What about VAMPIRES do you find fascinating?

Good question! You might want to ask carpenoctem-vampirology, I think she’s found a way to !!earn a living!! through her fascination with vampires, for which I will always be envious!

image

I find alot about them fascinating, mainly their psychology (human, but tranformed; they exist outside alot of the human struggle for self-preservation but are still subject to similar needs) and their physiology (how are they made? How are they destroyed? What’s the deal with crucifixes? What about coffins? How do their systems function on just blood as a nutrition source? What is up with those Dark Gifts? etc.).

However it’s not ALL vampires that are fascinating to me. I’m aware of the wide spectrum of vampire media out there, but the ones I find most fascinating (and that doesn’t mean they’re the BEST, just what I prefer) are:

  • Ricean – This vampire species has so much baggage, excitement, chemistry, drama, and it tries to explore the how and why of vampires both as creatures and as people. Also they’re all pretty hawt.

image

  • The Lost Boys – I just love the badassery of these vampires, very grunge and rockstar-ish and there’s the added bonus of kid!vampire hunters!
  • 30 Days of Night – these ones are actually monstrous, not the kind you wrap in silk/lace/velvet and cuddle with by candlelight. I love the way the humans try to find a way to beat them, involving an enormous personal sacrifice. 
  • Daybreakers – This concept is intriguing, a whole world of vampires, serving blood in ’50s style coffeeshops?! Also SAM NEIL as a vampire dad omg. 

image

  • Let the Right One In – both the original and the remake… an exploration of what it’s like to become a vampire’s companion in the truest sense of the word. The vampire as a flawed creature who is still capable of love.
  • Only Lovers Left Alive – Do you want to see SWINTON, HIDDLESTON, and WASIKOWSKA as vampires? AWWW YISSS. This was a modern-day idea of what it would be like to be this creature that suffers existential ennui, appreciates music and nature, nurtures kindness, is actually very fragile in their reliance upon humans for survival. And also blood popsicles.

image

  • Dracula – the original, bc of reasons. How charming was Bela Lugosi?? omg he can bite me any night. 
  • Dracula – the one with Gary Oldman, bc of reasons.
  • Nosferatu – because I can’t have a vampire list and leave that classic masterpiece out. 
  • Shadow of the Vampire – SO COOL like a behind-the-scenes of the filming of Nosferatu!

Probably missing something important here but you’ve had enough, haven’t you? lol. 

How do you feel about the possibility going around about Robert Downy Jr. playing Lestat?

image

^That sorta sums up my feeling on the matter! But actually, I/we had a whole discussion about that almost a year ago omg how time flies bc apparently RDJ was AR’s pick for Lestat in 2010. Article here.

Thinking about it now, since you ASKED, I feel like RDJ is too old to play Lestat, don’t you think? Lestat’s supposed to be about 21. And built a little differently – lean, mean, hunting machine with maybe a *little* softness from 6 months of fine Parisienne bread and wine, and less exercise. 

However! I would love RDJ in another role. Maybe as the Marquis de Lioncourt? Or Raglan James (who’s supposed to be much older, but whatever). Maybe as Memnoch the Devil in his “everyman” appearance. 

Side note: Don’t RDJ and Louis look adorable together? Louis/Tony slash anyone? Anyone? Beuller? 

Hello! Just a random question on a random observation. in the IWTV movie during Louis’ change he has blood on his lips that disappears when he ‘pretties up’ from the change. Do you have any idea as to why the blood disappears?

Yeah, I think that in that situation, the blood was absorbed through his skin, being a fresh vampire… You can absorb the liquid parts of blood as a human, and as a vampire he can absorb the other, “nutritious parts,” too, perhaps. Plus it’s vampire blood, and it WANTS to be absorbed.

Thoughts on the ‘Lestat’ movie title?

Omg you are the first to inform me! Thank you ❤ and also nice of u to send me an ask, i don’t fish for asks but i do enjoy them, even when i answer them crankily but i digress…

image

Title? why you would want my opinion is beyond me but very flattering! All I really want is for this to be true: “This new Lestat is expected to veer far closer to the source material than Queen of the Damned did.”

If you really want my opinion… I like simply Lestat bc there is SO much more to him than being

☆*・゜゚・*The Vampire Lestat*・゜゚・*☆

… and that might help elevate it to be more than just another drop in the vampire genre that’s drenched our cultural stuff so much already.

BC I have issues and can’t stop myself Lestat is better than these alternative titles:

  • Welcome to the Madhouse (AKA Wherever Lestat is)
  • Doing the Thing, All Night Long, in Your Face: A Sensual Biography of Lestat de Lioncourt
  • Lestat de Lioncourt: Learning the Hard Way Since 1790
  • Lestat: No Really I Got This Trust Me 
  • Lestat “Danger? I Laugh in the Face of Danger!” de Lioncourt

Hi it’s the Memnoch anon again! I’d come off anon but I don’t have a tumblr. I just finished Memnoch the devil and like how can it end like that?? This is absolutely preposterous, someone please tell me that armand and memnoch aren’t dead!! They can’t be!

image

I just finished Memnoch the devil and like how can it end like that?? This is absolutely preposterous,

Welcome to the fandom. This is how it is. These feels you’re feeling are normal *cackling*

someone please tell me that armand and memnoch aren’t dead!! They can’t be!

