#rolin jones explain!!! EXPLAIN!!!

[captmuldoon]

Something that does stick out to me about the way they keep referencing Alice within the show is that the characters only ever reference Alice. We know Daniel has another ex-wife, we know he has two daughters that hate him and don't speak to him anymore. Yeah, part of what brings Alice up is because of Daniel's book (like the dessert from Paris in season 1), but when it comes to weaponizing Daniel's memories against him there are other prominent people in his life that are never mentioned. It always comes back to Alice. We might learn more about his other ex-wife and his daughters in the next season but I think the fact that they are continually absent across two seasons during the Dubai interview (when the running theme is memory is a monster) says a lot.

[nalyra-dreaming]

"Armand tells Daniel the story of how he came to know Lestat, and the origins of the Théâtres des Vampires as a result of that meeting, in the episode. Every snippet he shares, including the people involved in them, are carefully selected and serve his ulterior motives. The first flag on Armand’s unreliable narration is the fact that he tells this story when Louis is asleep and can’t contribute. You have to ask yourself why, and that question is undoubtedly running through Daniel’s mind, but Louis does eventually join back in."

[savagewildnerness]

Immortal, bloodthirsty creatures that feed on humans - they have sharp fangs and a hatred for sunlight and garlic.

Vampires might not be the hero you typically root for, but they have transfixed us for centuries.

The first short story about the monster written in the English language was John Polidori's The Vampyre in 1819.

More followed, with Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1897 inspiring F.W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu in 1922. This is now being remade by Robert Eggers and is set to be released in the UK in 2025, starring Bill Skarsgård, Lily-Rose Depp and Nicholas Hoult.

But what's driving our hunger for vampire stories?

For writer and actor Mark Gatiss, his fascination with vampires started early. The co-writer of BBC drama series Sherlock and Dracula has been a "horror obsessive" for as long as he can remember.

Gatiss went on from a childhood love of scary stories to star as Dracula in an audio production, made a documentary on the monster as well as a 2020 BBC series, which sees the Count (played by Claes Bang) venture to London.

He says the opportunity to bring Stoker's iconic vampire to life felt "too good to be true".

"Like Sherlock Holmes, it's an imperishable myth and, really, if anyone gives you the chance to have a go at it - you have to do it," he explains.

Gatiss explains an image of Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes "silhouetted against a doorway when he comes back from the dead with his collar up" helped spark the 2020 Dracula series with Claes Bang

Rolin Jones is an executive producer and a writer on the TV adaptation of Interview with the Vampire, based on Anne Rice's collection of novels.

The series, available on BBC iPlayer, follows vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac (played by Jacob Anderson) who shares the story of his life and relationship with Lestat de Lioncourt (played by Sam Reid) with a journalist.

He explains stories about the vampires "come back over and over again" because they "get in your bones and haunt you," with many raising questions of immortality, death and love.

The modern popularity of the figures can be seen on social media with #vampire having 2.7 million posts on TikTok.

Jones adds that each day he will see more people tattooing the characters' faces on their body, explaining "this is a rabid fan base".

"They're really tense and complex characters", Jones says

'Scared me to death'

While the characteristics of fictional vampires have changed throughout history - some burn to a crisp in the sunlight, others have famously sparkly skin - they have one thing in common: immortality.

Dr Sam George - an associate professor at the University of Hertfordshire who taught students about vampires in fiction - explains that part of the reason the monster endures is because they "get us to think about the big questions that concern us, ideas about ageing" as well as "what happens beyond the grave".

She adds that "the vampire's always been linked very strongly with disease, with contagion," adding that if we look back in history we can see that our interest in the immortal monster seems to pique around times of mass disease.

"When the first fictional vampire appeared in 1819, there was a strong link with tuberculosis," she says.

"Nosferatu is made to actually look like plague rats," Dr George explains

She adds that F.W. Murnau's silent film Nosferatu in 1922, centring on a character famous for the plagued rats he brought in his wake, came shortly after the Spanish influenza pandemic.

The academic adds that this is "really important to why vampires are so popular and on trend now, when you think of Nosferatu and its link to the plague, post Covid we're very interested in the vampire as contagion."

Executive producer Jones adds that a key point of interest for him lies in working out why vampires want to keep living. "You take mortality out of any drama, and it's quite interesting," he says.

Jones adds that Ms Rice herself wrote the novel after losing her daughter and that this sense of "grief and mourning" is "exceptionally articulated" in the book.

