Interview With A Vampire (TV Series)

Seems like good pedigree, maybe?

The cast will be stepping into big shoes: 1994’s Interview with a Vampire — starring Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Kirsten Dunst — still looms large in the minds of Rice fans. But showrunners Rolin Jones ( Perry Mason ) and Alan Taylor ( Game of Thrones ) hope their adaptation lives up to the thirst Vampire Chronicles fans have for the franchise.

YT trailer

https://youtu.be/0P0loX83H6A

I’m skeptical. They’ve changed a lot; moved the story forward in time by several hundred years (presumably to make the black Louis more realistic?), the age of both the reporter and Claudia, etc. That does not necessarily have to be bad, but the whole point about how the vampire tells his tale because he is tired of eternal life is going to seem pretty weird coming from a 100 year old. Adolescent Claudia is also an incredibly strange creative choice; her arc in the novel is irrelevant if she can easily disguise herself as an adult.

Pitt, Cruise and Dunst were always going to be a hard act to follow, but I’m not convinced that radically altering the story makes it any easier.

I’m sure they aged up Claudia so they can have sexy times and not be too creepy. This is AMC so they’re not as comfortable handling hard R-rated stuff.

I agree, their existing “out of time”, archaic, was part of the mystique, so that when Lestat comes in as a modern rockstar you feel how different he is.

Still could be good, I’m just skeptical of them all being so young.

Perhaps, but if that is the case they’ve thrown everything about the character under the bus, since her being an immortal in an eternal child’s body is what drives almost every disastrous thing she does in the narrative. To me it is the most obvious red flag so far, because it implies they’ve significantly changed the story (not just moved it in time).

It’ll be fun if they can get through this origin story season and do sequels, which should be easier to watch since they won’t prompt the unfavorable Cruise/Pitt/Dunst comparisons as directly. At one point I thought they were just going to call the show “Vampire Chronicles.”

Ahh I missed that. If Claudia isn’t a child, this isn’t Interview with a Vampire.

Agree with the skepticism. However, I am hopeful. If they can get past the “setting up the pieces” part being so inexplicably different, there are a multitude of fun stories to tell.

Like that Foundation TV show, this one will be tainted by its name. Even if it’s a quality program taken in isolation, it won’t be Anne Rice’s story.

Yeah, they should have just done The Witching Hour.

Anyone else watching it? I’m only an episode and a half in, so can’t comment re Claudia, but I’m enjoying it as good cheesy fun so far.

Yes, I’m enjoying it greatly, although I’ve got to say they’ve taken the subtle homoerotic undertones from the books and put them front and center. Lestat converts Louis to vampirism while anally penetrating him. Now I’m an open-minded guy, but that was just a bit much. I much preferred the less explicit approach, and would say the same thing if it was heterosexual, I just don’t enjoy romances.

I thought the story worked better when Lestat was weak, and damned Louis for his money and connections, and Louis stayed with him due to a sick fascination. On the other hand, the way they substantially changed Louis’ backstory to suit him being a black man in early 20th century New Orleans worked great.

Ultimately though, I always thought Interview with a Vampire was a downer, because Louis is a boring depressed character. The series came alive with The Vampire Lestat.

I saw the first episode last night. I thought it pretty good.

I thought he did it in the church? I don’t recall any penetration going on besides the old fangs in the neck thing. Anyway, the books eventually moved from homoerotic undertones to de facto homoeroticsm as I recall, but it’s been years.

If anyone is concerned about spoilers please speak up, they’re very old books but I know some are touchy about that sort of thing. And that’s fine.

Anyway, I believe he drained him in the church, then converted him in his house when they were both naked and standing together. None of that was in the first episode, though, you must have watched a couple of 'em.

Church was episode 1. It was a long episode. That’s where I am.

A couple of things about Claudia:

  1. Do none of the humans see her red demonic pupils?

  2. As I thought, they aged her up from the book so they could tackle sexual situations without getting too (visually) problematic. She’s supposed to be 14 in the show, but the actor playing her is 19 which lets them get a bit steamy without entering the gross pedo territory it could be. Unfortunately, I remain unconvinced that it’s a good change. I get why they did it from a production and writing standpoint, but I think aging Claudia up from elementary school age to a teenager takes a lot of the bite out of the character, if you’ll excuse the pun.

Otherwise, I’m loving the show. Until they showed the diary from Paris I hadn’t even considered how moving the beginning of the story forward in time would impact the later book sequences. Of course they go to Paris after WW2!

Kirsten Dunst was perfect as Claudia in the film. Her character doesn’t work aged 14, what a dumb change.

I disliked the film originally, but it eventually grew on me over the years and I think it was well done. Cruise did a fangastic job bringing Lestat to death. And though Pitt was fine as Louis, he was just a bit too mopey.

Anyway, may watch this out of curiosity.

Did anyone finish the season?

I did. Overall, I liked it enough to watch another season.

I still feel that Claudia’s age lessens the character, but the rest of the show is good.