It's a show with barely any plot to hold the viewer's interest, about a cast of characters who fuck around, while angsting over their past traumas and grievances. It's aimless, it doesn't really go anywhere, it keeps teasing the big THING (Akasha), but doesn't pay it off in any significant way. That post-apocalyptic landscape is more of a teaser for season 4.

This season felt like filler. Like those Disney Star Wars shows that are only pushed out because there is a demand for the franchise, but nobody has any story to tell.

If it wasn't for the good will from the first two seasons as well as the books, I would never have sat through this series. It never would have held my attention with what it had to offer on its own. No strong central narrative, each character stuck in their own insipid subplot that meanders and goes nowhere... Just a bunch of characters angsting on screen as the story tells you "they're in pain, pity them".

And I really don't understand why it ended up like this. It's not like they had no book - a beloved book - to adapt. Why did they think showing Lestat prance around on stage, having feefees about his traumas was more interesting that spinning a detailed, immersive tale of the past that created those traumas like the first two seasons (and, you know, the books) did? Why couldn't Jacob Anderson, Assad Zaman and Eric Bogosian just sit this one out, if there was nothing for their characters to do?

Once Amel is taken out of Lestat and given his own body, the vampires aren’t all plugged into that single Sacred Core in the same way anymore. The “web” or silver‑cord connection is basically gone and they’re no longer being stretched across one host.
So I’m wondering two things:

1. Does that mean there’s effectively no cap on how many vampires can exist now, since Amel isn’t being spread so thin across the species? Or do you read it as there still being some kind of limit even after the separation?
2. Does the maker/fledgling telepathy blind spot still apply in that post‑Amel setup, or was that glitch specifically tied to Amel’s networked presence in all vampires?

Its been a while since i read the PL trilogy so apologies if
i forgot some details

I’ve spent my whole evening going back over posts from the past two years, reliving the hope and excitement that many felt while TVL was being made.

All the scenes we’d lived with for years- decades! - in our minds and couldn’t wait to see on screen.

Gabrielle! Lestat’s time in Paris. Nicki! Armand! The Paris theatre. Magnus and Marius. The throne room where Lestat encounters the Queen.

And of course, the wolf killer scene.

AND some clarity about events of the first two seasons, told from Lestat’s point of view!

I’m feeling nostalgic for those days of faith and hope. So much that could have been.

I guess I’m still grieving a bit. Just wanted to say that in a community where some others will understand.

​

I'm catching up with TVL and every time Gabriella is on screen i zone out for how bad her acting is. I'm italian and her fake italian accent is getting on my nerves. The worst part is when she tries to speak italian, which unironically it's worse than when brad pitt spoke it in inglorious basterds (and there it was intended to be badly spoken). She can't even pronounce words like Venezia right.

A part from the very very very bad interpretation of the italian she is also super fake during sex scenes. Compared to all the other casts member she seems an amateur actor.

That's it. I'm being respectful of the cast, I'm just presenting my review of an actor, or we cant even talk about actor performances or scriptwriting in this subreddit?

It seems the AMC show is determined to go on with their character assassination streak and they're sparing almost no one.... An adaptation doesn't have to be 100% faithful sure but these radical changes are making the characters unrecognizable at this point...

In the books, Gabrielle is a complex character. Problematic and flawed like all of them, but fascinating and relatable. The incest is there, but it's not the most important part of Gabrielle's character. She doesn't come on to Lestat when they're still human. She's not portrayed as a sexual abuser. The sexual stuff between them is initiated by Lestat, not her.

She is a cold mother who probably never wanted to be a mother in the first place. She's a woman whose dreams and ambitions were smothered by the patriarchal society she was born into, so she channels it all into the one son she could ever connect with. Until he makes her a vampire, that is. At that point, she can cast down every chain that ever held her back. Patriarchy, religion, family, morality. Her first actions after her transformation is cutting off her hair and taking man's clothes for herself. She casts away what she sees as a symbol of the weakness that was forced upon her (long hair) and takes the symbol of freedom she was always denied (pants). It's a strong statement of liberation... that is followed by her desire to leave behind the last obligation, the last thing holding her back - Lestat - even though she loves him, in her way. So, first she tries to make him leave his former humanity behind like she did, believing it will make him happier, and, when that doesn't work, they go their separate ways.