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE CANON. No, j/k, I just don’t want to spoil it for you. Just stay with us. Read/skim the Vampire Armand. 

(BTW, Memnoch is a fallen angel, I don’t think he’s in any kinda danger. You might have meant Mael)

You know that Anne Rice’s vampires don’t have sex? They are basicly asexuals because they don’t feel lust for sex, only for blood.

I have read the series. I’m aware. For some reason, and it’s probably unintentional on your part, Anon, but it seeeeems like you have some kind of issue with this?

They still do feel sexual lust, it’s channeled through the experience of taking/sharing blood.

Alot of fanfic writers and VC RPers just ignore the canon asexuality and let the Ricean vampires have sex however they want. Some have very creative headcanons about it. I for one enjoy reading it. 

In terms of VC CANON, however:

  • They’re asexual in that they aren’t described as having penetrative sex.
  • Unless your headcanon is that they do and they can, in which case Anne Rice decided to just leave it out for whatever reason. Some people think this is the case. *shrugs*
  • However… physiologically it would make sense that the Ricean vampires do not procreate in this manner because they procreate via the Dark Gift. At that time, the mortal body *dies*, transformed and frozen from further change/development. Male vampires would be shooting blanks (if they shoot anything at all) because they can’t make new sperm; female vampires wouldn’t be producing eggs, and wouldn’t have the organs to be able to grow a baby. 

I think that reproductive obstacle is why Anne Rice made the choice that they could BE sexual, but not in a reproductive way. 

Anon, the definition of sex is different for everyone who does it. The Ricean vampires can do tons of other very sensual/sexual things. Who says that a penis in a vagina (or anywhere else) is the only legitimate definition of sex? Sex cannot be totally defined by the dictionary definition, when it’s such a widely interpreted issue.

Ok I need to ask what is probably the stupidest question ever and I’m sorry, I’m new (I’m talking 50 pages into the first book new)! So, in IWTV Louis lost Paul. But in the film he lost his wife. To my knowledge, Anne Rice wrote the script for the film so what I wanted to know is if that means any small details that weren’t included in the book, such as this one, are considered canon for both book and movie!verse? That Louis was actually married at one point all?

Wow, I have so many thoughts on this. There are spoilers there, but you might be interested in my post about Louis’s rings, and in the jewelry tag.

image

Not a stupid question. The short answer is No, the VC fandom is all pretty much in agreement that Louis was never married. Or that he had much of a romantic attachment to any woman in IWTV aside from Claudia and a certain sister of the owner of a neighboring plantation.

In terms of whether any other big or small discrepancies between the movie!IWTV and book!IWTV are considered canon? Ummm… I don’t know. That would be up to each person’s own headcanon, which I describe below.

I think alot of the film’s dialogue has been added to our collective canon, since, as you correctly put it, AR did write it! But I can’t think of any specific examples… most of that was revised dialogue from the book and we all tend to remember the movie quote over the book quote. It would be a huge project to try to pick them all out.

—> Now, we all have what we call “headcanons“ and that means, whatever you believe to be canon based on:

  • your own reading of the books and watching the movie(s)
  • reading fanfic on AO3 (or elsewhere)
  • reading RPs here
  • meta posts like this one
  • Whatever you want!

It’s just that you might not find anyone to agree with your headcanon that Claudia and Louis have been hiding out in Amsterdam knitting blankets with Eric, or whatever ;]

In the movie version of IWTV, they (Anne Rice and Neil Jordan worked together) changed a few things from the book, maybe partly to keep it to a 2 hour runtime (I think it was uncommon to have movies over 2 hours in the early ’90s) and partly to open up the story to a wider audience. That’s my explanation for the casting of Antonio Banderas as Armand in my Defending Antonio tag. It’s more upsetting to more people for Louis to have lost a wife in childbirth than a religious zealot of a brother who wanted him to sell the plantation and donate all the money to the church!

PLUS: It actually makes Louis’ transformation into a vampire that much more jarring for his character; he’s married (presumably by the church), had created a new life (the baby), and lost those both at once. That would be devastating to anyone. He immediately turns to drinking and prostitutes, very against the church’s idea of appropriate Good Person behavior. But all that is within the context of being STRAIGHT.

Becoming a vampire not only meant Louis would have to break a big commandment regularly (that pesky Not Killing people one), but it also put him in a confusing relationship with Lestat, a dude, very against the Bible’s idea of appropriateness.

One of Neil Jordan’s previous films dealt with sexuality vs. religion (The Crying Game), so I’m sure he was keenly aware of and even enhanced this crisis of character that Louis would have to undergo, to accept himself as being at least bisexual. That, plus the need to kill people, would mean letting go of those religious principles and societal propriety, because he had to accept that he was no longer human and no longer capable of achieving Goodness. That he had lost his chance for Heaven if it exists.

Of course Lestat told him, “no creature under God are as we are, none so like him as ourselves.” meaning that the religious rules do not apply to vampires.