I can't wait to experience this season. And about Claudia, I was never fully on board with Bailey in S1, I came to appreciate her performance more towards the end, but it took a while especially at the beginning, however with Miss Hayles, while many were skeptical I saw everything I wanted in the first, "who's that handsome man on the wall", I'm so happy with everything I've heard about her performance.
Thank you for your wonderful energetic awesome review. I recently got the Season 1 Blu-ray of IWTV and absolutely LOVED it, I'm now officially obsessed/hooked LOL. I cannot wait for Season 2 it's almost here only 11 days to go!!! Also I really hope that this show finally get's the praise, and recognition it so richly deserves from the Emmy award's, and many others. Thankfully I feel like this show is gaining steam with Season 2 I've been seeing a lot more attention toward IWTV lately in many different places.
AM SO EXCITED and I hope they to do all the really Fed stuff form the book I haven't loved a vampire series this good Sense true blood and I hope to see more vampire medie not set in highschool because let's face there not that good expect maybe buffy and am really glad that this show isn't hiding how gay it is because there still ppl who watched the movie and read the books who think there we're just roommates/beef's 😂 like so many str8 ppl are just blind to subtext like gurl 😅
The subtext is barely subtext! Lestat really came out of his hole in the ground, saw the book and decided to become a rockstar to get his attention. They aren’t just BFFs. It’s insane to me 😂
@@petboy5839 they were 100000% gay in the books. It’s not even subtle. In the 70s everything had to be implied. Just because her vampires didn’t have sex like humans in the books doesn’t make them less gay. I understand that making people uncomfortable - which is also why Anne kept it between the lines. Armand and his story alone with and without Louis is really all the proof you need 😂
@@SLTAngst You're mixing up asexuality and homosexuality. Anne Rice vampires are asexuals. It doesn't matter who they had sex with before they became vampires. When they become vampires the human organs used for procreation no longer work. Vampires in Rice work aren't made through sex but by draining and exchanging of blood. You can't be gay if you don't have any desire for sex. If Anne Rice really wanted her vampires to be gay she would have written them with functioning sexual organs and sexual desires.
Literally so good. But I miss Bailey Bass. She had a more Creole accent and she's American so her accent was better. The other actress does a sort of general country Southern accent that I think is more the stereotype Brits tend to do when they do African American accents. But she was absolutely amazing otherwise and her exit OH MAN!
Yeah but the question in the title didn't get answered - unless it was rhetorical. Season two is so much better than season one that I am still jarred by it. Did a producer change, or head writer - or someone??? It's not just the new Claudia. The season is sweeping and epic and shot at the perfect pace, going back and forth between past and present in a coherent way. It's the first time since Breaking Bad that I already dread the coming ending of a television season.
We are held to embargo when it comes to some information. I'm also not a technical explanation channel lol But I appreciate you watching anyway! Like I said in my review, part of why I think Season 2 is so much better is because we're exploring parts of the books we didn't get to in the film. So, there's not a preconception about what it's "supposed to be". The season also continues to pull from the other books making it feel richer. They're also adding great scenes and moments to fill in the blanks of the book since we're exploring new memories and Claudia's journal. I can't wait to see where we go for season 3.
@@SLTAngst i'm not holding you to any standard. But the title made me think the video might explain what happened or if there were any changes. Season two is like a 9 1/2. Season one to me was like a seven. Just a very confusing and happy skyrocket jump from one to two. Let's put it this way I hope they don't make any changes to how they're doing things and if they don't, season three will be stunning.
@@HobiesGarageBBQ I get that. It was more of a HOW?!?! Cause season one was already so great. Not a, let me explain to you how it's better. Oh! To answer one of your questions, it's the same showrunner and writer. So none of that changed. Season one had to set the tone and reset who these characters are now. I LOVED Season 1. I give them both a 9/10
As for some changes to the books: them jumping ahead in time for the setting makes sense to me now since they use the backdrop of World War II in Europe nicely and they can light up New Orleans and Paris to better cinematic effect. I had an open mind on how Jacob Anderson would portray Louis. It grew on me. He is more assertive and less gloomy than in the book and Brad Pitt portrayal. But Jacob stays true to the character briefly here and there when he shows Louise guilt and angst at times.