'They seduce you'

"There's this allure to them," Jones says of vampires - like Assad Zaman, who plays the vampire Armand and Jacob Anderson, who plays Louis de Pointe du Lac

While vampires may let us play out our fears about mortality and death, Jones adds that there is something else that draws us to the fanged figures.

"They're the sexiest, the most sensual of monsters," he says. "They seduce you."

Jones adds that when he first picked up the novel Interview with the Vampire, "it seemed to me what I was reading was this really repressed and really messy love story."

Dr George agrees, explaining "vampires have gotten younger and better looking over the years" and notes the difference between Nosferatu and Twilight's Edward Cullen (played by Robert Pattinson).

The academic adds there has been "a shift" in the way people read vampire fiction, explaining there has been a lot of interest in the topic of sexuality and vampires, like the "queer family" presented in Ms Rice's novel. 

The combination of love and immortality, Dr George says, is also seen in Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula, which ran with the tagline "love never dies".

For Dr George, the "sense that the vampire can address a number of questions all at once," from death to love is the reason it stays with us today.

This article made me curious (I haven't put combination of some/all as an option as 100% would vote for it, as of course it isn't just one thing... so I ask the *most* significant thing for you)...

Edit to add that this is very difficult even for me to answer and I created the poll. Now, I'd say existential questions would be my top answer, but when I first read the books, it was the exploration of the outsider/difference I think for me, so perhaps that's the truest answer?

[crazykuroneko]

More interviews with Sam, Assad, and Rolin (+ mention of Jacob ofc):

[thelioncourts]

“We were able to shoot in sequence,” Anderson explained, “so I was able to sit down and think about who he was at any given time. I was able to talk to Rolin [Jones, the showrunner] a lot about every version of Louis.”

He described some of the inspirations for contemporary Louis—the one relating his story to Daniel Molloy in Dubai—people like Eartha Kitt, David Bowie, Grace Jones. “These are people that are deeply human, but there’s something that seems ethereal about them as well.”

Article Here [x]

[murfpersonalblog]

As Louis, Anderson has to be a mercurial actor, flexible enough to portray a man in his 20s, his 60s, his 80s, and, in the show’s present-day scenes, nearly 130. “We were able to shoot in sequence,” Anderson explained, “so I was able to sit down and think about who he was at any given time. I was able to talk to Rolin [Jones, the showrunner] a lot about every version of Louis.” He described some of the inspirations for contemporary Louis...people like Eartha Kitt, David Bowie, Grace Jones. “These are people that are deeply human, but there’s something that seems ethereal about them as well.” He described how often when Louis is vulnerable or upset, he slips back into his Creole accent; a Southern twang with a French lilt that Anderson has done a lot of work to get as right as possible. It’s a tell, and even Louis sometimes isn’t aware it’s happening. Anderson is British, and he manages the Louisiana cadence with more grace than he’s given credit for, in my opinion. “That’s fun though, that’s one of my favourite things about playing Louis, finding little moments to do that.”

[4th-make-quail]

I don't understand why some people can't even entertain the possibility of Eric being not 100% straight when we have stuff like:

The young Daniel Molloy who we see in the show isn't that different from the young Eric Bogosian hitting New York in the mid 70s and also on one level kind of is willing to do anything, take anything, walk in any door -- I was always up for-- different stuff.

from the RT interview or

Much like Jones took the clear gay subtext of the books and made it explicit, the unreliability of Louis’ narration was always there to begin with. “Rolin takes the things in the books and presses them in higher relief,” Bogosian explained, before immediately diving into the queer layering without any prompting from me whatsoever. “The part that’s very interesting to me is Molloy. His subtext is there, but you can barely see the outlines of it in the original writing.” Bogosian compared the journey that this character goes on—recontextualizing and questioning his own experiences as a young journalist—to his own journey. “I’m at that point in my life where I am intrigued by my younger self. What the fuck did I think I was doing in 1975? That’s when I got to New York, and there were a lot of adventures to be had. There were a lot of seedy places just like that San Francisco scene in the book.” Bogosian was on a tear at this point, and I was just along for the ride. “I didn’t give a shit. I didn’t care if it was a gay club or a straight club. I didn’t care if it was heroin, cocaine, or what the hell it was. I just wanted to try everything out.”

From Lin Codega interview https://gizmodo.com/interview-with-the-vampire-eric-bogosian-assad-zaman-1849792499

YEAH honestly, I feel much the same about this!! I don't like speculating about people's sexualities and personal lives so much, but I can say I'd honestly be shocked if Eric isn't queer of some variety.

