re just playing with that source material to keep even diehard book fans on our toes. I’m very excited to see where this series goes in future seasons.🤷🏽♀️
AGREED!!!!
I also agree!!
They use actual lines from the book? yes but the contexts are all wrong. Louis saying a line that was actually said by Lestat on the books... really triggers me
@Isabel B. I too like this Louis more. But my belief about art is once you put it out there it belongs to another’s interpretation. How the you or another feel or interpret does not have to change. At a point art once presented cannot be imprisoned.
i do think louis and lestat feel like their book counterparts at times, but it's impossible to look at daniel and see anything about the book character ( which is a shame cause he's always been my favourite).
I think the point of the reveal of Louis's unreliable narration in the finale is that we should question everything that didn't make sense previously. Rewatching episodes will show how often it's mentioned in the series. This show doesn't seem to be spoonfeeding the audience in a traditional way and I think more will be revealed as the series continues. They're playing the long game and may never reveal "the true story" instead ask the audience to question every perspective available to us and make up our own minds about who we trust and what the real story is. It's elevated strategy in writing that isn't worried about tying up loose ends before they decide to reveal it to us from a storytelling perspective.
I think the reason for the second interview is to show that Louis is similar to the book character and hasn't changed much at all. So it's the same in the same way it's different.
Correct that this show isn't spoon-feeding people. And I honestly LOVE that. The narrative structure of the whole series has been Rashamon, and it very deliberately makes that point with Daniel destroying Louis' narrative in that final scene. You're not going to get the "true" version of events - you're just going to get every character's different POV of the events and have to decide for yourself what you believe. Just like Rashomon.
And frankly, Anne Rice herself retconned and re-wrote canon so often in the books past the first three; I think it's actually a unique and creative way to tell this story. I guess I can understand book fans who just wanted a direct, straightforward adaptation of each story, exactly what is correct by what they see and hear. But I honestly think doing it this way elevates the story more.
@@cbrownjc7633 couldn't agree more. Well said. It's also a great tactic to get fans to want more which I definitely do.
@@girlmom2129 I mean, maybe it's because I'm a literary, theater, and film geek, but if this show wants to explore narrative and POV then I'm all for it. Hell, on Tumblr I just recently posted screencaps from the book where Rice, *more than once,* contradicted her own narrative regarding whether Lestat or Louis ever knew the other was dead or not after the events that take place in Europe. Not that Rice did it deliberately, but it IS *part of the text of the books.* Those retcons and inconsistencies.
So yeah. If the show wants to use them and do so in such a creative way then more power to them I say. There's a reason people who haven't read the books think the show feels like a movie. It's because narrative structures like this are usually only done and explored in theater or movies. From Rashamon to The Usual Suspects.
@@cbrownjc7633 "I'm a literary, theatre and film geek", literally same. This show is for theatre geeks especially. It's like a well crafted piece of theatre and there's at least one staff writer (writer of episode 5) who's a playwright. It translates to this genre and kind of storytelling beautifully.
Lestat and Louis were not sitting separately in the street car because of the issues in their relationship -- Louis and Claudia were in the back because they are black and Lestat (and Antionette) was in the front a few rows up in the whites-only section.
It surprised me how many people didn't recognize that was a segregated transport.
@Nicole Mazza Yes, that is exactly the same thing I said in the video. Twice.
@@MavenoftheEventide Sorry, I was referring to the part at 14:50 or so.
At 50:40, I think you've missed something. Vampire apocalypse? I thought the only swarm of vampire attacks will come upon Louis? Armand even calls the book he's writing with Daniel his suicide letter? If that's the case, I think Daniel's response is correct. He is just there so Louis can have someone skilled enough to write his memoirs. If the book is published, no one will believe vampires are real. And the vampires will just kill Louis for revealing their secrets. Daniel even brings this up. He says he can't control how the public will interpret this book, & may just create a line of Claudia Halloween costumes, despite Louis's reassurance that Daniel will frame the narrative correctly.
actually you’re the one who missed something lmao. the book is a suicide letter from louis but also a warning. louis does tell daniel that the pandemic emboldened vampires and they are planning a great emergence
@@bonbonchocolat7777 I believe my point still stands. In the books humans don't believe Louis's memoirs. Lestat can brag about being a vampire onstage & the only people that get pissed is the vampires. I think that's why in the show Daniel repeatedly talks about what a moot point trying to warn people is. If everyone believes it's fiction, then why should it matter? This is all for Louis to finally reconcile his past.
Your recaps of this season have been fascinating. I'd watch more episodes made up of the outtakes you cut for time and any further analysis you held back. There was so much going on in this show, even in the background with the props, sets and costumes.
The stripped down, all white costumes for the finale killing spree were a call back to the family portrait on the back cover of the original paperback edition of Interview with the Vampire, where Claudia wears a frilly white dress and Lestat and Louis are dressed in white suits. I still have my cherished original copy and recognized the reference as soon as I saw Claudia's dress.
me too, I want more! More Lady Maven.
EASTER EGGS!!🤍🤍👏
I actually didn't really feel like either Claudia or Louis seemed half as bothered about-nor motivated to leave specifically because of-the possibility of the cityfolk turning in them as Louis did.
I kinda felt as if that just happened to coincide with Louis and Claudia wanting to leave to get away from Lestat in general, and so .. they just used that, as a cover, for their real escape plans.
It may be possible that Lestat specifically had a bad experience before, in the past, with humans noticing something was not-right about the vampires next door?