@@SLTAngst same writer and show runner as season one? Wow! Thanks, I had not had time to look it up yet. At any rate, I'm salivating for the theater scene. The guy who plays Santiago is brilliant. And I loved how they even worked in the term "buffoon" right from the book. I did not see that coming. Different setting yes, but they put it in there and it didn't feel forced
i'm gonna say something likely unpopular. dislike it all you want. i don't care. this series is to twilight what twilight was to blade. a storytelling by whatever the popular social flavour of the day is in the misguided hope it helps ratings. as much as this is a love story, it's also a tease of the violently unbridled, bloodthirsty portrayal of raw preternatural power - just read marius' story (blood and gold) if you haven't already for more of that. what probably would've been better to see structurally is a series called the vampire chronicles, where one or more seasons tell the stories of the books in a way which can be more fully fleshed out and stay true to the books. disagree with accuracy all you want, but movies and tv shows perform exponentially better when they stay as true to the books they're based on as possible.
I appreciate your opinion. Obviously, I disagree with a lot of it. I agree that it should’ve been called The Vampire Chronicles vs IWTV. I think the name made people believe we were getting another version of the story we already have instead of a telling of the full book series of stories intertwined.
@@SLTAngst what do you disagree with in particular? i don't dislike the show. i'm obviously open to non-canon interpretations of the story otherwise how would i have the opinion i do. i blitzed season 1 this afternoon for the first time, and will watch the beginning of season 2 soon. i'm enjoying it overall because it gets me nostalgic for the first time i read the books and watched the interview movie. i even found myself enjoying anticipating which part of the story from the book would be coming next throughout each episode. but it doesn't mean i have to agree with the choices they made. in your reply, when you said "instead of a telling of the ...." -- is this show supposed to be all the books stories told together under the banner of interview? if so, that's an awful and misleading decision, and a great example of riding the coattails of the success of the movie.
I disagree with this statement "this series is to twilight what twilight was to blade. a storytelling by whatever the popular social flavour of the day is in the misguided hope it helps ratings." Personally, I think this series is bringing to life what was between the lines of the books that Anne wasn't allowed to say...cause 70s. As far as accuracy, the movie is incredibly flawed and inaccurate. That said, it's still one of my favorite vampire films of all time. The series gives moments that the film either cut out or changed. On top of that, we're getting to dive deeper into these characters via the entire book series knowledge and stories. I don't know if we'll see Lestat throw a tantrum and bury himself in the ground for decades. I'm also okay if they move him to Mayfair Witches for a season instead. Replying to your original statement of, "what probably would've been better..." This is what they're doing. They're starting from the beginning and adding in more information, some storylines, and nods to things we know from the books (if you're a reader). It's also the most recognizable name in the entire book series. So, I wouldn't say it's riding the coattails of the film. I can't wait for you to watch season 2. I hope you share your thoughts.
I must respectfully disagree because IMHO, the show DOES rely heavily on source material. The changes it makes are generally to illuminate issues that were present but subtextual in Anne's original story. Back in 1976 when IWTV was published, she couldn't openly portray Louis & Lestat as a gay couple without alienating a large number of readers. However in her sequel The Vampire Lestat---published nearly a decade later---she could and did clarify the nature of their relationship. Lestat speaks at length of his "fatal love" for Louis who (he complains) is an unreliable narrator. As for aging Claudia in the show, well, the producers really had no choice but to do that. They had to contend with (1) Louisiana laws concerning the number of hours that a child actor was allowed to work and (2) not wanting a prepubescent Claudia who would noticeably grow older during the filming. As for changing the time period, the whole idea was to showcase Louis as the ULTIMATE OUTSIDER---i.e., make him a black homosexual man living in the 1910's deep South. A brilliant innovation because it added even more complexity to an already complex tale. Anne Rice loved to write convoluted plots, switching from one perspective to another and then throwing on another layer of meaning. Which is exactly what the show does. Daniel is continually challenging Louis's remembrances of the past, just as in the books there are major contradictions between Louis's version of things and Lestat's. And as the series progresses, a lot of the vampire characters disagree as to past events, some saying one thing while others recollect an entirely different sequence of events. Anne Rice liked to mislead and confuse and then surprise her audience, which the show accomplishes with some brilliant plot twists. I just that she'd lived to see this clever reinvention of her Chronicles!