[hyohaehyuk]

KTLA 5 - Jacob Anderson and Sam Reid preview Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire Season 2

Unfortunately the one that is on their official channel on yt is not completely but someone uploaded the full version on yt

KTLA 5 - AMC's 'Interview with the Vampire' returns for 'guts out' second season

Interview:

KTLA: How would you describe this season compared to the first? Jacob Anderson: It is a very felt season. Everything is heart, guts out, tears in your eyes. Extreme emotion. Sam Reid: And it’s a bigger season, too. It’s just bigger. It’s more vampires, it’s like the world has opened. You saw a little crack of it last season and this season, this is the world and it only gets bigger.

KTLA: Jacob, who is Louis this season compared to last? Anderson: I think in this season Louis is reckoning with who he really is, what is his nature. I think in season one it’s very much about coming to terms with how is he gonna hold onto his human nature in the face of becoming a monster or a vampire. And this season is about him coming to terms with… the other side of his nature and figuring out how to do that on his own terms. But it’s quite a trial to get there, if he gets there. Yeah. A lot of things are bubbling up.

KTLA: You welcomed a new actor into your cast right at the meaty crux, this tender point in their journey. What was it like working with Delainey Hayles, who brings this fierce and tender Claudia to life? What was that transition like? Anderson: It’s kind of remarkable. She just fits like a glove and was incredibly—from day one—was just game to do [and] try whatever. Amazing. She’s amazing. We’re very lucky to have her. Reid: It was a great gift we were given that Delainey joined us. She’s so, so phenomenal. We’re really lucky. Anderson: She will break your heart and terrify you at the same time.

KTLA: Sam, the last time we saw Lestat, he was in the dump, munching rats. What do you think his takeaway is at this point? Has he learned from that experience? Reid: Well, I think you will find that out. I feel like it would kind of be a mistake to explain it at this point, but I think, somewhere deep down, Lestat knew that he had to die. And I would say definitely he was proud of Claudia. I think he spent a lot of time thinking about what happened, but I think he and Claudia are a lot more similar than either of them would like to admit. I think he spent a lot of time being very proud of Claudia [and] ashamed as well.

KTLA: We’ve been told that memory is to be questioned and that the Lestat that we’re seeing is maybe not a full picture. As an actor, how do you make choices knowing you may be playing different versions of this guy? Reid: With great pleasure. (laughs) It’s very fun, you know. That’s one of the great joys of this character. I don’t have to stick to any form of continuity, so I feel like I can change things up. Particularly when you get some new perspectives coming in, which we have this season, a whole other point of view. I can go, “Well, what’s that version? What’s that guy like? What is it like to be his ex? What’s he like there?” So it’s a very fun thing to do. And also the majority of the season he’s a vision through Louis’ imagination… Anderson: That was giving Jeff Goldblum. Reid: (laughs) …Louis’ imagination. I’m also playing Louis, as well. They’re so intertwined. Lestat can also be a part of Louis, because he is a part of Lestat. So yeah, it’s a great joy.

KTLA: I read that you once wanted to study clowning in Paris, and we see a bit of Lestat’s history as a stage actor. Was this your showrunner Rolin Jones’ Parisian clown school? What was it like playing this Commedia-style, period actor? Reid: I actually always treat Lestat like a clown. When I did study acting, clowning was one of my favorite things. And I do see Lestat like a clown. I see him like an auguste clown, which is like a clown that’s kind of high status… Anderson: (laughing) Reid: (laughing) I think he’s funny, I think he’s… Anderson: I can never hear you talk about clowning and not think of, like, clowns… (laughing progressively harder as Reid earnestly explains theatrical clowning) Reid: Yeah, so… it was kind of funny. It was fun for him to do that scene as a clown. But you know, the fun thing about it as well is that he’s playing Harlequin, he’s not playing Lelio. So why is he playing that clown and who’s put him in that clown costume? That’s kind of the joy…. Anderson: (laughing) KTLA: It’s been a long day, I can tell. Anderson: No, I just find the idea of clowns hilarious. [To Reid] It’s not what you’re saying. Reid: Jacob has a fear of clowns. Anderson: I don’t. I’m not afraid of clowns. Reid: He can’t actually say the word without… Anderson: I find serious clowns very funny. Like, the idea of earnest clowns. Anyway… no disrespect to the clown community.

