u/TrollHumper

I hate what they have done to Lestat's backstory (meaning, the book's actual plot) thus far, but at least I can sorta understand their reasoning. Lots of that stuff was told last season. TV Lestat was much more open and honest about his past than his book version. The audience was told about his childhood abuse, Magnus, Nicky, and a long dirt nap.

Yes, telling is not showing, and I'd much rather have them actually portray his backstory in immersive detail like the book did, but I can understand how they could think that going through the same stuff again could bore some members of the audience.

But the Marius, Akasha and Enkil are a different story. That part of Vampire Lestat was neither told nor shown. It was only teased (Gabriella ribbing Lestat about Marius, which a non-book-reader wouldn't get, "I have the blood of Akasha in me"), but that's it.

I'm still harboring some (perhaps foolish and naive) hope that, even though they've short-charged the other parts of the book's story, they've saved enough money to at least tell that part properly. I hope that we get to at least to see that part of the story as more than rushed, short flashbacks. I hope that this is where the money they saved up (by chopping up everything else) actually went.

Am I foolish to hold onto that hope?

...not killing him in his youth?

His speech to Armand sure sounded like he blamed him not only for torturing him and trying to kill him in San Francisco, or turning him without his consent after Dubai. Daniel seems to hold all his problems and traumas in between against Armand as well. He's mad at the man for not putting him out of his misery when he had the chance. He blames him for caving in to Louis's desire to spare his life, not for trying to take said life to begin with.

I did not see that coming.

Every time a TV show has rape in its story, there is a loud backlash against it. The "how dare you show rape?!" activists think it shouldn't be depicted because it may feel bad for the victims to watch it. In the same time, depicting wars, murders, beatings, deseases, and poverty is seen as perfectly acceptable. Nobody out there says we shouldn't show wars because it may make the people who've experienced them feel bad. Nobody says we shouldn't show murders because families of murder victims may feel bad. Nobody says we shouldn't show cancers because it may make cancer patients in the audience feel bad. Nobody says we shouldn't show poverty because the poor in the audience may... well, you get the picture. With literally all other forms of violence, harm and misfortune, our society seems to understand that writers are supposed to be allowed to broach those subjects and tell those stories. It's only rape that is supposed to be treated as an exception, and that makes no sense at all.

They killed him off screen because what? To send a message that they have no plans to adapt The Tale of the Body Thief, or at least adapt it with any degree of faithfullness? Do they not believe they'll even have enough seasons to make it that far and have given up on anything after Queen of the Damned? Did they just want to kill off a hated, politically incorrect character with no regard for his importance to the future material?

Thoughts?

I've read somewhere around here that the reason Vampire Lestat is focused on the modern day rockstar faffing about instead of Lestat's backstory is because they didn't have a budget for the historical sets.

Does that mean Vampire lestat has a lower budget than either season of the Interview? Because those managed to afford their sets. Did the execs give season 3 less money, or did the showrunners just blow what they had on songs?

The whole sequence of Louis killing Bruce/Killer while Lestat drowns in recollections of his Magnus trauma was dramatically effective and about the only time when this season's fast, fragmented use of flashbacks actually worked, imo. That being said, it felt tacked on to me.

When Bruce asked: "Why now?" I was like, "Yeah, why now indeed?"

When Claudia and Louis freed themselves from Lestat and went on their journey around the world, they did not try to seek Bruce out for vengeance. Mind you, that was the time when Louis lost a lot of Claudia's trust and respect by flaking out on Lestat's murder. Offering her revenge on her rapist could have been a way to win her over again. Yet, this didn't come up. Neither of the two even flaunted the idea. They wanted to find more vampires, but not that specific one who wronged her.

Then, when Claudia was dead and Louis slaughtered almost everyone responsible, he still didn't care about revenge on Bruce. Even though he just got a taste of it with Theatre des Vampires, even though he just discovered how fiercely competent a killer he can be, he still didn't go after Bruce.

Nor did he do so over the course of the almost 80 years he spent with Armand. He had a fuckton of money he could throw at finding him. He had a 500 year old vampire as his lover and ally, who was all about making amends to him. A perfect weapon, at his beck and call. Bruce wouldn't stand a chance against that kind of advantage. Yet, again, Louis never went after him.

