What do you think of the choice of Tom Cruise as Lestat? When the movie came out I read A.R. wasn’t happy and I was surprised, but then I read the books and I agreed with her. I love the movie and he acted very well, but I can’t see him fit as Lestat.

You come into mY HOUSE-!

*siiiigh* Are we still talking about Tom Cruise’s casting? I recognize that I’ve been in this fandom since before the movie came out (so it’s been officially 21 years of hearing this question), and that there are new ppl to fandom every year with their own headcanon of the character. 

When anyone comes across AR’s very strong initial negative opinion of Mr. Cruise they may even agree with her at first. However! She published another opinion after seeing his performance (in the test reel even, thanx @annabellioncourt!) in which she praises him to high heaven even more strenuously! She still occasionally mentions him on her FB with affection, even now.

image

So as I said. AR changed her opinion:

“ON TOM CRUISE: From the moment he appeared Tom was Lestat for me. He has the immense physical and moral presence; he was defiant and yet never without conscience; he was beautiful beyond description  yet compelled to do cruel things. The sheer beauty of Tom was dazzling, but the polish of his acting, his flawless plunge into the Lestat persona, his ability to speak rather boldly poetic lines, and speak them with seeming ease and conviction were exhilarating and uplifting. The guy is great.“

And I agree with her 110% *u*

You can find some other options for casting Lestat in my #VC casting tag, but what I think it all boils down to is that an actor’s job is to ACT. Since a fictional character exists in our imagination, there is no perfect physical casting for him EVER. Not even illustrated in graphic novels or animation. We can all agree that there are certain physical characteristics he should have, like having blond hair, but there are so many shades of blond. Even then, that one thing we can all agree is necessary for Lestat was TOTALLY DISCARDED in the Queen of the Damned movie sooo… *shrugs*

It’s up to the director to choose who they want to act out the story they want to tell. 

Bonus: Neil Jordan, #certified vampire therapist

Was the notion that dead blood is bad ever dispelled? I was rewatching IWTV [for what feels like the billionth time] and Louis drinks rat’s blood from a wine glass. Isn’t that blood technically dead? Does it not count as dead because it was drained from a beating heart? I’m just not sure if this was ever settled, or if this is me just over analyzing things.

Hey, not overanalyzing! I love #vampire physiology, and this is a big topic in that. Fortunately, it’s an easy answer. 

No, dead blood is not bad (as in lethally poisonous) to Ricean vampires. It just tastes like nasty old coffee *spits*

image

{{Oh Louis, bb, we know, it gets cold so quickly…}}

You’re right that movie!IWTV was not explicit on this, I will explain u a thing based on the movie & canon ;}

The rat blood: is just as drinkable as the whore lady’s blood in the crystal glass later on in the story (the rat is dead, but the lady is still alive, when their blood has been poured into glassware, and in neither scene are the vampires poisoned that way). Blood extracted from a body is not bad in itself, but it cools with the exposure to air, and cold blood tastes bad as I will explain under the cut. When a vampire feeds from the victim directly, there’s no air contact with the blood, and it stays – preferably – hot. More than that, there’s also the entire multi-sensual experience of the act of killing which is way more fun than just the consumption of the nutritional value of the blood. 

Lethal/poisonous blood is not about the blood itself, but is about the moment of death of the victim: What Lestat warns Claudia about in Vampiring: 101 (and he warns Louis in the book, too) is that she must stop drinking before the victim’s heart stops, at least in the beginning, or else the victim could take her down with them in death. That’s more about the soul separating from its body at the moment of death. Older/stronger vampires can keep drinking and slurp the impact of the death down, too.  

Hit the jump for canon stuff, spoilers in there…

In TVL: Lestat goes to Armand in Paris for help after Claudia and Louis try to assassinate him a second time, and Armand throws him in a locked cell with a dead mortal for dinner: 

“Sometime in the dark, I discovered a mortal victim there. But the victim was dead. Cold blood, nauseating blood. The worst kind of feeding, lying on that clammy corpse, sucking up what was left.”

^So clearly dead blood is not bad in the sense of being poisonous, just icky 😛

AR answered the dead blood question at a booksigning ages ago, that dead blood is like “old coffee that’s sat out for awhile. Just distasteful.”