KTLA: We’ve met Armand (Assad Zaman) and we know he’s a powerful character. Who are Lestat and Armand to each other? Reid: They have a really wildly complex relationship and I think one cares more than the other. I think if Lestat had a choice, he would never see him again and would be very happy to have no interaction with him whatsoever. And doesn’t think much of him. But he’s one of those characters that just, because he’s so old and so entwined with all of vampire life, keeps turning back up. So they’re like foes—foes, is that the word? Yeah, but I can imagine that when Lestat found out Louis and Armand were together, I can imagine that he would have been pissed but not surprised in the slightest.

KTLA: Louis and Armand’s relationship in this season was very potent and surprising, and it’s complicated in a juicy way. Jacob, how did you and Assad carve out this distinct relationship when both the characters and the audience are in the shadow of a relationship from season one? Anderson: I don’t think we really thought about it that much. We didn’t really talk about it. Before we started shooting, we just said the one thing that’s really important about their relationship is to not try and replicate Louis and Lestat’s relationship. The minute you try and do that, it fails. They have such a different dynamic from each other and it’s based on such different factors. Those characters are in such different places compared to where Louis and Lestat are when they meet each other. There was just never any point in comparing. In terms of how people who watch the show think of Louis and Lestat, and Armand and Louis, I genuinely don’t think too much about that, because I think then you can sort of try to play up to things too much that don’t really serve the story. You want to tell the story that you’re telling and not try and play up to anything else. So we didn’t really talk about it so much, we just tried different things. They have quite a gentle relationship in the beginning. Or certainly it seems that way.

KTLA: What do you enjoy most about playing these characters? Reid: The show asks a lot. It gives us the opportunity to do a lot. It’s very rare when you get a role where you get to do all of the things that we get to do in the show. It’s so much fun— Anderson: Every day you’re like, “What? Is this my job? Is this what we’re doing today?” Reid: Obviously it’s a lot of drama, beautiful dialogue, you’re going through the 500 degrees of every emotion. And it’s also funny and it’s also lots of action and we’ve got blood and we’ve got crazy contacts in. It’s fantasy and it’s raunchy. It’s just like, wow, it’s a bit of everything. It’s a mixed bag, you never know what you’re gonna get. It’s a joy. Anderson: I feel like that as well about, specifically, playing Louis. He is so many different people. I don’t just mean the difference between 1910s Louis and modern-day Louis, [or] 1945 [Louis]. I just mean Louis’ brain is a storm and sometimes you get to go to the different stages of that storm within a few minutes and that’s very fun. And he’s not clean. He’s not a clean-cut character. He’s not easy to pin down. He’s complex. And he behaves in ways that I don’t love sometimes. And he also does things that, you know, he… I love Louis. Although it’s heartbreaking.

[vorbarrsultana]

the vampire lestat reread, pt. 1 (lestat and nickistat)

also known as "i decided to reread tvl after the season finale because some takes i've seen online give me the impression i read a completely different book two years ago". i've finished it two days ago, and turns out i have more than 5000 words of notes that significally exceed tumblr character limit. so, i had to split them into three parts.

here is part one, all about dramatic theater kids full of love, sad violinists of infinite beauty, and friends-to-lovers romances doomed by the narrative.

i love lestat.

i forgot how fun and likable tvl lestat is from page one. and how different he is from his fanon characterization!

lestatposting is fun, i get it, but i am starting to get annoyed at the amount of fanfics where lestat needs someone to help him adapt to modern times. he is doing fine on his own, thank you. it took him less than two weeks to start a rock band.

(and the whole iphone thing from "prince lestat" is more about him not seeing it as something useful since he has a mind-skype ability to talk to any vamp on planet earth, and they cannot decline the call.)

lestat is not stupid. impulsive? yes. stubborn? of course. but clever, resourseful, and cunning when he needs to be. all of this makes him a great hunter! also, really thoughtful when the mood strikes, and his quiet, existential moments have some of the best prose in that book.

i wish someone smarter than me wrote a good meta about lestat & social class because he really seems to buy into the idea of "noblesse oblige" i.e. the belief that aristocrats are obliged to take care of those less fortunate. it's present in the way he kills the wolf pack for the villagers (who live on his father's land), and later takes responsibility for the theatre troupe & remnants of armand's coven, even though he doesn't owe them anything.

also, characterization of lestat as someone socially cluesless is simply untrue. sure, he plays dumb on occasion (and hates it every time because early life illiteracy trauma), but he is also good at reading people. like, he got a pretty accurate read of armand behind the angelic facade during their first face-to-face meeting. the only people he has trouble reading are those closest to him because he heavily projects his abandonment issues on them.