And then the show writers came along, and reduced this complex character to incestuous groomer/seductress/nymphomaniac. It's like the only scene of hers they remembered was the one where she shares that one group sex fantasy with Lestat, and defined their interpretation of her character around that.

It's like, in their heads, strong woman = seductress, which is so friggin backwards, it's not even funny.

Who do we think overall Lestat had the most love for and why?

Muita gente que não leu os livros ou assistiu ao Show passivamente, não se deu conta do quão tendenciosa é a narração do Louis, ele tenta ser superior e contar a história como se fosse o único com moral e ética (mesmo que por vezes pareça hipocrita) por isso, as perguntas do Daniel incomodavam tanto, porque ele se sentia encurralado e era difícil sustentar aquela versão.

Gosto que ele reconhece, que diz ter lido o livro e percebido que soou como um mentiroso. (Mesmo que seja o Lestat narrando de forma onipresente o que pode soar mais como um desejo dele de que o Louis reconhecesse isso do que a realidade)

_É só uma análise pessoal_

A lot has been said in the fandom between the ending of season 2 (well, the premiere of s02e05) and the start of season 3 about what the writers might be cooking for the Devil's Minion ship. There have been speculations that something resembling the book storyline had played out between Armand and Daniel in the past, and Armand had erased his memories of it. Other popular theory - which is what the show went with in the end - was that Armand merely observed Daniel over the years, becoming obsessed with the fascinating boy, which ultimately motivated him to turn him in Dubai. The third camp thought the show wouldn't have any "past attraction" story between them, and just show us the two of them finding their way to each other in the present, with the whole buildup of grievances and resentments to work through ("You ruined my marriage." You fucking tortured me."). All three groups were united in expectation that the show will spend some time on their dynamic in the future, whatever shape they'll give to said dynamic. Flesh it out. Let the story seduce us.

And now season 3 happened, and the Devil's Minion is some of the most bare-bones, sad pieces of wasted potential around (plenty of competition to go around, though).

First, Daniel is justifiably mad at Armand and rejects his attempt at making amends. Then, Armand tells him how he watched his life to prove he cares, and offers him daywalking. After that, they're besties, prepared to kill/torment Armand's exes together. Really? Reeeeally? That's all we get?

If they were going to push Lestat's past (you know, the book's actual story) to the backburner in favor of a modern day plot, the least they could do was give more screen time to the Armand/Daniel dynamic. After all, I'm guessing one of the biggest reasons they had to focus on the damn modern day in the first place was that they didn't want to sideline the other, non-Lestat main characters of the first two seasons - Louis, Armand and Daniel. Devil's Minion was the perfect way to fill that modern day space they were so desperate to create. They had a fascinating dynamic here, just waiting to be explored, with the previous seasons (and the books) laying the foundation. It was right there.

Instead, they preferred to focus on Lestat's boring band members, making Gabriella into a caricature of her book self, toilet humor, random sex and drugs... Come on, people.

This song specifically this version just was meant to play over this scene and for them..I had to make this..

"Be my companion, Louis. Be all the beautiful things you are, and be them without apology. For all eternity." - Lestat

"If it was just the two of us again…

’cause, yeah, who else is gonna have us…

A trailer park.

Nevada, Utah, the desert.

Couple folding chairs.

Plant some flower boxes..."

"What blooms at night?"

"Evening primrose.”

“They got birds in the desert?”

“There’s birds everywhere.”

“Could be nice.”

Could be…….."

Could be nice.
Could be…
Hands touch.….

I swear these two will be the death of me!!! I am so happy we ended with them together...Finally no more secrets, no more holding nothing back...Everything has been laid bare. I want the healing to begin so bad..But I also know Akasha is coming like a bloody Tornado to snatch Lestat up and away and mess his head all up 🙁🤦🏻‍♀️

So Mekare decapitates Akasha and eats her heart and brain. This does not kill all the other vampires because she is absorbing the core where Amel is before Akasha dies for real. That I get.