@@hollyvanwye9294 And i must respectfully disagree too. There are here a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts. You -and a lot of people- thinking Lestat and Louis are gay is an assumption, a wet fan fiction. You mistake being pansexual (in the least "activist" meaning) with being « queer » . Anne Rice’s vampires are neither pure hetero nor gay, they are beyond that « need of representation » and the books confirm this fact numerous time : Marius with Pandora telling her that the very act of making love is now tasteless, pointless because of what they are ; Marius loving Pandora and Armand not because one has a penis and the other a vagina but for who and what they really are. Portraying Lestat gayer than some LGBTQ activists is nothing more than the prod trying to be political. Anne Rice did not need to wait years or decades to finally write a real gay character, she made them more than just « that » and that’s the beauty of her vampires. But that’s what the show fails to grasp and understand, hence my words : it’s more a wet fanfiction rather than a faithfull adaptation. If you read classics, you should know that the term « fatal love » could also be used between friends , for a true friendship is also a form of love and Rice drew a lot of inspiration upon classics. As for Claudia : one always has a choice. Look at Kirsten Dunst. She looked far younger than both of the actresses. There is a reason why we have studios to recreate some places. Plus it’s their job to manage the amount of hours so everything can be made properly. They just went for the cheap and again political option : a black female who looks more like an R&B singer rather than… well, the real Claudia. « As for changing the time period, the whole idea was to showcase Louis as the ULTIMATE OUTSIDER ». Thank you. You’re just proving my point. The choice was political. Louis in the first book was not the ultimate outsider, he was strugling with his new vampiric nature and his former human nature. Period. He was not oppressed, neither because of his sexual orientation nor because of his skin color. That’s the production’s agenda. Not Rice’s. If Louis was ever an outsider it was noticed during and even after the Queen of the Damned where he’s barely taking part to the other vampires’ business. But beyond and before that, he’s not « the ultimate outsider ». And he’s not gay. You seem to think that the show succeeds to bring the forgotten parts of the book. Okay : what about Babette, Louis’ female « love interest » ? Huh ? What about Lestat’s father who is far more important than Louis’ family for instance ? Oh and if Louis is really gay, why is falling in love with Merrick? Anne Rice is dead and for what i know, the « she approved the show » is nothing but some bs because she never really approved what we saw on screen. Now if you have clear and precise (no assumptions, no « i think that she meant… ») Anne Rice’s interviews to prove me wrong, please, brin git on.
@@francoiscolin6692 I haven't read the books, but I have seen the movie with Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, which I've been told stays fairly true to the source material. Even in the film, it’s easy to see how one could interpret Louis and Lestat as being in a romantic relationship. While they aren’t shown kissing, they essentially function as life partners who are raising a child together. I also recall reading that the vampires in Anne Rice's novels are portrayed as sexually fluid. Although they don't engage in sex like humans do, blood-drinking serves as a substitute and often exceeds it in terms of intimacy. So, while you may not see Louis and Lestat as gay, bisexual, or part of the LGBTQ spectrum, others might read the books and come to a different conclusion. You don't need explicit sex scenes for people to interpret a relationship as romantic or sexual. For some, blood-drinking might be seen as a metaphor for sex, while others could view vampirism as a metaphor for marginalization. Given the sexual fluidity of Rice's vampires, it’s understandable that some readers would read Louis and Lestats relationship that way. And once a book or song is released into the world, it no longer belongs solely to the creator; it belongs to the audience, and every person will interpret it differently. Just because you don't see Louis and Lestat as being in a gay or bisexual relationship, does not invalidate that reading. I also doubt Anne Rice had any issue with people interpreting their relationship in this way. As for making changes in general when adapting a literary work, I think that making changes can definitely add to the understanding of the work. You don’t have to see it as a definitive adaptation. For example, if you are adapting something that already has a movie, you need to justify that adaptation by having a reason for its existence. If it’s going to be exactly the same thing as before, what’s the point? And when comparing the show to the movie, I’m not comparing which is more accurate to the books because I haven’t read them. I’m just comparing which I think is better based on the acting, the production, the soundtrack, the writing, and everything else. I personally prefer the show. I just think the movie from the 90s felt very rushed and drawn out at the same time, which is probably because the story works better in a show format rather than a movie format. On top of that, the movie is very campy and even had kind of a comedic tone that felt unintentional and strange given the overall story.