lestat's struggle of being "too much" contrasts nicely with the struggle of never being enough which is so crucial to louis. hashtag made for each other.

and juxtaposition of lestat's desire to be loved for who he is and louis's struggle with identity is also delicious.

this time i also related so much to lestat's "malady of mortality" and his search for meaning in the world. which ultimately fails because he is forcibly turned into a monster, and now every ounce of happiness he might bring into the world (and lestat desperately wants to do good!) is outweighed by him killing to survive.

and marius later reinforced the belief that vampirism has no higher purpose, and no wonder that nola!lestat is a shell of his former self.

lestat's turning is the most classic horror moment of the vampire chronicles to me. the mina harker of it all. the creature of night shrouded in terror snatching an innocent victim from the arms of their love right before bleak november sunrise.

also, all the implications of what magnus has done to lestat were even more clear during this reread, and i wonder if that was the reason rolin "i-love-narrative-parallels" jones added bruce into claudia's story.

the book also explains perfectly why lestat is so well suited for vampirism. his curiosity, thirst for new experiences, and adventuring spirit are his eternal engine on the devil's road :)

however, the downside of that personality facet is that lestat steamrolls over his trauma telling himself "this is fine! look, satan, i am making the best of it", which in turn leads to the iwtv nola mess.

and i feel like this constant search for positives in vampirism (that unwilligly turned lestat & claudia share) is why they can't really relate to louis, who chose it for himself. if these two start to get too existential, the temptation to throw themselves into the fire might become unbearable.

lestat equating his loneliness with his evilness is interesting, but i have nothing to say about that for now other than equation being there.

lestat's explosive temper is also present in the book. there is a constant pattern of lestat doing things he regrets the most (like the theater performance fiasco or eating people at notre dame's steps) when he is angry or upset.

let's talk about nicki. i love him, despite half of fandom hating on him for some reason.

lestat has a type, which is "good catholic boy" with narrow view of good and evil. except louis is of a parent's favorite, conforming variety, and nicki is the rebellious one, driven to the utmost cynicism by religious dogmas.

however, despite being a self-proclaimed cynic, nicki practically drowns in catholic guilt, almost reveling in the fact that everything he does, from playing violin in the boulevard theater to having an affair with lestat, is wrong. there is no meaning in anything, and he is doomed to die a sinner's death.

he is doomed! by the narrative though.

lestat and nicki's philosophical difference seems to be that nicki (unlike lestat) does not believe in inherent goodness of the positive emotions. for him, "sin always feels good", therefore happiness they bring performing = sin.

but still, nickistat's love is so touching. after lestat ghosts nicki to protect him, he still trusts lestat's love for him and the troupe, thinks best of him, and shuts down all nasty rumours. in turn, lestat equates all the good that was in his mortal life, all his hopes and dreams with nicki. he is a symbol of everything magnus took from him.

AND THEY COMMUNICATE THROUGH MUSIC, AND IT'S THEM AT THEIR BEST, AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL.

nicki almost became lestat's charlie. when they meet face to face for the first time after lestat's transformation, he can barely contain his hunger magnified by attraction.

the most terribly sad thing about nicki is the unfairness of all that happened to him. he had seen lestat being shot right before him, then he disappeared with dying gabrielle, then the coven kidnapped and tortured him until he lost his mind.

and for nicki, the dark gift is a confirmation of everything he believes in being true. the meaninglessness of it all. evil being the only certain thing in the world. the way to fall into a deeper, darker abyss than the one that was before the mortal him. and it is a confirmation that lestat's inner light he loved so much will eventually burn out.

(his spark in the dark, if you will.)

(and lestat's dream before turning nicki hurts, because he dreams of growing up and growing old together, of maturing past magnus's eternal lelio with sunlight in his hair and summer sky in his eyes. oh, the lesdaughter of it all.)

there is certainly a parallel between nickistat's bitter "in darkness, we are equal now" vs loustat's comforting "in the quiet dark, we were equals".

[thealogie]

Rolin Jones getting possessed by spirits while narrating scenes and literally jumping over caskets to explain it only for jacob "calls the dents on the casket as slam reid" anderson to turn to his scene partner Sam "actually a vampire" reid and whisper "rolling Jones, get it?" explains so well why iwtv is so good.

pleeeeeease. need to know which scene rolin was having visions about

[nalyra-dreaming]

i would like your opinion on something.

You know how show!Louis wasn't really into the open relationship but in San Francisco he changed and had relationship with many men while still being with Armand ? Fans are using this to say that by living for century Louis has opened to things he was not into before.