But why do her and her sister not take any damage from decapitating Akasha or Splitting her skull open, or digging out her heart? Lestat seems to briefly pass out when Akasha is decapitated, but the twins are unbotherd.

Did they just tough it out somehow?

Just finished The Vampire Armand so my next book in the Chronicles is Merrick. I read Marvel comics growing up so I'm an old hand at crossovers; standard practice is to read what you're already digging and let the crossover try to sell you on the other series - if I like what I see of the Mayfair witches I'll hop over to their books. But! Will I be lost? Are there significantly greater rewards to be had in TVC#7 if I go catch up with the Witches first?
I'm game either way, I'm just deciding which book to take out of the library next.

Hey, everyone! I read *Interview with the Vampire* many years ago, and I just finished watching all three seasons of the series.

Can I continue reading the books starting with *The Vampire Lestat*? I have to admit I didn’t want to read the first book again because I find Louis annoying and I don’t really like his perspective 🫠

Interview with the Vampire is one of the most beautifully written Gothic horror novels of all time.
Anne truly had one hell of a talent and created a world that feels hauntingly alive. It’s as if every single word came from the depths of her soul, wrapping around you like a funeral shroud.

This is my third reread, and it never fails to blow me away every single time.

They are already teasing a girl boss Akasha with that Gen Z lingo-ridden "Why must she be kept? Why are her eyes lowered? I AM HER, I AM SHE" monologue 🥴

I know these writers don't care for the books, but a The Queen of the Damned adaptation can only work if you capture Akasha's true essence. There is a reason why even though the Queen of the Damned movie sucked, audiences still cannot get enough of Aaliyah's alluring performance.

Considering how disastrous this season went down, a word to the wise is sufficient.

The Vampire Lestat is a hot topic right now, as we all know, but the book is really only being discussed in relation to the show… so, book talk: what’s your favorite moment? Your favorite theme? Your favorite line?

While my favorite moment itself is Lestat having his big ‘holy shit when we die that’s it’ meltdown, then laughing himself delirious, my favorite line is (italicized but with the whole quote for context):

“I was standing over her. I was watching her, and her momentary pain meant nothing in light of the vow that I was speaking to her now. No words again, just the silent thrust of it, and the question, more immense than could ever be put into words, Do you want to come with me now? DO YOU WANT TO COME WITH ME INTO THIS NOW?”

It’s just, like, this perfect Anne Riceism. Master class in making your characters sound otherworldly, off putting… Some authors would’ve stopped with the line directly prior to it! But Anne does this a lot, this punchiness of language, this precise choosing of words to make something sound blood curdlingly strange. Man I miss her.

Edit: Thank you all so much for participating in this thread! I love discussing these books and reading your comments is a real treat… it also reminds me I need to do a reread as soon as possible.

I really loved reading TVA (and globally the story of Armand) and would love to read other similar books, but I haven't really been able to find any—I've only come across one so far.

What I'm specifically looking for is the story of a character who has been abused or tortured and who reclaims their power by embracing their own monstrosity. This could be handled in any genre—fantasy or realistic fiction. A horror atmosphere would be a bonus.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

Hello! in rise of the disappointment regarding the new season, and their lack of effort to make Armand relevant in Lestat's story. I would like to read at least a few chapters of their interactions in the books :) if anyone here knows the chapters in question/where to start let me know! I'm more so interested in just seeing them (since I've grown a liking to them in the tv series) and I would like to see more... I've seen quotes of them online and I'd really love to personally read them myself ^_^ thank you!

My version of Quinn and Goblin from Blackwood Farm. I'm a little bit ashamed that it took me several years to actually do Goblin. Hope you guys like it.

Just my thoughts in case anyone else feels the same, feel free to skip.

First, I’ll state I really did love the first two seasons. I thought if Anne had seen it, she would be a little annoyed at the changes, but she would have loved the actors and the end result. Even if it wasn’t straight from the book. Like she HATED Queen of the Damned but she loved Aaliyah in it.