Or maybe it really is just catering to more modern sensibilities, or whatever, since modern audiences really do kind of tend to have this tendency these days to just scoff when they watch things at how deep human denial can be about even things right in front of them or how readily or willfully unobservant they like to tolerate seeing people be in fiction specifically because of just how observant they like to think either themselves or others would and wouldn't "believably" be, if certain things ever actually _were_ to occur in real-life?. Who knows. 🤔😅 🤷♀️
But I actually like that Louis isn't as totally passive in the tv series as he is in the books. I like that sometimes they aren't just saying, "what would happen if x-thing happened just a little differently"-sometimes they are actually saying "what would happen if x-thing about this character had been slightly different". I don't feel like those kinds of hypotheticals actually do betray the spirit of the original, even the do often cause things to happen in slightly different ways and/or for slightly different reasons. But, of course, I'm sure those things themselves may be more at the heart or core or foundation of what the spirit of the original was to some people than to others; and that's totally fair and understandable , too. ^-^
(But, just for example, 'what if Louis had been more active / less passive' .. or 'what if Louis hadn't been white' .. or 'what if Claudia had been a little older' .. or 'what if their relationships were founded on slightly less unhealthy premises, but were still just as dysfunctional in the end'.... that's kind of what I feel like the tv series is exploring, and I don't actually feel that - once you have accounted for those particular puzzle pieces - the spirit of the original story as it unfolds around those slight changes ISN'T in fact much more 'true' than it may initially seem[ .. I personally feel like it IS a lot more true than people might initially think]. Or maybe _I'm_ just as good at wilful-ignorance and rationalization to an extreme fault as humans in the VC books are.😅😅🙃👀😅🤣🤣🤣)
I think all the hate is very undeserving. It's BASED off of the books it doesn't have to follow it exactly to be good
There was going be hate either way, but they didn't do themselves a favor by talking about how accurate was going to be. Even is the series were perfect, that would have been criticised
I agree. I love the books but then show was wonderful too. I didn’t love the violent scene with Lestat and Louie - that was hard to take, but I still get what they were trying to do.
Maven did mention that she's aware the writers wanted to do their own take on the story and she was actually actually keen to see what changes they'd make. It's not so much that's not a 100% adaptation but more it just doesn't feel like Anne Rice.
I’m still not convinced that the cover model on the prince lestat book isn’t Sam Reid cuz my god he looks just like him from afar.
Yes, he does.
If starvation kills vampires, how are any of them still alive? Akasha was starved for milennia so if that were true, all of them would be dead.
Looks like Armand manipulates Louis memories...
Am I the only one who's hoping that Sam Reid does an audiobook recording of The Vampire Lestat?
Omg I would die! Them at be so cool. The audiobook definitely needs an update I hated listening to that guy!
@@annerice6923 I liked him but having Reid speaking in that French accent as book Lestat... ay me....
I see them taking elements from the Movie, as years later, Rice said there were changes the movie made that she actually liked.
Hold on a second I’m a little confused on the killing vampires bit. If a vampire can reform from ashes that aren’t scattered but can also be killed by destroying the heart and brain isn’t that kind of a contradiction? I mean really burning a vampire down to ashes is doing exactly that destroying the heart and brain along with everything else?
Yes! One of the many inconsistencies in the Vampire Chronicles that we fans have been debating about for years lmao
@@princessjime ok lol I was just checking. I’ve always enjoyed the movie since I was a kid and I loved this show but I haven’t yet read the books but am planning to very soon.
The heart and the brain have to be removed. If the ash heart and brain are still with the rest of the ashes in the right places, the vampire can still come back.
@@MavenoftheEventide thank you for clearing that up. Your videos are great 👍 I’m binging your true blood videos right now haha
The show sucks
In my opinion, I LOVED this show...
I have a special place in my heart for TV shows/ Movies made from Books. I always find it fascinating what parts are chosen to be put on film, which parts are left out, and how the story is generally "re-imagined". Just to give context... in my BEST adaptation TOP 3 is "Green Mile". The book was written by Steven King and famously acted by Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan. That movie is amazing and was nominated for SEVERAL awards, including the Oscars and the Golden Globes. What I enjoyed about it, is it REALLY made an effort to follow the book. Almost exclusively. In some cases word for word. It was like watching the movie in my imagination come to life on the screen for everyone to see. On the flip side, in my WORST adaptation TOP 3 is "Battlefield Earth" The book's were written by L. Ron Hubbard and the movie starred John Travolta and Forest Whitaker. It was actually a trilogy of books that I read and really enjoyed very much. The BOOKS were very good, IMO. But the movie SUCKED. It was awful. It won several Razzie Awards for being so bad. According to Rotten Tomatoes, " Ugly, campy, and poorly acted, Battlefield Earth is a stunningly misguided, aggressively bad sci-fi folly."
That being said... I AM, and have been for years, a HUGE Anne Rice fan. Love the Vampire Chronicles books, and have loved them for decades. So, I was very excited when I found out that the books were being "re-imagined" for television. I saw the movie in 1994 and was NOT impressed. It was "ho-hum", and kinda mediocre as a whole. Brad Pitt as Louis was amazing, but Tom Cruise as Lestat was just awful. I was disappointed in the whole thing. I SOO wanted this to be a good adaptation of the books. I think it failed, as far as a TRUE ADAPTATION of the books goes..... That being said, I liked the show. Really I did. Sam Reid as Lestat is just amazing!!! I can't take my eyes off him whenever he's on the screen. I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed, but he looks SO MUCH like Brad Pitt (the young version from the movie) at times, it's uncanny. And Jacob Anderson as Louis... wow.... the way he has to switch gears between characters in the space of SEVEN EPISODES..... starting out as the pimp businessman in Ep. 1, to the 2022 modern, calm, cool, collected version when he's talking to Malloy, back to the version he was with Lestat, to the father-figure to Claudia... that a HUGE reach of acting for one actor to do in only one season of television.....
I LIKED the show.. really I did. I thoroughly enjoyed both the male leads. I just think if it was its OWN show, a stand-alone thing that was NOT attached to the books, it would have been so much better. I think it would have been better embraced by audiences. But I think it wants to take the books in directions they were never meant to go. I think the books are kinda anchoring the show down, and limiting it in some ways. I think the Show Runner and writers need to pick a lane..... If this show is going to be TRUE to the books, then it needs to make a greater effort to be TRUE to the books. If it's going to be its own thing, a vampire romance, showcasing the social dynamic between these monsters, a new "re-imagining". it needs to be THAT. But stop hopping back and forth, stop promising us Anne Rice and not delivering. Stop showing us elements of the "new" ( like the new psychic powers and sunlight/no sunlight thing) and not fully explaining it. Just My Opinion
Hear me out for an s2 episode opening.
Abducted Trent Reznor: Look. I don't know what I can do for you.
Lestat: There was once a man that made me feel dangerously alive, dangerously fragile...