So i'm wondering is there a chance for him to have Merrick as a paramour? Or it would be seen as offensive to make him from a gay man to a bisexual? It's not like it's impossible,when you see Lestat he is 300+ years old and doesn't care anymore about labels and for vampires after living for centuries labels are not important .

Does Rolin Jones explained why he changed that aspect of Louis making him gay instead of bi?

How will they introduce Merrick? Someone supposed that Lestat would be her maker and it's bothering me a little bit.

Do you see Louis having another fledgling?

A lot of questions sorry 🤦🏻‍♀️

All good.

I… don’t really see the titular “Merrick“ in the show, despite the Mayfair connection.

I think the writers have taken what they wanted from that book already, and they made it clear that crossovers are minimal, at least for now.

Louis isn‘t bi, he‘s gay, and his acceptance road for exactly that is an importance aspect of it all. It ties with the accepance road of vampirism - both are not aspects of himself he can change - he has to accept them. I think that is why they made him explicitly gay in the show, because this is part of Louis‘ arc. (I have a vague memory of Rolin commenting something similar, but I am not sure where).

It might also be debatable if Louis was bi in the books - the vampires book canonically do not “care“ anymore. But the show added sex (back) in, so that is important for them.

Lestat has always been bi, book canonically. He doesn’t care “anymore“ - he‘s never cared. That is a bit of a difference.

Also.

Merrick forced Louis to turn her, with a spell. He never cares for her after, in fact it is Lestat who tries to save her and tried to strengthen her.

Louis never wanted her as a fledgling. And she definitely was no paramour either.

I don’t think she will be so on the show, even IF she will be on it, at least as it stands now.

And: I don’t think he had an “open relationship“ with Armand - I think Louis just didn’t care for the one he had with Armand anymore - at all, at least at that point. He tried to run away regularly(!), drugs and sex and find a way to contact Lestat after all.

That’s not “open to things“, imho, it’s spiraling. And it ended in a suicide attempt, too.

[jaggedjot]

Hayles explains that final look, and it wasn’t to punish Lestat. It was “for help,” Hayles says. “She trusts him the most out of everyone in the room even though she hates him. They’re familiar with each other, so she’s turning to her parent to help her.” Anderson covers his face with his hands as he says, “Delainey! That’s so sad.”

Inside ‘Interview With the Vampire’s Most Tragic Hour: The Trial Explained by Kelli Boyle

Hayles remembered how much the narrow vision provided by her vampire lenses helped in the moment: "When you face forward, the stage lights are staticky, you just can't see," she said. "And then when I turned to him, away from the light, it was the first time that you could see somebody, but [it was] an outline. And I was concentrating so hard on his face, and it was so sad." She understood Claudia's last look to Lestat as how any child would look to a parent in a moment of distress. "The way that she looks is like all hope is lost, like, 'Dad, I need you.'"

Interview with the Vampire's Delainey Hayles and Rolin Jones 'Leaned Into Grotesque Beauty' for the Trial's 'Horrifying' End by Allison Picurro

[crazykuroneko]

Why That Major 'Interview With the Vampire' Character Was Left Out of Episode 3

[cbrownjc]

As an older fan, I’m starting to get some major Sherlock-vibes from the show, in the sense that fans are coming up with all these big-brained theories to explain weak writing that we have to have faith will come to fruition in some future season. Why make the change to Lestat saving Louis? Why is Louis seemingly stronger than Armand?  Why have the Loustat reunion, only for Louis to leave and challenge the entire vampire world (despite the fact that he’s apparently in a better place mentally-speaking)? Why publish under Daniel’s name, when that would clearly paint a target on his back, especially now that he’s a vampire? What’s going on with Daniel’s eyes?

The whole “spite” thing seems like a clear mis-direct, but with only like 8-ish episodes a season and Dubai-era Devil’s Minion being 100% subtext so far, I don’t think the writing team can do DM justice. All the inconsistencies seem like they’re being written off because it’s the unreliable narrator show, when they’re actually just plot holes.

Like…I 100% think the writing team forgot makers can’t telepathically talk to their fledglings, and that’s why they had to add in the throwaway line of Lestat actually whispering to Louis in 1x02. There was no hidden reason we were meant to find, it was just inconsistent internal logic justified because Louis can’t remember anything correctly.

IDK. I don’t want to be a downer, but a lot of my hype for the show just kinda fizzled out with the finale. I'm still gonna watch S3, but I think I'm just gonna wait til the whole thing comes out this time.

