- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interview with the Vampire -AMC show
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:48 am to LouisianaLonghorn
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:48 am to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
the gay subtext, which was omitted from the film
There is SOME gay subtext in the novel, but not much, and in the context of the 1800's men where more confident in their MASCULINITY which allowed men to be close without the gay undertones.
Basically, there isn't enough true "gay subtext" in the Novel to warrant it playing out on screen as if it determines the plot or the characters.
1
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:51 am to theunknownknight
quote:
1800's men where more confident in their MASCULINITY which allowed men to be close without the gay undertones.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:52 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
I love Cruise as an actor, but he was HORRIBLY miscast as Lestat. There's a reason Anne Rice was pissed at that production.
Ann Rice was pissed at his casting yes...BUT once she saw Cruise's portrayal she completely changed her tune and absolutely LOVED Cruise in the part
At least that was what was reported and talked about in 1995. I have no idea what the google propaganda machine prints out today.
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 9:52 am
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:54 am to oogabooga68
quote:
Turns out Brad Pitt was the weak link.
Brad Pitt definitely wasn't great but, to his credit, Louie is kinda bland and whiny as a character (at first)
Posted on 10/22/22 at 9:56 am to Bronc
quote:
Tell me you don’t know a thing about Anne Rice and her novels without telling me…
This show so far is much closer to the spirit and text than the film, just making aspects that were heavily implicit more explicit.
I've read the books and loved them. You just told me you don't really understand her writing.
Posted on 10/22/22 at 10:02 am to bluestem75
quote:
Lestat is all wrong. He doesn’t insert himself into New Orleans society. He uses Louis for that. Lestat kills to feed; he doesn’t punch people through the head. He turns Louis the first time he attacks him. Leaving out the line “I’m going to give you the choice I never had.” is a travesty. It’s so crucial to his character as revealed in the second book, The Vampire Lestat.
Louis has no connection to his family at all by the time he meets Lestat. He has no idea that Lestat is a vampire when he’s turned.
Clearly, the show runners wanted to tell a different story. They’ve changed too much of the story in just one episode for the purpose of shoehorning in a 21st century worldview rather than telling a story that has characters whose attitudes and behaviors fit into the actual time period.
Thank you
At the end of the day, Lestat is the central figure and the anti-hero of the series. By the end, Louie realizes all that Lestat did for him, how much Lestat truly cared about him, and all that Lestat did to protect him (especially against the Queen).
In hindsight, Interview with the Vampire is just a story about a naive little bitch who is taking his hero for granted
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 10:03 am
Posted on 10/22/22 at 10:21 am to theunknownknight
quote:Correct.
Ann Rice was pissed at his casting yes...BUT once she saw Cruise's portrayal she completely changed her tune and absolutely LOVED Cruise in the part
I too was skeptical about casting Cruise, but impressed with the performance.
With that said, Sam Reid is even better. He IS the “Brat Prince.”. He embodies the role.
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 10/22/22 at 10:25 am to theunknownknight
quote:To me, the series thus far is almost like a combination of the first two novels. The events of the first, but with a less-Louis-whiney and more-nuanced portrayal of Lestat.
In hindsight, Interview with the Vampire is just a story about a naive little bitch who is taking his hero for granted
I find it interesting that no one is discussing Daniel.His portrayal in the series is GREAT. The notion that this is his SECOND interview of Louis, with another 40 years of maturity, is brilliant.
It does not really bother me (especially since Rice gave the OK), but the gay storyline is not from the original Rice, and she herself has sort of retconned it into the story. As originally written, vampires were beyond the physical sex act and just took companions who stimulated them, regardless of physical sex/gender.
This post was edited on 10/22/22 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 10/22/22 at 10:45 am to JoeKennedysDrool
Posted on 8/17/23 at 2:49 am to Bronc
quote:
This show so far is much closer to the spirit and text than the film, just making aspects that were heavily implicit more explicit. Once again some are holding up a bastardization and whining when a remake is in fact actually closer to the original work.
Utter and complete nonsense. There is no implication in the books that the relationship between Louis and Lestat is sexual because it is stated clearly in multiple examples throughout the Vampire Chronicles that vampires have NO INTEREST in sex. They are as asexual as asexual gets. No exceptions. Their act most analogous to sex is drinking blood and their sex organs are never aroused. They are of course fully capable of experiencing and expressing Platonic love and do so regardless of the object of their affection's sex. Thus they say and do things that in a human context we would very much see as implying an underlying sexual attraction and sometimes toward the same sex. The books are called "homoerotic" because when this occurs, it often mirror homoerotic behavior in humans. But the mirror is a false one because they are no longer human and what would be logically implied for us is NOT implied for them.
There is NOTHING sexual to be inferred with regard to Louis and Lestat's relationship and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand Anne Rice's vampires.
Posted on 8/17/23 at 4:47 am to LSUZombie
quote:
I think the only people weirded out by this are those who have never read Ann Rice
Yeah, but there’s a big difference between suggestion and outright advocacy.
Posted on 8/17/23 at 2:30 pm to Morgus
quote:
There is NOTHING sexual to be inferred with regard to Louis and Lestat's relationship and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand Anne Rice's vampires.
Posted on 8/17/23 at 3:18 pm to BRich
quote:
Just a few other examples off the top of my head:
EVERY FRICKIN' DISNEY 'LIVE ACTION' MOVIE REBOOT
The Mosquito Coast
The Equalizer
SWAT
The FBI
Quantum Leap
Magnum P.I.
Kung Fu
Walker
Riverdale
A little bit diff, but i saw point break was on so i watched it. I had no idea they remade that movie. It was fricking terrible. The visuals were great but the movie fricking sucks arse. Why do they do this?
Posted on 8/17/23 at 4:53 pm to Morgus
quote:
There is NOTHING sexual to be inferred with regard to Louis and Lestat's relationship and anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand Anne Rice's vampires.
You seem quite defensive
Vampires have long been used as sexual metaphors either as warnings of the dangers of sexuality or for repressed sexual feelings. Back in the glorious old days, before the stupid culture war and people insisted on labeling things as either woke or anti woke, it was largely thought there were gay undertones in Rice’s vampire books, especially the first 2. Not just Lestat and Louis but Lestat and Nicholas and Armand with both. Some may disagree but to suggest it’s not because they are not human is taking things a bit too literal. Ever hear of metaphor or subtext?
The show itself is a great example of the stupidity of “wokeness”. One of the show runners apparently said they moved the time line because Louis being a plantation owner was problematic
Maybe it would have been a great opportunity to make a criticism of slavery and plantation life but I suspect it’s more so they could race swap Louis. You could always do that with Claudia (did they do that anyway?) and DanielThis post was edited on 8/18/23 at 8:12 am
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News