First off, I want to say I’ve loved your episode reviews of the show and as someone who hasn’t read TVC (yet!) your perspective as a long time fan was so interesting! But, I really disagree with the idea that Louis hiding his love for Lestat at the end of the season was “minor” and doesn’t reflect on the rest of the season. I think lots of the criticism has been around Louis brushing past the happy times he’s had with Lestat and failing to admit or show his love. I also think we see the biggest shift in Lestat’s character come after Claudia joins them, as he becomes much more cruel than we saw in prior episodes. Daniel points out that Louis’ lie is to avoid admitting that he chose Lestat over Claudia, so where else might he have omitted his love for Lestat to smooth out the fractures in he and Claudia’s relationship?
Knowing Armand is there, who is not only Louis’ lover but also seemingly controls his access to everything, makes it even more interesting as to why Louis may be purposefully omitting his love for an ex, or misremembering it based on years of he (or Armand) telling a different story.
I also don’t think anything being revealed as “not true” means the audience has wasted their time - think about how much we learn about Louis’ current state of mind by seeing the two contrasting scenes with Claudia after they kill Lestat. The broad strokes of the scene are the same (Lestat is dead, they send him to the dump, they escape), but the details being filled in are completely different and paint a different picture, which when contrasted show us a new dimension to Louis’ psyche. I think with how explicitly this show and the showrunners have talked about the way memory shifts and changes over the years, and the way TVC play with different perspectives on the same events, it wouldn’t be shocking for later seasons to re-evaluate some of what we’ve already seen through a different lens, just like how TVL did to the original IWTV.
I think people tend to exaggerate how much Lestat's books change the interpretation of Interview. Lestat never denies any of the actual events Louis describes, in fact he outright states that Louis' telling of their years together was accurate, except for two things: Louis didn't know that Lestat only killed evildoers (according to himself; it's not like Lestat is a completely reliable narrator either) and Louis had a more negative view of Lestat's character and motivations than Lestat does himself.
If the show truly takes the route of depicting Louis as a completely unreliable narrator who cannot get a fact straight, then that's a massive change.
I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your reviews/ critique of the series. I 100% agree that Rices work is best enjoyed in its true form, the books will always be superior to any adaptation because the books have the great lady’s heart and soul leaping from their pages. I have enjoyed the series, I suppose in this day and age of franchises, it’s good to see Anne Rices universe being represented. For me, I’d say the series is inspired by the Chronicles but definitely people need to read the books to fully enjoy Rices “immortal universe”
I mean that's the point of adaptation, also like half of interview is retconned in later books it's easier for continuity to make changes now. I'll never understand why book fans are so mad, the books aren't being destroyed for the series to be made, you can always go back and read them and the showrunner has even said he wants people to go back and read Rice's work after seeing the show. Not to mention her son is an executive producer...
About the twins at the party, initially I thought it was supposed to be a nod to the serial killer vampire twin carter brothers that would’ve been active sort of around this time in New Orleans but they were the Carter brothers and nothing was brought of it.
Hmmm I never heard the creators say this version would be more "true." What I gathered from these interviews is that they had more material to play it and more references to draw from. The movie premiered before Anne had written many of the books so Rolin and his team had the advantage of drawing from more sources and references than the 1994 film. And they do do that and they do it effectively well. Absolutely love this show and cannot wait for season 2.
I liked the show and I'm definitely gonna watch Season 2.
But I have to say, as a romance, it's been rather disappointing.
It feels like first, they reviewed decades of literary analysis and criticism about Anne Rice's books. Based on that, they removed everything problematic about Louis's and Lestat's relationship.
Then, they hired a sensitivity writer and addressed the mixed-race romance aspect as best as they were capable.
And then, they decided that to warrant the murder attempt in Ep. 7, they need Lestat to do something very dramatic in Ep. 5, so they threw in domestic abuse + rape threats. Jesus.
Also, the pilot seemed promising, but the time skips and the sparsity of (physical, verbal, mutual) intimacy really damaged Louis's and Lestat's chemistry to me.
But then again, maybe we'll see some real OTP chemistry between Louis and Armand in Season 2? I swear to gods, though, if they introduce Armand as the wholesome boyfriend option and then have Lestat the toxic bad boy return and win Louis, I'm gonna barf.
Thank you for the reviews! You enhance the show with honesty. As a reader back in the day, I think the changes are mostly cool and realize TV is just a tough medium that deals with ramifications through silence.
When Lestat said that if he knows Italians they will soon be on Santorini with guns, I am pretty sure he meant they would attack Greece, wich they did in WW2 and lost. And he can make that guess because he has read history.
Yes this exactly. I doubt Italians would have vampires no.1 priority
I’ve been a fan of the books for a decade but I still enjoyed the series. It’s not as good as the original but it was fun to watch and I can’t wait for season two!
It’d be interesting / fun if you did a deep dive of every book in the series as well! 🙌🏻
Excellent reviews, these last seven episodes. As entertaining as the show, itself!
I don't know, as a hard-core book fan, I loved the changes. Absolutely loved them. Why, because I still have the books, they still very much exist. And now I have this whole new world I'm all too happy to explore that is familiar and comfortable, and beautiful and painful. But also new, and just more. I can't really properly explain that better. But to me Anne Rice's books are like looking through a keyhole, into this otherworldly garden. With this series I feel like I am able to open the door and walk inside. It's just MORE.
The only technical changes that could have been tossed is; Not having the Vamps essentially 'die' during the day. Like they could have played with that, like making cute scenes where Louis doesn't quite make it back to his coffin in time and Lestat finds him just like sleeping on the floor and puts him in his coffin, before "dying" in his own. Or the fact that they have them smoking and drinking all the time. I know, they know, Vampire fans in general know WE ALL KNOW... that Vampires get nothing from drinking or smoking. But I also am able to easily accept this too, because it's a habit of the time period basically. It makes sense to me that even though they don't get anything from it, that it would just be a habit and a way to 'fit in' or not stand out. Because Lestat hasn't been alive for that long, in Vampire years, and Louis really hasn't. So it's makes sense that it's honestly just a human habit they carried over.
The change in time frame/timeline definitely does change the story itself, and even the characters. So I do understand why fans were/are upset about that. And even I was a bit perturbed time to time. Because not only did they change the whole time period but they made it so they had to essentially cut the time in half. But even I was mostly okay with it, because it just worked for the story. I personally am very happy they aged every character up. There's such a weird, icky layer of pedophilia to Anne Rice's books, that I am so SO happy, they are not touching. That they are actively changing. I am so damn happy they aged Claudia up. I know it does change the character, and in regards to Rice's daughter... but regardless, I feel like aging her up was a great choice and I'm thankful for it. I'm excessively happy they aged Armand up, because now his relationship with Marius and Louis and Lestat and Daniel, etc. wont be so fucking weird/gross, and hard to digest. Aging up Lestat and Louis I'm neither here nor there, I was okay with either. Now, the extreme aging of Daniel... that's the only one that made me pause. But we'll see how they handle that in the later seasons.