Hi!

So I never watched Sherlock nor was every in that fandom, though I did hear about some things after the fact. So I can't compare it to that fandom. But I can compare things to another book series that was being adapted fandom I was in which was Game of Thrones. And I think wrt things we are at least nowhere near that level of things and theorising. Yet.

Maybe because, unlike ASOIAF all the VC books are written and done. So that's a plus.

And see, the thing is? I can actually see a lot of methods to the madness of some of the things you've listed. Especially given the nature of how the story in the show is told through POVs. Where the issue comes into it is not ever knowing if what you are seeing is true, false, or just an interpretation of the truth -- as in Louis' POV of the play-trial rehearsal.

And I'd really like to know if how they ended this season is how they plan to end every season when a full book has been adapted? Something that wraps up the main character arc and story, but just leaves a host of other questions that, if we weren't getting a Season 3, would have never been answered. And who knows if they will all be answered in Season 3? As far as Devil's Minion goes, or Armand himself, I'm not expecting it to be now, given that Season 3 is The Vampire Lestat adaptation and Armand is a straight-up villain/antagonist in that book and Daniel doesn't appear in it at all, so anything we get with him will be extra anyway.

Now, as to whether Rolin Jones and the writers have a plan, Rolin says he pitched an 8-Season (or so) Arc to AMC before he was given the show to run. So at the moment? That is the only solid thing we have to go on right now wrt if there actually IS a play or not for the show.

But see (and oh boy, please forgive me as am I about to go into a big digression here), plotting a TV show is much harder to do than a book or a movie. TV writing is way more organic given that unforeseen circumstances can occur that you've never planned for when you go into a new season of TV production. Such as the studio asking you to split the first book you're adapting into 2 seasons instead of one, leaving you with only a month to rewrite the scripts. Or, a writer's strike and then an actors' strike a few weeks later, delaying production for months. Both of which happened to IWTV wrt Season 1 and then Season 2.

So organic things beyond the show's control are why it is much harder to plan out every little detail of a TV show in advance over multiple seasons. Take another AMC show, Breaking Bad. It's known that Season 2 of that show was intricately plotted out in advance but then, after that, the writers plotted and wrote the rest of the show as things came along for the remaining seasons, with no grand design to it -- even though the creator of the show, Vince Gilligan, knew way in advance how the show was going to end. And the show was able to get there, to that ending, without having a meticulous plan over seasons on how to do so.

I mean, the character of Jesse on Breaking Bad was originally supposed to die at the end of the first season. But instead, he lived through the whole damn thing. That was not planned at all.

And I think that might very well be the situation we have going here wrt IWTV. I think there are larger things they already know in advance about the show -- which books out of all of them will adapted into full stories vs which will only get references. Which characters in the show will make it into the show as full characters vs which characters will either be cut or combined with other existing characters (as Sam Ried revealed in his interview with Autumn Brown that that is going to happen -- that some characters will be combined with others). And what end point they want each of the main four characters -- Louis, Lestat, Armadn, and Daniel -- to be at when they get to at least Season 8. (If not Season 10, which is what AMC wants, 10 seasons). I think those are things Rolin and the writers very much know.

But I don't think the show has every single little detail plotted out for every little thing wrt how they are going to get to certain things. Not super far in advance at any rate.

I do think they'll purposefully put in seeds for later -- that they very much know they are going to need later -- though I think at most they do it one season ahead if it's a little thing. I very much do think that is what the things from episodes 1x02 and 1x03 very much were, since Season 1 and 2 were supposed to just be one season originally. Or the fight in 1x05 only being shown from Claudia's POV. I think that was also deliberate and they are very much planning on visiting it once again in Season 3, as they did in Season 2.

But I also think there are some things the show has not plotted way in advance and only figured out when they are writing that particular episode. Or maybe just decided to do that season as they were writing it, and not before then. Just like how almost every other TV show works, even ones that might very well know the ending they are working toward.

So I in no way think the show has figured and plotted out every single moment and beat of Armand and Daniel's relationship. Why? Not only because much of it happened in the past -- which yes I very much still think it did -- which covers 12 years of time, but because if you look at this clip, Rolin Jones kind of hints that they haven't plotted it out completely point for point even though there are some things they've thought and figured out:

video credit: Rei Gorrei on Twitter

So as far as Devil's Minion goes, I think Rolin and Co -- mostly Rolin -- has an endpoint for it in mind. But how they get to that endpoint is probably not planned out to the letter, super far in advance. And something they very likely just come up with as they are writing that particular season. At most? I'd say they've put things in this season that will be relevant next season and that's it.