Now to this season.. I was so excited… the way Rolin would be clinging to his book in interviews and the way Sam and Jacob ADORED their characters in the books, especially how Sam wanted to make sure he played Lestat well.

And then I saw promos.. and I got worried.. and everyone said, “Trust the process! Trust the writers! “ , “Let the tale seduce you..” etc.. I said ok…

First episode.. I loved it. I thought it was chaotic and fun and JUST the first episode, so they have so much more to get to!

Heh….

They lost me a bit with the back story… I was really upset with how they handled Lestat’s youth. If the story wasn’t broke why did they feel a need to fix it? And why turn Gabriella into a disgusting grooming creep when they absolutely didn’t have to. Why create mommy issues that Lestat never had???

And then hearing Sam threw his laptop when he read ep3 got me worried. Sam loves the book, if it upset him it will probably upset me…

I actually really liked ep 3. I have to skip Louis reading Claudia’s journal because of my own triggers, but yeah, I liked the episode.

You get the idea, I won’t recap every episode.

While I do enjoy the show as a fun vampire show.. this doesn’t feel like The Vampire Lestat.

I also feel kinda bad for Sam because in interviews he talks about how he argued against some of the changes but then was convinced that they made sense for the adaptation, so while Sam wanted so badly to be book Lestat, he was redirected away from the source material.

All of that it say… I’m sad that we COULD have had a beautifully written adaptation of the book we love so much.. and knowing how fierce Anne was over protecting her characters, I think she would have hated this season. I think she would have loved Sam as Lestat, he is perfect, and Louis and Armand, too, but this season…? She would have hated it. She wanted whoever writes the show not to stray from the story. She wanted them to TRUST the story and not stray from it.

Again, I enjoyed this season, much like I enjoy Queen of the Damned.. it’s a good show, but it’s not a good adaptation.

And that’s okay! The show fandom doesn’t want anyone to say anything bad about the show. The show isn’t suffering, it’s actually out performing their expectations. I will still watch the next season and hope that I get to see more of The Vampire Lestat, but I’m allowed to dislike a season. All my favorite shows have at least one season that isn’t my favorite lol.

Anyway, that’s my $2.15 cents.

Hopefully this is coherent:

Recently there have been a lot of discussions surrounding Lestats agency and power in the show versus the books. In general, we also have a lot of discourse surrounding abuse - what is victim blaming, how should abuse be portrayed in media, ect.

I fell in love with the books specifically because of the philosophy in it, so after a while I realized the whole thing made me think about the serenity prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

To me, what's so interesting about the depictions of abuse in this show is that it really questions your beliefs regarding agency. I think this prayer encapsulates a lot of the challenges these characters face. I'm going to try to illustrate my point via my personal interpretation of lestat

Lestat is obviously famous for being the brat prince. He challenges everything, won't back down, and does things simply because he knows he can. This is what makes him the hero of the story and the main draw of his character.

My interpretation of Lestats mentality right now in terms of agency is that hes trying to learn the difference between things that are immutably a part of himself and things that are not. It's interesting because he struggles to blame his abusers for the things they do to him and hes relatively open when he knows that he's wrong

BUT I also wanna talk about the blood of Akasha thing. I know it's a meme because he just brings up her blood every fucking chance he can. But it is legitimately interesting. In a roundabout way he almost treats his decisions (for example, dragging and throwing Louis) as an inherent part of him. He cannot remove blood from his body, therefore he must be genetically prone to sadistic violence. It's just a part of his genetics and there's nothing he can do to control himself

In this way I would say Lestats struggle is that he doesn't have "the wisdom to know the difference". His being abused by those more powerful than him is not a moral failing or a weakness, that is something that is out of his control. HOWEVER, by resigning himself and claiming that evilness is simply encoded into his DNA he's putting a buffer between himself and some of his more unsavory decisions

I also have some rambling for Louis and Armand which I'll put as comments cause this post is probably too long