The gender changes I don't care about, I don't see why anyone does. Who cares. I'm just thankful beyond proper words that they didn't straight-wash the main characters. Like they did in the 1994 movie adaption, and like what was heavily pushed on the first books. Because of the time period the books were written and published, and the movie as well. We're not going to get into the 'Queen of the - movie that shall not be named', because the straight washing in that movie was so severe, IT should have been a crime. We're gonna throw that in the trash and light the whole thing on fire!
I digress... I genuinely don't understand why people are so upset that Louis is black. He's Creole in the books, that's literally of African and European decent. Yes, in the books he's white with black hair, and it's pretty much a discerning factor of the character. I understand book fans that are just sticklers for their characters looking exactly how they do in the books. I get that. Because I'm actually that way with Lestat strangely enough. And I refuse to give Racist' the time of day, not on my watch. So all you other ones, why are you so upset and so incapable of accepting that Louis A CREOLE MAN, is depicted as black in the series. I just don't get it. Louis is my favorite character, even when I was way too young to be reading the books, and Louis himself in the books wasn't a super rounded or even likable character for most. He was still, and IS still my favorite character, from Anne Rice. Literally top 5 favorite fantasy/fictional character, just in general. And I loved that they made him black, or of mixed race. I personally think that in itself added more to his character. He's still beautiful like Louis is, still magnetic as Louis is. Still walks and talks and just overall carries himself like I envisioned Louis does. Still has his black hair and vibrant green eyes, like Louis does. Jacob Anderson even encompasses the quiet strength, and delicate gentle nature that is Louis de Pointe du Lac. Like to me, as someone who loves his character from the books so much, the only actual change to Louis directly (that I see) is that his skin is darker. Why is that such a fucking problem. I just don't understand.
Phew this is getting way too long...
Cont...
I was honestly a little miffed about the massive change in just how Claudia was found and saved. I easily accepted the how and why. But it was the change of having Louis be the one that "saved" her, and brought her to Lestat. And it being Lestat who was against it, but ultimately did it because it's something that Louis wanted. And he knew that he could keep Louis, if he did it. I think the change did work well for this version, but... I think it really changed the dynamic and took away a good bit of reason behind both Louis and Claudias combined "hate" and resentment towards Lestat. Took away a depth to their relationship, that I actually mourned a bit. It's hard to explain. But for me, when I would read the books a long time ago, and have re-read it again recently... that whole scene, for me, made me really dislike Lestat. For a long time after. It was such a horrible thing he did, to all of them. And how Louis fought him and tried to stop him, the whole way and how Lestat was very much a monster or a fiend in doing so. And in doing so created the literally instrument of his own demise. In both Claudia and Louis. And I do think something was lost from the story for that change. BUT saying all that, for this version I actually really like the change.
Not having characters like Bahbet (cannot for the life of me remember how to spell her name) and some the others, I didn't really care about. I actually had alot more fun with the storyline and characters in the series than in the books. I don't have too much to say on that, because I just enjoyed it.
Louis being a pimp, instead of a plantation owner, I loved. If you would really rather see a white slave owner being given a bunch of supernatural power and strength, by another white fairly racist man/monster. Then what they gave us... we are not standing in the same room, having the same conversation. We just are not. And the fact that "his girls" are a combination of white, black and mixed. Getting further away from a Louis that owned slaves, but still having him be from a family that used to own slaves. Magnificent.
The massive change with Daniel, and their being two interviews and the first interview essentially being lost in time and not published. And Daniel being old and dying from an auto-immune disease. And the change in how he meets Armand, etc. That whole thing still has my brain spinning in circles, but I'm waiting for S2 to really decide on that one. I caught on to Rashid being Armand fairly quickly, because other than all the blaring neon signs and bread crumbs left everywhere, there's really no one else he could've been. Especially not on coat tails, so to speak, of Paris and the theater. His reasoning behind him playing as a servant, even in his own tower has got me so confused at where they're going with this. Like just... why. Outside and in public, I can understand because Armand is all about following certain Vampire "rules" but... why in his own compound, that he clearly thoroughly controls. And why for someone who is already there fully aware of the existence of Vampires, whos interviewing one Vampire telling him a story about himself and a bunch more. Including Armand. Why hide, I don't get that. But I'm eagerly waiting for S2 for that particular answer.
Now, the one change that really did actually irk me, that I'm still not super happy with... the Vampire powers. They're playing with the Vampires way too fast and loose, even for me. In this series. Louis could never do much of any Vampire powers. Because he's so human, but mainly because he's kept himself so weak for so long. That could have been changed later in the series, as so many things were. But with the flying, as far as I remember that was an Akasha thing. On Lestat only got the power and learned how to do it in Queen of the Damned, directly from her. Again I'm probably wrong on the later stories and Vampires, but I'm pretty sure that's an Akasha/Lestat thing. Then the walking in the sun, even Marius at 2,000 couldn't walk in the sun. It couldn't kill him. But wasn't that another Akasha passed to Lestat thing?? Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think this young Lestat had such strong mind control powers, that was far more of an Armand thing. But again, don't know for sure on the later books. My point though is, them making these powers kind of universal and not like special skills that not all vampires have or can even achieve is a little disconcerting and disappointing. I think it's that: if everyone can do it, then it's not special. Type of thing. Idk.
You said everything and more! I wholeheartedly agree with you. 💕
@@RowensARTstudio about the powers... Yeah that was the only thing that made me like "oh that's not how they work...." And you're right. Lestat learns the cloud gift, set vampires on fire and expand his mind-reading powers with Akasha. Marius has the cloud gift too, but he hates using it. And yeah, Louis having the fire gift, even on a small scale? I don't know how to feel about that.
Let me answer that question for you: a lot of people are sick to the back teeth of race swapping when it isn't needed. If the show wanted to explore racism, it didn't have to swap Louis' ethnicity. It could have created an original character to do that with. Hell, it wouldn't even need to create a new role for the character. All they had to do was keep Louis as is and give the brothel owner role to the original character.