So, I'm not going to say they can't do it justice. Not yet. I frankly don't have enough data to call that in a yes or no fashion since we haven't seen anything adapted from it aside from the 3-4 days Daniel spent in a cage, which is just the very start of how Devil's Minion begins. Basically one or two paragraphs. That's all they've really adapted when it comes to it at the moment.

And hey, it's okay if you feel down about all of this. If it helps, I'd say try and take a pragmatic approach to the show season by season, and if you feel it's better to binge it than watch it episode by episode for a time, that's good too. This is going to be a long journey after all.

[prouvaireafterdark]

Now that Santiago has been cast, this is an open letter to Rolin Jones to please for the love of god include this ICONIC moment of Louis and Santiago's first meeting

and then Armand explaining why Santiago doesn't like or trust him

[ca-suffit]

i haven’t read the books but from the way some book stans talk about lestat like he’s some saint, i was not expecting sam in that interview to be like no actually he loves being evil and he’s really good at it and all the stuff about male rage/akasha and the devil being like wow he’s so terrible i need to recruit him actually. and i’ve seen the odd comment on twitter that’s like oh poor sam for having to put up with this lestat character assassination. like i don’t wanna call ppl out but i saw someone say “he signed up for anne rice’s iwtv, not rolin jones’s iwtv 😢” like ??? no actually he did sign up for rolin’s adaptation. and then they act like he’s so put out by the changes like a) he’s getting paid to pay his favorite character i think he’s okay. and b) even if he has reservations or questions about a change or even outright disagrees with one, he’s always full of praise for the final product and for rolin in general. like girl he is fine lol. like he said, some changes needed to be made and were for the greater good e.g. wrt improving the louis character.

I forget if he clarified in the interview or not, but that bit he says about going to hell comes right from the books

But what had I done to Claudia? And when would I have to pay for that? How long was she content to be the mystery that bound Louis and me so tightly together, the muse of our moonlit hours, the one object of devotion common to us both? Was it inevitable that she who would never have a woman's form would strike out at the demon father who condemned her to the body of a little china doll? I should have listened to Marius's warning. I should have stopped for one moment to reflect on it as I stood on the edge of that grand and intoxicating experiment: to make a vampire of "the least of these." I should have taken a deep breath. But you know, it was like playing the violin for Akasha. I wanted to do it. I wanted to see what would happen, I mean, with a beautiful little girl like that! Oh, Lestat, you deserve everything that ever happened to you. You'd better not die. You might actually go to hell. But why was it that for purely selfish reasons, I didn't listen to some of the advice given me? Why didn't I learn from any of them-Gabrielle, Armand, Marius? But then, I never have listened to anyone, really. Somehow or other, I never can.

he's not a saint (but he wants to be one for a second lol) but I personally didn't feel like he was that "evil" either. anne rice wasn't rly a good writer and fired her editor 3 books in on top of it. the series was unplanned and it's a wreck. he does awful shit but nothing I'd view makes him rly "evil," so it was a struggle for me to get on board with all that. an internal fight about how he views himself, I could understand, but idk what was rly that bad otherwise. especially cuz she was so in luv with him that consequences for anything he does just drop off as the books go? let me not write a whole thing about this lol. but ya the good and evil thing is from the books. the rice-a-ronis do mention it in posts sometimes but ever since the show has aired, everything has to be explained away now, bcuz they don't like black and brown characters or fans judging their white fav. he's either an innocent meow meow or a gothic monster, depending what mood they're in that day to dodge whatever criticism comes for them.

AMC explores a lot of stories about violent men so I've never understood this insistence like it's going to be some soft romantic series. the romance is gonna exist in the violence somehow, especially cuz they're vampires. louis slamming dreamstat's head into a rock wall while being goaded to do it bcuz dreamstat says it's the only way louis knows how to luv is sort of peak loustat for where we're at rn. I'm sure eventually they'll be more tender but it's still gonna have gritty undertones for the network it's on and who is writing it. the stans luv to make it about gendered shit, like rolin is ruining it all bcuz he's a man, but anne rice wrote violent, fucked up things too. worse than the show is prbly going to go. it's all excuses. u can just not like something without having to justify ur dislike of it to death. like damn. it's not ur taste, just stop watching??

and yes sam is a grown ass man getting prbly a good paycheck from this so loll he will be fine!