WOW! Season 1was amazing, but if your review for most of Season 2 is any indication, to paraphrase "The Devil Wears Prada," "Gird your throats, people!" 🤯🧛🩸💞🗼🎭
This season FAR exceeded my greatest expectations. They actually improved on the original material. Gagged!!!
@@sneddsm right?! Same!!
I am so freaking excited!!!! This show was already dang near perfect….IT GOT BETTER?!?
I can’t believe there’s no sophomore slump
Thank you for your review! I’m so glad we get to enjoy so many stellar performances on this show!
Same! Thank you for watching!
Can’t wait! Hope they announce season 3.
Same!
Btw, I thought they have casted Nikki. Have they started filming season 3 🥹🙏🙏
@@Mprofundo really?? I haven’t seen that!!
@@SLTAngst Filmimg season 3 is my wish, but I heard they casted actor Joseph Potter as Nikki.
@@Mprofundo oooo imma google it
Thank you for such a wonderful review !! So excited to see season 2!!🙏🏽💕
Thank you for watching and your kind comment!
Thank you for the review!
Thank you for watching
So glad to see u again. I remember when you first reviewed the first season. My how far the world has come since then
Thanks for watching again :)
i so agree about delainey… i wish she was our claudia from the get go
So excited!!!
Same
I can't wait to experience this season. And about Claudia, I was never fully on board with Bailey in S1, I came to appreciate her performance more towards the end, but it took a while especially at the beginning, however with Miss Hayles, while many were skeptical I saw everything I wanted in the first, "who's that handsome man on the wall", I'm so happy with everything I've heard about her performance.
Exactly my feelings. Delainey has *presence* and I was excited about her from the get-go. ❤
Delaney is so good
"Get over it"
I think I love you. Great review as always.
I just say what I feel lol And thanks for watching!
Waiting for your reaction slash review of those amazing last two episodes
@@joegotham27 I wasn’t planning on it, but if it’s something people want I can.
Thank you for your wonderful energetic awesome review. I recently got the Season 1 Blu-ray of IWTV and absolutely LOVED it, I'm now officially obsessed/hooked LOL. I cannot wait for Season 2 it's almost here only 11 days to go!!!
Also I really hope that this show finally get's the praise, and recognition it so richly deserves from the Emmy award's, and many others. Thankfully I feel like this show is gaining steam with Season 2 I've been seeing a lot more attention toward IWTV lately in many different places.
thank you for watching and for your sweet comment! I cannot wait for this show to get more recognition.
We will be getting the TVL season #trust
Also I had to ask how is loumand in comparison to loustat
They're honestly so different. I'm forever a Lestat girlie.
AM SO EXCITED and I hope they to do all the really Fed stuff form the book I haven't loved a vampire series this good Sense true blood and I hope to see more vampire medie not set in highschool because let's face there not that good expect maybe buffy and am really glad that this show isn't hiding how gay it is because there still ppl who watched the movie and read the books who think there we're just roommates/beef's 😂 like so many str8 ppl are just blind to subtext like gurl 😅
The subtext is barely subtext! Lestat really came out of his hole in the ground, saw the book and decided to become a rockstar to get his attention. They aren’t just BFFs. It’s insane to me 😂
@@petboy5839 they were 100000% gay in the books. It’s not even subtle. In the 70s everything had to be implied. Just because her vampires didn’t have sex like humans in the books doesn’t make them less gay. I understand that making people uncomfortable - which is also why Anne kept it between the lines.