@@BradLad56 yeah! Because all we need right now is more white dudes playing platation owners full of enslaved black people 🙄🙄🙄
I loved, loved the race change because this one was meaningful. Not only did it add layers to Louis, who I find quite boring in the books, but it also played a major role to the plot of the show. If you're not happy, which you're entitled to feel so, go back to the books. I'm reading the books again myself, and not because I hated the show, but because I felt inspired by it 😊
I think it can be almost guaranteed that, even without the promise of keeping true to the 'spirit' of the original, there would still have been just about the same exact controversy-I feel like the history of adaptations, especially just within the last 20yrs or so has shown that, as even when faithfulness is not outright promised there will always be those who think that it either should have been or else have been simply left alone[ &/or something wholly original created instead-even though, even when there is something original, there is pretty much always the same kind of controversy over whether or not something is actually original "enough" or in fact too "derivative" of other things that came before it]. I feel like I have witnessed that happen countless times before, at this point. Just like I feel I have witnessed people go to splinters, countless times before, over whether or not everyone actually even agrees or not that something does or doesn't in fact either keep-to or deliver upon the promise of keeping the 'spirit'[ or etc.] of the original thing too.
I feel like pretty much the only thing you can ever really be certain of in this life, aside from maybe death itself, is that some person[ or persons] or another are simply going to not-agree about...just about anything out there that there ever is.😅😅 🙃😁 Lol
((But please don't take this as me trying to belittle or dismiss your point here or anything, that is not my intention, at all; I'm just saying ....sometimes it feels kind of dauntingly inevitable, to think about too many different people talking about any given thing, because of how much you can pretty much always guarantee that some people aren't going to see eye to eye about some things as well as that some of those who don't are almost assuredly going to handle it less than ideally ... so I feel like I basically just expect it, all the time. Like I don't say anything at all, or go into anyone else saying anything at all, without first just kind of bracing myself to be encountering that sooner or later. And sometimes I kinda do wonder if that actually adds or detracts from my ability to interact less than negatively with dissenting opinions, really.😅 🤔😅))
If this show was to be faithful and true to the book then it never would be made. Books are able to go into great detail because it's on paper - movies and tv has to go through so much more scrutiny and at the end it boils down to budgets, money and time.
That said - I really enjoyed this adaptation, acting and writing production. And I was mainly here for the story not the - picky picky it apart...
As someone who made the Vampire Chronicles a major part of my personality as a teen, I think it's so weird how much book fans hate the show. I'm actually obsessed with it? I'm having a wild time? I'm not angry or upset about the changes or the differing interpretations of the characters and I love what the actors are doing. The books have always been very different in tone and substance from other adaptations. Consider all the handwringing that went into the 1994 Interview with the Vampire, with Rice censoring her own work in an attempt to make the text less "gay" (remember, they almost made Louis a woman to tap-dance around the homoeroticism). Is Queen of the Damned good(no)? Did Stuart Townsend make a great Lestat(no)? Is nu-metal THE perfect genre of rock music to convey Lestat's message (no)? To be perfectly honest, the Lestat MUSICAL is probably the most 1 to 1 adaptation of any of the books, and it still makes Armand a weirdly spunky comic relief character, completely at odds with the terrible, miserable little cemetery gremlin he is in the book. But also,.... I only ever really enjoyed the first three Vampire Chronicles. I could literally just take those three books as a trilogy and be happy I'd had the best and most satisfying story arc. After Queen of the Damned, my enjoyment of the characters and series depleted with every subsequent book of the chronicles. The plots got goofier. Chunks of lore were retconned in the silliest ways imaginable. The writing wildly vacillated in quality. The characters all sort of became parodies of themselves. So no, I'm not heartbroken about any of the changes in the series. I can't even say that someone should read *all* the books, because a number of them aren't very good, and I would never recommend them! As for the show, I love Sam Reid's version of Lestat and don't think it's "insulting" to the character, as so many book fans have been claiming. If some people love the books, awesome. The books exist. You can go and read them a dozen times like I did. But it's so weird to pretend that the books are faultless pieces of art wherein every story decision, every character arc, every book is a masterpiece written by an incomparable genius. If anything, pointing out the flaws in the AMC series makes the whole thing seem even more like a fraternal twin of Anne's book series. These things aren't perfect, but they're sure as hell fun.
Commenting to say I agree with everything here. Anne's books aren't some holy scripture. They are incredibly flawed and become moreso as the series goes on beyond QOTD, but there's entertainment in them, interesting ideas, characters. Same with the show.
I agree that the first 3 books are the best of the series and that after QOTD the quality starts to decline. I'm particularly fond of Blood and Gold, though and while the "Prince Lestat" final trilogy is pretty weird, it certainly provides closure! As to the TV series, I LOVE it. IMHO the writers are doing a bang-up job and I'm not inclined to nitpick when the finished product is as good as this.
As someone who also was obsessed with the chronicles as a teen, I agree with all of this!
100% agree. These books were my obsession as a teenager, they still hold a special place in my heart. But I’m not blind to their faults. Like don’t even get me started on Replimoids
I loved the series, I thought Sam and Jacob portrayed Lestat and Louis wonderfully, and I can’t wait for season 2
The first three books were my favorites too. I ended up quitting the series a couple books later because the quality went too downhill for me. So I'm definitely not a purist and just love vampire stories, but I have to say that the show started losing me after the first few episodes all on its own rather than just because it was different. It started off fun and fresh, but then became a bit unlikable. I really don't get some of the choices they made and I think I'd have felt the same about it even if it wasn't based on anything. I'm still curious to see where they go next though and there was a bunch of things that I liked.
Anyway, I'm really just commenting to say that I really loved the musical and got a kick out of someone mentioning it! 😂
I suddenly remember just how much I loved the fact that you couldn't just burn a Ricean vampire, you had to also scatter the ashes. 🤭🤭 (Like, that was one of my favoritest little details. ^-^)
I think it could be fun, if we discover later on that certain methods of 'killing' a vampire don't technically work at all...and that others, do work, but it's more of an 'X-method' +[something-more] kind of thing.