Until now.

Seriously, why now?

Doylist reason is clearly that the writers needed something for him to do in the present day to avoid sidelining him like the books did, and Bruce was a convenient remaining thread to pull, but the Watsonian reason is weak or non-existent.

Ever since the third episode of IWTV season 2 came out, a significant number of fans liked to claim (read: shout from the rooftops) that everything Armand said about his affair with Lestat would be proven a "Lesmand fanfic" in season 3, once Lestat shares his side of the story. Then, they said, we'll learn that they never fucked, because it (or anything analogous) never happened in the books (because, you know, this show has been so faithful to the books so far). And now Lestat did revisit that time period. Admittedly, in bits and pieces, and, while he focused on other things, he still did not contradict any of that Armand fucking business. In the past scenes they shared, the two seemed amicable enough. There was no: "I DID NOT fuck that lying cunt. Mark my words, fledgling!"

Of course, it's possible that the show will revisit these events again in another brief flashback later on, to reveal that the two never banged. Maybe Armand tried to assault Lestat, as he had in the book, and as the "Lesmand fanfic" crowd would have it. Who knows.

However by the looks of this season, how likely do you think it is?

They've absolutely rushed through Lestat's childhood, him killing the wolves, his relationship with Nicolas, his human theatre days, his transformation, the transformation of his mother, Nicky's life and death as a vampire... Do you really think they're going to backtrack in the future episodes, just to confirm the fan theory that Armand did in fact lie, and there was no shagging between him and Lestat?

Also, the plotline of Lestat getting sexually assaulted and lying/avoiding/being in denial about it was just done with Magnus. Doing the same with Armand would feel like a retread, so I wouldn't expect the writers to take that path.

So, as things stand right now, it sure seems like Armand had indeed told the truth (about that one thing in particular).

When Marius describes Pandora in Vampire Lestat, he describes her as a Greek courtesan who begged to be turned because she had memories of a previous life in which she was a vampire and wanted to get it back.

In Pandora, all of that gets thrown out of the window, and it's revealed that Pandora was a Roman noblewoman who had visions from Akasha, not visions of a past life, and said visions gave her a religious desire to serve a goddess.

Why the change?

Yes, I know that Bryan Fuller was inspired by Interview with the Vampire novel in his portrayal of Hannibal and Will's dynamic, but the characters of Hannibal Lecter and Lestat are not similar.

Lestat is brash, impulsive, emotional, impatient, prone to tantrums and outbursts, and wears his feelings on his sleeve. Hannibal is cold, calculating, patient, inscruitable, a meticulous planner, and an ambodiment of self control. Yes, in the story, they both tempt/manipulate/seduce another into darkness, but, personality-wise, they're like fire and water. If anything, Hannibal and Armand are far more alike than Hannibal and Lestat.

First things first: Interview with the Vampire novel is not a romance. It's a gothic horror and a philosophical tale with romantic elements in it.

That being said, there are far more of those romantic elements between Louis and Armand as well as Louis and Claudia than between Louis and Lestat. The sequel retcons those elements right into it, but in the first book itself, they're barely there.

Louis looks down on Lestat, has contempt for his cruelty and perceived shallowness, and only sticks with him as long as he does because Claudia is added to the equation. Yet, there is and always has been a subsection of the fanbase that believes theit dynamic is brimming with romantic subtext, and the only reason Anne didn't make it an outright text was because of the time the book was written.

But that theory is completely disproven by Louis and Armand existing in the same book. There is a clear and obvious mutual affection and attraction there. Louis is drawn to what he sees as a wise old vampire mentor that Lestat never was and Armand is enchanted with a young, sensitive companion who could help him feel at home in this era.

Armand openly declares how he desires Louis, who obvioualy retirns the fascination, is tempted to abandon Claudia for him, ignores her warnings, and plans a life with Armand. All of that is text, not subtext of any kind. Anne did it, back in the homophobic days when she was writting the Interview, and nobody stopped her.

There is far more going on between Louis and Armand in the book than there ever was between him and Lestat, which makes it kinda strange that Loustat, not Loumand is what the yaoi shippers chose to latch onto, even before the show was made. (With them in mind, I suppose.)