Armand and his story alone with and without Louis is really all the proof you need 😂
@@SLTAngst You're mixing up asexuality and homosexuality. Anne Rice vampires are asexuals. It doesn't matter who they had sex with before they became vampires. When they become vampires the human organs used for procreation no longer work. Vampires in Rice work aren't made through sex but by draining and exchanging of blood. You can't be gay if you don't have any desire for sex. If Anne Rice really wanted her vampires to be gay she would have written them with functioning sexual organs and sexual desires.
Literally so good. But I miss Bailey Bass. She had a more Creole accent and she's American so her accent was better. The other actress does a sort of general country Southern accent that I think is more the stereotype Brits tend to do when they do African American accents. But she was absolutely amazing otherwise and her exit OH MAN!
He’s not..:: “ominous?”
Did somebody write your script for you and not make sure you knew what “omniscient” means?
A script? I don't know her. Welcome to my channel where I just ramble and say wrong words :-)
Yeah but the question in the title didn't get answered - unless it was rhetorical. Season two is so much better than season one that I am still jarred by it. Did a producer change, or head writer - or someone??? It's not just the new Claudia. The season is sweeping and epic and shot at the perfect pace, going back and forth between past and present in a coherent way. It's the first time since Breaking Bad that I already dread the coming ending of a television season.
We are held to embargo when it comes to some information. I'm also not a technical explanation channel lol But I appreciate you watching anyway!
Like I said in my review, part of why I think Season 2 is so much better is because we're exploring parts of the books we didn't get to in the film. So, there's not a preconception about what it's "supposed to be". The season also continues to pull from the other books making it feel richer. They're also adding great scenes and moments to fill in the blanks of the book since we're exploring new memories and Claudia's journal.
I can't wait to see where we go for season 3.
@@SLTAngst i'm not holding you to any standard. But the title made me think the video might explain what happened or if there were any changes. Season two is like a 9 1/2. Season one to me was like a seven. Just a very confusing and happy skyrocket jump from one to two. Let's put it this way I hope they don't make any changes to how they're doing things and if they don't, season three will be stunning.
@@HobiesGarageBBQ I get that. It was more of a HOW?!?! Cause season one was already so great. Not a, let me explain to you how it's better.
Oh! To answer one of your questions, it's the same showrunner and writer. So none of that changed. Season one had to set the tone and reset who these characters are now.
I LOVED Season 1. I give them both a 9/10
As for some changes to the books: them jumping ahead in time for the setting makes sense to me now since they use the backdrop of World War II in Europe nicely and they can light up New Orleans and Paris to better cinematic effect. I had an open mind on how Jacob Anderson would portray Louis. It grew on me. He is more assertive and less gloomy than in the book and Brad Pitt portrayal. But Jacob stays true to the character briefly here and there when he shows Louise guilt and angst at times.
@@SLTAngst same writer and show runner as season one? Wow! Thanks, I had not had time to look it up yet. At any rate, I'm salivating for the theater scene. The guy who plays Santiago is brilliant. And I loved how they even worked in the term "buffoon" right from the book. I did not see that coming. Different setting yes, but they put it in there and it didn't feel forced
i'm gonna say something likely unpopular. dislike it all you want. i don't care. this series is to twilight what twilight was to blade. a storytelling by whatever the popular social flavour of the day is in the misguided hope it helps ratings. as much as this is a love story, it's also a tease of the violently unbridled, bloodthirsty portrayal of raw preternatural power - just read marius' story (blood and gold) if you haven't already for more of that. what probably would've been better to see structurally is a series called the vampire chronicles, where one or more seasons tell the stories of the books in a way which can be more fully fleshed out and stay true to the books. disagree with accuracy all you want, but movies and tv shows perform exponentially better when they stay as true to the books they're based on as possible.
I appreciate your opinion. Obviously, I disagree with a lot of it. I agree that it should’ve been called The Vampire Chronicles vs IWTV. I think the name made people believe we were getting another version of the story we already have instead of a telling of the full book series of stories intertwined.