And we don't really know what tv series Louis actually has or hasn't personally experienced first-hand before, versus what Louis in the books would have, at any particular point or not. It's kinda like peeling layers off an onion, except..more fun. Lol 😆
I'm excited to learn more about the show's version of Armand and Louis' shared backstory. With all due respect, I disagree with your interpretation about Louis being smug about calling Armand (not Lestat) the real love of his life. His facial expression seemed very ambiguous to me. Maybe Armand is not mind-controlling Louis, but, if he is anything like his book counterpart, he has the strength, cunning, and personality to play on Louis' weaknesses and control him in other ways. His floating above Louis perhaps symbolizes that their relationship is not on even footing. Louis might feel pressured or obligated into calling Armand his one true love for whatever reason. My question right now is, what does Armand have on Louis?
Agreed. Rolin Jones compared that last scene to the closing scene of "The Graduate". Definitely meant as a scene where we as an audience should question the authenticity of what the characters are saying.
@Jamina Vesta Jugo My bet is either Claudia's ashes or Lestat's location.
Yeah, what stuck out to me was Louis calling Armand “the love of his life” since Louis isn’t very vocal about his affection towards love interests (never once, as far as we know, telling Lestat that he loves him in all their years together.)
🤔 I think she missed the obvious plot of the season. You can't trust the majority of what Louis says, especially when they show telling parts triggers an episode and Rashid/Armand intervenes.
As someone with only a pop culture osmosis knowledge of the series & prior movie as a whole coming into this show I really appreciate hearing and seeing how it's different. I'm not a usual horror fan but have really liked and resonated with the storytelling as well and have found the show very enjoyable while also getting why there are/could be some valid critique of how it differs.
After seeing the episode the first time and hearing Armand say that he 'protects louis from himself' I definitely got a sense that this would be used to clean up a few inaccuracies from the season that needed to be smoothed over but perhaps that is also dangerous to think too much on or lean too much into. I do get some sense that perhaps Armand did influence some of the recollecting tho, maybe more so on the idea that Louis was much more affectionate and loving with Lestat but cut out mention of it so as to not be too demonstrative? And while you saw a smug expression I was more reminded of 'get out' in that he had nothing behind his eyes and maybe it's a bit of a smokescreen of happiness that Armand is helping facilitate. There's a sterility and precision that deeply contrasts the Louis we knew of the past/in series and he's in some way been led by one person or another his entire life as a vampire so that feels at pla too.
It all feels slightly up in the air but as a non die hard fan I do have questions and hopes and curiosities as to what might change or happen to differ from the source still and how that might play out in the subsequent season/s.
Just a little note, there was one time when humans did get suspicious of their nature in the books and made them leave, when they had to flee the plantation cause the slaves and Babette noticed something was wrong (not that that issue ever comes back up in the books oc)
I’m only 15 minutes into the video so I’m not sure if you will bring it up later yet but one of the inconsistencies that bothered me was that at one point Lestat suggested he and Louis go to Rome/Italy in an earlier episode but here he is totally against the idea for plot reasons
Tom was racist during the poker scene
He was also part of the plan to get Louis out of business (as revealed in episode 3).
While I do understand and also have some similar issues around this adaptation, I don't think that necessarily justifies some of the blowback I've seen from youtubers and fans alike. Just because something isn't what you want it to be, doesn't entitle anyone to rage and spew obscenities at the cast and crew involved in this series. I've seen a lot of that online. I've also seen a lot of people loving the show. The series is an adaptation. The network and filmmakers are allowed to do what they want with an intellectual property, they spent millions to aquire. I love Anne's novels, but we've seen and enjoyed those stories for decades. This is something different, and that's ok. I get youtubers like the maven have an occupation and an income they need and they have to make content that will attract viewers and followers, but at some point we should be intellectually honest and not act as if these filmmakers have created some sort of horrific abomination that's destroyed Anne's legacy. That's just not accurate, and does nothing but further create an already divided fandom.
Probably it's the fact that it was all changed, breaking repeated specific promises not to do so, to create something so ultimately meh.
Very well said. Weird, people wants adaptation to be something EXACT in books. Do they understand what "adaptation" even is?
I’ve seen numerous takes from many fans of the show and books that are on the extremes of both ends of the spectrum but I will say at the end of watching this I will say your take is somewhat fair. Although I do disagree with quite a few things that were said. As newer fan of Anne’s books I can understand how fans more familiar with her work would feel slighted about the show making changes that they don’t agree with. However I think because I haven’t been with the source material as long it makes me appreciate the show more. Especially because it’s made me start reading the novels. I do think the comment of “it’s not working” seems a bit much since this was only one season and trying to condense several books worth of story in the last episode is a little unfair and unrealistic. I do agree that there may be some inconsistencies story line wise. Maybe they’re intentional? Maybe not clear narrative direction? Who knows. I will say despite your critique I was glad to hear you would at least continue to watch for the second season. Hopefully it improves in the areas you weren’t satisfied with but as for me, for this show I think Jacob, Sam, Bailey, and Eric were meant to play these characters and bring so much to this version of Anne’s universe.
Sidenote: hardcore fans of the books, please relax, we get it😅😂
for a lot of people ive talked to its not about disagreeing with the changes it's about the many many many promises to keep to the spirit of the source material. i am very much enjoying the show, but it does not keep to the spirit of the source material . if the show runners read the books, they knew they were being dishonest when they kept making those promises for months and months. no one likes being lied to.
changing the time period and Louis' race dont event make my list of things that dont keep to the spirit of the books. but it's still a great show.
@@Visshaldar I understand. Like I said in my comment before, since I’m a newer fan of the books I don’t share a lot of hangups some older book fans have about the show. But also I come to this realizing that it’s an adaptation and that there will be deviations from the source material. Taking the HP books for example. The books have tons of material left out from films but approaching them as adaptations i can understand why they made the choices they did. As for the spirit of the her books, that part I kinda disagree with because they are hitting the tone of the characters and plot granted there are differences of course. I’m not going to tell anyone how they should feel about watching the show but I think saying the show runners were dishonest is not something I can agree with because interpreting the “spirit of the books” was a vague promise if there was one in the first place plus ppl will having varied interpretations of what that means.
For me personally I can appreciate both for what they are and hope more book fans won’t allow a need for hitting every story beat the exact same way be what deters them from appreciating this as it’s own work.