Then there is Claudia. For her, Louis sticks around, even though he wished to leave Lestat. For her, he later stands aside and lets her make an attempt on Lestat's life, helps her get rid of the body, and sets Lestat on fire himself when he comes back. For her, he turns another vampire, in spite of the great moral struggle it cost him. It's her death that ultimately turns him into a shell of his former self, dead on the inside and hollowed out by despair. The book makes it pretty clear that Claudia was far closer to the love of Louis's life than Lestat ever was.

People only ever obsessed over Loustat because of Lestat's promotion to the protagonist status in book two, but, in book one, Loustat is absolutely dwarfed by Loumand and Louis/Claudia.

Mischa's fate obviously did a number on him, but the loss of his parents didn't seem to have similar impact. They were taken from him when he was very young as well, but, be it in the books, Rising movie, or the show, it seems like his trauma, lust for vengeance, and a profound sense of loss is all about Mischa, not his parents.

Was she the only member of his family he was capable of loving?

If you find the Du'Met collectible, the description reveals that he believed himself to be posessed by H.H. Holmes's soul. That's a really big deal that wasn't mentioned in The Devil in Me at all, and it changes a lot.

In TDIM, if Du'Met seems to have died in the end, we see the Curator sitting over some list, not crossing out the man's name and the next scene will show that Du'Met (or his successor) goes on with his merry murder hobby like nothing ever happened. Now, with the new reveal, it seems like there is a new possible interpretation of that ending - the body of Hector Munday/Granthem Du'Met had died, but Holmes's soul had simply found a new host to carry out its will.

Boys are falling behind academically, and there is a reason for it. Lack of discipline.

The school system wasn't build around the idea of teaching both sexes. It was created by men, for boys, and men always knew that boys require firm hand to be obedient. School always required students to spend many hours sitting and listening to something that doesn't interest them in the slightest, and teachers always needed some means to force the reluctant to do that. Hence, corporal punishment was considered normal and necessary.

And then women started gaining more social power, being allowed to pursue formal education, and fill up most teaching positions. As a result, the standards had softened, corporal punishment at schools got gradually de-normalized, and teachers have been rendered toothless in dealing with troublemakers (mostly boys).

It's no wonder that the girls are doing better than boys in this environment. They are less rowdy, less prone to misbehavior, and need less discipline.

However, the problem is not unfixable. We need way more male teachers, and corporal punishment must make a comeback, especially in boys-only schools. If that happens, we'll see their academic scores bounce right back up.

I remember the days when the actors like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt were all the shit and Hollywood couldn't get enough of them, but, contrary to Pascal, they were actually handsome, lol. This guy is way past his prime, and average looking at best. No idea why they love him so much.

Bring back hot leading men, please.

I think I've seen a trailer of something like that once, but can't remember the title. Seemed like a material for a fine story.

Francoise wanted to sacrifice herself for Tyler. Even though years of turning into a Hyde had taken a huge toll on her body and she was at death's door, she was prepared to give up her last shot at life to save her son from the same fate, even though he didn't want it.

She cared about saving his life above everything else, but didn't care about his own wishes.

Isaac was different. Francoise was the only person he ever loved, by his own admission, and saving her was his priority... until she made a different decision. Isaac loved her and wanted to save her life, but he respected her choice anyway.

Two siblings, two faces of love.

He's too old and aged like milk. Those scenes in the trailer where he's with Penelope and Callypso/Circe look downright obscene. Especially since he looks equally old in the flashbacks before the war (which lasted a decade) and after, during the journey, which is just lazy filmmaking. They should have chosen a younger dude for the role and aged him up with makeup as the movie progresses to show the passage of time.

I mean, whether you like Lupita or Elliot Page in their respective roles, they're playing side characters. Matt Damon plays the friggin protagonist, so him being miscast is a lot bigger deal.

At the end of season 2, Weems said something about "taking a break" before she stepped into the light. That could mean she'll return from said break in the next season, but it kinda looked pretty final, like she's moved on.

So, I think it would be kinda funny if Wednesday ends up having a new guide every season. Even funnier if the next guide is going to be one of the dead villains of seasons prior. Just imagine Wednesday having to put up with the ghosts of principal Dort, Marilyn Thornhill, or Isaac Night, lol. She'd just love that.