@@SLTAngst what do you disagree with in particular? i don't dislike the show. i'm obviously open to non-canon interpretations of the story otherwise how would i have the opinion i do. i blitzed season 1 this afternoon for the first time, and will watch the beginning of season 2 soon.
i'm enjoying it overall because it gets me nostalgic for the first time i read the books and watched the interview movie. i even found myself enjoying anticipating which part of the story from the book would be coming next throughout each episode. but it doesn't mean i have to agree with the choices they made.
in your reply, when you said "instead of a telling of the ...." -- is this show supposed to be all the books stories told together under the banner of interview? if so, that's an awful and misleading decision, and a great example of riding the coattails of the success of the movie.
I disagree with this statement "this series is to twilight what twilight was to blade. a storytelling by whatever the popular social flavour of the day is in the misguided hope it helps ratings." Personally, I think this series is bringing to life what was between the lines of the books that Anne wasn't allowed to say...cause 70s.
As far as accuracy, the movie is incredibly flawed and inaccurate. That said, it's still one of my favorite vampire films of all time. The series gives moments that the film either cut out or changed. On top of that, we're getting to dive deeper into these characters via the entire book series knowledge and stories.
I don't know if we'll see Lestat throw a tantrum and bury himself in the ground for decades. I'm also okay if they move him to Mayfair Witches for a season instead.
Replying to your original statement of, "what probably would've been better..." This is what they're doing. They're starting from the beginning and adding in more information, some storylines, and nods to things we know from the books (if you're a reader). It's also the most recognizable name in the entire book series. So, I wouldn't say it's riding the coattails of the film.
I can't wait for you to watch season 2. I hope you share your thoughts.
If you read the book you know this show has nothing to do with the source material.
I’ve actually read all the books and enjoy seeing all the stories from the Vampire Chronicles come together in one series.
I must respectfully disagree because IMHO, the show DOES rely heavily on source material. The changes it makes are generally to illuminate issues that were present but subtextual in Anne's original story. Back in 1976 when IWTV was published, she couldn't openly portray Louis & Lestat as a gay couple without alienating a large number of readers. However in her sequel The Vampire Lestat---published nearly a decade later---she could and did clarify the nature of their relationship. Lestat speaks at length of his "fatal love" for Louis who (he complains) is an unreliable narrator. As for aging Claudia in the show, well, the producers really had no choice but to do that. They had to contend with (1) Louisiana laws concerning the number of hours that a child actor was allowed to work and (2) not wanting a prepubescent Claudia who would noticeably grow older during the filming. As for changing the time period, the whole idea was to showcase Louis as the ULTIMATE OUTSIDER---i.e., make him a black homosexual man living in the 1910's deep South. A brilliant innovation because it added even more complexity to an already complex tale. Anne Rice loved to write convoluted plots, switching from one perspective to another and then throwing on another layer of meaning. Which is exactly what the show does. Daniel is continually challenging Louis's remembrances of the past, just as in the books there are major contradictions between Louis's version of things and Lestat's. And as the series progresses, a lot of the vampire characters disagree as to past events, some saying one thing while others recollect an entirely different sequence of events. Anne Rice liked to mislead and confuse and then surprise her audience, which the show accomplishes with some brilliant plot twists. I just that she'd lived to see this clever reinvention of her Chronicles!
@@hollyvanwye9294 ::standing ovation::
@@hollyvanwye9294 And i must respectfully disagree too. There are here a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are not facts. You -and a lot of people- thinking Lestat and Louis are gay is an assumption, a wet fan fiction. You mistake being pansexual (in the least "activist" meaning) with being « queer » . Anne Rice’s vampires are neither pure hetero nor gay, they are beyond that « need of representation » and the books confirm this fact numerous time : Marius with Pandora telling her that the very act of making love is now tasteless, pointless because of what they are ; Marius loving Pandora and Armand not because one has a penis and the other a vagina but for who and what they really are. Portraying Lestat gayer than some LGBTQ activists is nothing more than the prod trying to be political. Anne Rice did not need to wait years or decades to finally write a real gay character, she made them more than just « that » and that’s the beauty of her vampires. But that’s what the show fails to grasp and understand, hence my words : it’s more a wet fanfiction rather than a faithfull adaptation. If you read classics, you should know that the term « fatal love » could also be used between friends , for a true friendship is also a form of love and Rice drew a lot of inspiration upon classics.