Lestat does say in the movie (and this is probably where the confusion about the supposed lethalness of dead blood comes from, too), “You let me drink *dead* blood?” and it might seem like he means that the deadness of it was the lethally poisonous aspect of it, when in actuality he knows he’s been drugged, it was the absinthe & laudanum combo that drugged him. Still, those drugs are not poisonous to a vampire; he asks to be put in his coffin like a mortal might want to be put to bed, to sleep it off. 

Claudia did it to bring his defenses down so she had a chance at killing him. He couldn’t fend her off in that drugged state.


Who knows why director Neil Jordan didn’t clarify this, and why he had the line 

“You let me drink *dead* blood?” My guess is that he wanted to underscore Claudia’s betrayal, she had made a “peace offering” that was actually a Trojan horse, designed to enter Lestat’s system and weaken him from within. 

Which is really upsetting, especially from a daughter to a father. That moment when she convinces him she wants peace, he looks at her with the most tragic expression, as Amy Nicholson wrote in her book Tom Cruise: Anatomy of an Actor

“When Claudia starts her assassination plot by bringing him a human gift, Cruise’s eyes show Lestat’s surprise that someone has finally done something nice for him for the first time in the film… In that moment, we realize that while Lestat is capable of love, he’s never been loved back.”

Did you purchase the 20th anniversary edition of Interview with the Vampire on Bluray? If so, was it worth it? Was there bonus features? I already have it on DVD but I’m thinking about purchasing it on Bluray and I thought who better to ask if it is worth it, than you!

I didn’t buy it bc I don’t have a Bluray player; and I would have bought said Bluray player JUST to watch the new bonus features in a 20th Anniversary edition of IWTV if it had any, which it sadly does not (or so I’ve been told) ;A; 

BUT I do know that the picture quality is in fact better in the Bluray. Let me show you! omg ppl want to know about the extras not the picture quality idec i do what i want 

At first glance, on a laptop or smaller device screen (and at this teensy size like ugh) these two shots of Louis look identical (it’s not exactly the same frame but it’s as close as I could get w/o going crazay):

But when you see it on a bigger screen, there’s more resolution on the Bluray version, it’s a sharper image:

As far as the extra features, which is what u really wanted to know about before I took a detour…

As mentioned above, I don’t think there are any on the 20th anniversary edition :[ BUT THERE SHOULD BE… and I know specifically that Neil Jordan has been informed within the last year that WE WANT EXTRAS AND CUT SCENES AND SUCH like how did he not know that??! Just bc it’s 20yrs old doesn’t mean it’s been forgotten.

Is it worth buying it for just a better picture? I would, if I had a Bluray player. Maybe I’ll finally do that since you reminded me…

Anyone have the IWTV Bluray who can tell us if there’s anything new/special on it that I am unaware of? 

cloudsinvenice:

hannibals-cheekbones:

They need to scrap the idea of making The Vampire Chronicles into any more movies and just do a TV show called The Vampire Lestat on HBO or Showtime, or whatever. They can start with the second book, The Vampire Lestat (obvi), for season 1-Lestat’s origin, how he was turned, Nicholas, Marius, Louis, etc etc and see how it goes from there. There’s so much material, a 2 hour movie just isn’t enough for the characters or the storylines.

Yeah, and I’d be happy with a very freely adapted version of the books, a la what Hannibal does with Thomas Harris’s work. It could tell a lot of the same storylines without having to work its way through the books as written one by one, and they could play around a lot with inserting flashbacks as and when they wanted to either add new material or make the clunkier moments of storytelling in the books more concise. 

vampchronfic:

annabellioncourt:

i-want-my-iwtv:

Re-enactment w/ cats. [cat gif]

Alright the fandom has officially, and quite collectively, lost its mind and is in DESPERATE NEED of a new film. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS, UNIVERSAL STUDIOS!

AGREED!

Gallery

i-want-my-iwtv:

Neil Jordan, certified vampire therapist. 

dodoodletoo:

i-want-my-iwtv:

Murder husbands [X]

i can’t begin to explain how much it fucks me up that we’ll never see deleted scenes from this film

i know that feel bro ;A;