@@Visshaldar oh yes white slave Master Louis
@@lindaq2362 either you didnt read my comment in which i specifically said the Louis race change doesnt bother me or you are acting in bad faith.
the show changed things about Louis' character that did not need to be changed to accommodate the change in race. and the show suffers for it. it has lead to multiple in consistencies where show runners are trying to gesture vaguely to important themes and events from the book (that have nothing to do with Louis being a white slave owner) but these gestures don't make sense in the context of the show b/c of the changes they have made.
I think you can have multiple loves of your life. One after the other.
😂 Maybe Louis’s like, “The love of my life…this week.”
You probably can when you live hundreds of years.
I don’t believe Armand is the love of Louis’ life. I am bias cause I don’t like Armand. Louis is lying you can see it in his eyes and on Daniel’s face. I am interested in how they are going to Armand relationship with Daniel.
As someone who has only seen the film adaptation years before I watched the show, I must say I enjoyed this show and it made me want to read the book just to see how different it was, and I’m enjoying the book just as much if not more.
My single, biggest gripe is for a story based around immortality in time and all of that good stuff they definitely do not age the mortal actors nearly enough. Grace looks damn near the same age, the whole time Tom doesn’t even have gray hair. It annoys me so much because it’s such a big important point how could you just skip over that.
I think this too. Plus major continuity errors. Maybe AMC should have made this Fear the Southern Vampires instead of Anne Rice’s anything. People tell me she wrote on this…I see zero evidence in thus respect. It was like she died and everyone just plays it fast and loose now…which would be ok if it was camp…but it changes it’s mood too much to hold my attention and an adult age actress playing Claudia…ugh…it seems like they didn’t even change the script to be a 14 year old instead of five…I don’t understand the point of her if she can pass as an adult. It would have been more fun and camp if she met Killer and made the Fang Gang with him. Instead we got a sexual assault that will “darken” her character. What a slap in the face to rape survivors.
I have a theory about Louis's memory inconsistency since I think it'll be explored even further in season two.
I think that, starting at the point of Claudia's hatred of Louis for not fully killing Lestat (I think, as Maven said, that everything before that point was accurate memory), we might be seeing much more of Louis's memory of the travels in Europe being called into question and I think there is a reason for it. Namely, starting with the Claudia lie, that there is a possibility that much of Louis's season two memories are being manipulated (via gaslighting or something similar rather than by mind control) by Armand, possibly to frame Armand in a favourable light in Louis' eyes. Don't get me wrong I don't think Louis was mistaken about Lestat, but I think it might be the case from the Claudia hating Louis thing onwards, given how cleanly the pages of Claudia's diary were removed in that scene compared to earlier with the entry about Bruce being violently torn out. If this is the case, I think that the climatic moment of season two will be Louis realizing Armand's lies about the flashback events of season two (which will probably paint Armand in a good light until that point) and Louis remembering what happened to Claudia at the Theatres des Vampires and Armand's role in it. This is just a small theory, let me know what you guys think of it.
I love it, but I'd also argue that there could still be multiple instances of unreliable narrative in s1. The argument the we only see Louis so bothered the one time immediately falls apart when you consider that he's never been pushed so hard to admit something isn't true. Not that I really care.
Loved all these reviews . Curious if you will also cover Mayfair witches ?
I would love to see the long versions of your show. If you are workshopping that, I for one say Yay to that.
I honestly wish more book fans (of any book) could have your attitude about adaptations. Even if something fails as an adaptation, if the story they choose to tell is interesting I'm always FASCINATED by the choices they make.
My theory is that, despite Louis's claims of being more honest this time, he probably isn't. They've made such a point this season of suggesting that Louis's memory is faulty that I'd be willing to bet that when Lestat eventually shows up in the modern day he'll tell his side of the story and reveal that Louis is either lying or his memories have been altered. (By Armand, perhaps?)
it seems that way. Would be rather diappointing. Because some of the changes done by the show cannot just be explained away by making them a lie. It would be highly problematic. To continue by having Louis memories altered also would be problematic imo because it takes away the agency of the character. Poor Louis.
They put themselves a bit into a corner here. I hope they come up with something good.
love your reviews!Will you also make about the Mayfair witches on AMC?
I am ur fan! Super creative and interesting! THANKSSS
Louis said the whole point of this 2022 interview is "Truth & reconciliation" but said with I think a bit of an air of a 'shrug' and a strongly implied "...Maybe"[ or 'I don't rightly/entirely/ know'] about it.
However, it is arguable whether or not 'truth' here does indeed mean literally getting all the facts exactly right, or if that actually means something else to Louis here. . . Like, I dunno, perhaps just some kind of personal and/or emotional 'truth' ? or something??
(I kinda feel as if that is actually exactly what Daniel and Louis were constantly butting heads, disputing about with each other so much throughout the entire first season honestly.😅 But maybe I just read weird things into stuff, myself? I have no idea! Lol)
I have not read any of Anne Rice's books, watched previous film adaptations, or followed the development of this series, so I didn't have any expectations going in and I'm enjoying the show quite a bit. However, I can totally see how a fan would be disappointed, especially as the creators of the show promised it would closely stick to the source material when that is clearly not the case. We shall see what season 2 brings! :) Thank you making these reviews, I'm always so excited to see what your thoughts are after watching the newest episode.
8:34 Like fish, vampires are friends not food. Finding Nemo lesson to live by.
maybe they will fix those continuity mistakes on season 2 with daniel calling louis and armand out for the inconsistencies in the story being told since season 2 is picking up right from where they left
Lestat’s dress on the float reminds me of Sadie Frost’s Lucy from FFC’s Dracula. Her wedding dress with the big collar.
The concept of an unreliable narration doesn't mean the narrator is lying [they might be] it means that their narrative alone can be trusted as full fact
Louis in the books is passed from abusive relationship to abusive relationship even if none of them could be considered deliberate, his father's death left him with the abuses of his father [slavery, the responsibility to look after his family etc, which louis is complacent in continuing] Paul manipulates Louis and when he is denied kills himself but Louis blames himself, then we get Lestat and all of that where he accepts being a monster is what he deserves, then Claudia and Claudia plays him like a fiddle for a very long time, that is broken when Armand kills her and takes her place without Louis knowing that Armand was responsible.
At the end of that NO ONE could be considered reliable, and this Louis is the same, he is very good at fronting that he is okay but he's still on a conveyor line of awful people, and almost all of them want to blame Lestat.