As for Claudia : one always has a choice. Look at Kirsten Dunst. She looked far younger than both of the actresses. There is a reason why we have studios to recreate some places. Plus it’s their job to manage the amount of hours so everything can be made properly. They just went for the cheap and again political option : a black female who looks more like an R&B singer rather than… well, the real Claudia.
« As for changing the time period, the whole idea was to showcase Louis as the ULTIMATE OUTSIDER ». Thank you. You’re just proving my point. The choice was political. Louis in the first book was not the ultimate outsider, he was strugling with his new vampiric nature and his former human nature. Period. He was not oppressed, neither because of his sexual orientation nor because of his skin color. That’s the production’s agenda. Not Rice’s. If Louis was ever an outsider it was noticed during and even after the Queen of the Damned where he’s barely taking part to the other vampires’ business. But beyond and before that, he’s not « the ultimate outsider ». And he’s not gay. You seem to think that the show succeeds to bring the forgotten parts of the book. Okay : what about Babette, Louis’ female « love interest » ? Huh ? What about Lestat’s father who is far more important than Louis’ family for instance ? Oh and if Louis is really gay, why is falling in love with Merrick?
Anne Rice is dead and for what i know, the « she approved the show » is nothing but some bs because she never really approved what we saw on screen. Now if you have clear and precise (no assumptions, no « i think that she meant… ») Anne Rice’s interviews to prove me wrong, please, brin git on.
@@francoiscolin6692 I haven't read the books, but I have seen the movie with Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, which I've been told stays fairly true to the source material. Even in the film, it’s easy to see how one could interpret Louis and Lestat as being in a romantic relationship. While they aren’t shown kissing, they essentially function as life partners who are raising a child together.
I also recall reading that the vampires in Anne Rice's novels are portrayed as sexually fluid. Although they don't engage in sex like humans do, blood-drinking serves as a substitute and often exceeds it in terms of intimacy. So, while you may not see Louis and Lestat as gay, bisexual, or part of the LGBTQ spectrum, others might read the books and come to a different conclusion.
You don't need explicit sex scenes for people to interpret a relationship as romantic or sexual. For some, blood-drinking might be seen as a metaphor for sex, while others could view vampirism as a metaphor for marginalization. Given the sexual fluidity of Rice's vampires, it’s understandable that some readers would read Louis and Lestats relationship that way.
And once a book or song is released into the world, it no longer belongs solely to the creator; it belongs to the audience, and every person will interpret it differently. Just because you don't see Louis and Lestat as being in a gay or bisexual relationship, does not invalidate that reading. I also doubt Anne Rice had any issue with people interpreting their relationship in this way.
As for making changes in general when adapting a literary work, I think that making changes can definitely add to the understanding of the work. You don’t have to see it as a definitive adaptation. For example, if you are adapting something that already has a movie, you need to justify that adaptation by having a reason for its existence. If it’s going to be exactly the same thing as before, what’s the point?
And when comparing the show to the movie, I’m not comparing which is more accurate to the books because I haven’t read them. I’m just comparing which I think is better based on the acting, the production, the soundtrack, the writing, and everything else. I personally prefer the show. I just think the movie from the 90s felt very rushed and drawn out at the same time, which is probably because the story works better in a show format rather than a movie format. On top of that, the movie is very campy and even had kind of a comedic tone that felt unintentional and strange given the overall story.
Better? They sideline the main character for some girl boss narrative! SMH!
Sidelined? They’re all still there and telling their story. They’re also showing part of the story FROM THE BOOK we’ve never seen before.
Here is another showed ruined by ThE Message! Identity politics has no business in Tv shows if one wants the show to succeed!
What are you even talking about lol
WOW! Season 1was amazing, but if your review for most of Season 2 is any indication, to paraphrase "The Devil Wears Prada," "Gird your throats, people!" 🤯🧛🩸💞🗼🎭
Gird all the things!