Then you get how we're getting the Mayfair Witches BEFORE we get season 2 of this and the mayfair witches is unreliable narration the overwritten novel where it tells the same story over and over again with different characters having different insight and it's only together we know what probably happened
Lestat's view of what Louis did is going to be different, Armand's is going to be different again - we can't rely that the narration is word of god exactly as it happened but it's probably very close, like claudia was probably shrieking burn the body and louis doesn't want to admit that to himself so in his narration she couldn't do it either, he's remembering her the way he wanted her to be, not necessarily how she was. The same as Louis was unaware how much Claudia hated him until he couldn't ignore it any more.
That's what we mean by unreliable - his story is probably mostly true, but it's told a century after the fact after spending years with people who hated lestat and whom he wants to please so he hates lestat, so lestat goes from being awful to being the worst TM, and we all know that's Armand
I'm not sure u are using their def of 'spirit' right. I was not the book or the movie but those I have still. I loved this show and lestat def is in the 'spirit of Anne Rice ' i.m.o..... :) arts subjective... Sorry I didn't enjoy as much as me. 🙂
“Louis hasn’t had direct racism towards him since becoming a vampire… since episode 3” sorry but you need to pay more attention..
Louis and Claudia were sitting at the back of the bus in this episode while Lestat was sitting in front. Racism isn't always directly insidious. It's also systemic things you have to live with *every single day* just by being a black person in America. Louis and Claudia deal with racism every single time they walk outside their house just by dent of how human society is. And being a vampire can't change the systemic things they have to deal with, even if they are superpowered.
That bus scene symbolically showed a LOT, underlying the power imbalance between Louis and Lestat that is still there even though both are immortal beings.
@@cbrownjc7633 Yes racism is systematic and they did deal with that. However, Louis and Claudia both dealt with direct racism after episode 3. Which is why it's ticking me off Maven said that.
@@naomi6031 Yeah, it ticked me off too. And you are right they did deal with direct racism after EP3, Claudia in EP5 especially.
@@cbrownjc7633 Claudia in episode 4 when she was happy to dress up, she couldn't even be excited for so long after hearing those girls.. it's so sad
@@naomi6031 Claudia is a young black girl who was sheltered and begins to sadly learn, as she goes more and more out into the world, that people will forever look down on her in ways both small and obvert simply because of the color of her skin. All her killing machine killer immortal life isn't going to change that.
She had to pretend to be the daughter of a cleaning maid - even though she is an immortal being! - just to access college libraries. And even then *still* got hit with the "you don't belong here" shit by some white frat boy jock type. Don't tell me that wasn't a small but subtle commentary on black people being admitted into high education institutions, particularly during that time period.
It's a reality of life. It makes you angry. Claudia and Louis can both kill individuals who slight them in this way and unleash their anger. But they can't *change* it. Louis killing the Alderman in EP3 didn't change it. Claudia killing that frat boy jock in EP5 doesn't change it. They both still have to ride at the back of the bus.
There is a lot of racial comment and commentary going on in this show. It just doesn't hit you over the head with it.
Theseus' interview with the vampire.
Thanks for the vid!
I want to know why Rashid/Armand is able to use his touch screen iPad with gloves on..Everybody knows that don’t work..Lol. 🦇
VAMPIRE MAGIC! 😉
Side note: tvLestat's costume at the Parade gave me vibes of Lucy's wedding/burial ensemble in the Coppola Dracula movie, which I LOVE.
Thank you for reviewing and going on this journey with us Maven, I for one really appreciate all your videos and vampire knowledge, it's fun hearing the thoughts of other vampire-obsessed people like myself on all this entertainment throughout the years! 🖤🖤🖤🖤✨✨✨
Speaking of Dracula, I have come to the conclusion that Anne's Vampire Chronicles are going to be just as iconic as Bram Stoker's Dracula in the centuries to come, and just like Drac, there will never be a book accurate adaptation 😆😆😆. Some will come close, other will deviated wildly, most will be in the mediocre in-between, but it will all be a wild ride.
Personally, I guess I never really believed the show runners that promised to preserve the spirit of Anne's Work, because that's just what Hollywood is, the nature of the beast so to speak, so I have come to appreciate this show, as a vampire show, separate from the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm not gonna lie, it's a struggle, the mental gymnastics I have to do, after every episode lol.
It's not like with the Queen of the Damned movie, that was a fun rump that gave us the Best Akasha ever even if it also deviated from canon sooooo much it was almost a parody, because a movie is short in comparison to a tv show, it ends quick and that was that.
Nevertheless, keep up the good work Maven! 🦇✨🌈❣️
Maybe it's just because it's been too long since I last read the books, but I just don't find myself actually even needing to appreciate this tv series as so totally separately from the books as I typically have to do with so many other adaptations of other things at all. I can easily imagine the books having gone not that terribly differently than this, if Anne Rice had written them with some of these changes implemented herself. (But that doesn't mean I'm saying that they don't still have certain marked differences betwixt them-of course, they absolutely do.😁)
I feel as if you could almost say, though, that Ricean vampires have _already_ achieved that same range from one adaptation to another-even if we never got any other adaptations after this one!😅🤭😸
mental gymnastics - well said. Same here. I want to like it, I do like many things and yet the mental gynastics with the episiodes takes it out of me, especially as they progress and I cannot figure out what the actual message of the show is, after having watched 7 episodes. Trying to separate each medium book, movie, TV is all good and well - sure not easy - but it should have a message of some sort - so what is it? I fail to see it.
@@corpeter Why does it actually need to have a message of some sort, though? (Even if the books did.)
Why can't a tv series just be the story of a man from the 1910s who met a vampire, and then became a vampire himself, and all the things that happened after that[..which, eventually, somehow all lead him to being interviewed and telling another man all about it]? 🤔
Sometimes, I think it's enough just to imagine what might happen[ or what might happen to a person] if something along these particular lines happened to somebody.
Sometimes, I don't think there always really needs to be any more of a specific message in a story than there necessarily always has to be just in the story of an average person's life.
But that's just me. ^--^
Hey Maven, the audio books for Interview and Lestat are on CZcams. Have you listened to them and would you give them a recommendation?
I think the most disappointing aspect by far is Lestat’s DV towards Claudia. He adored her.
... too long? TOO LONG?! NEVER!!!!