Why all the hate? - Queen of the Damned (2002) Discussion

[–] wolfoutlaw 16 years ago

I hate this as an adaptation but really do appreciate as a film independently.

"Anne Rice says she did not liked the movie and she thinks it is poorly acted. I think she just pissed that they did not stay true to the novel like the first movie."

When I asked her by e-mail some time ago, she put it even in such an extreme attitude that "Nothing appealed to me in the film." And yes, I seriously think her opinion on the film in every way is strongly affected by the fact it was her books slaightered so disgracefully, her heartfelt work - so she most likely tookk it worse than any fan ever could and also probably never watched the film again after the first time. Her point of view on the film thus - while it is absolutely respectable - still is not that much valuable as in considering if the film and acting is good or not. She was most likely shocked and pissed off like hell when she first saw the film and in that state of mind no one sees anything good in anything.

"I can agree that they should have not changed it and Anne Rice should have written the screenplay."

I agree with that too. Only, I believe film adaptations have to change some things but this film got waaaaaaay out of line in that matter.

"But I dont agree that it is poorly acted. Just evaluate shall we

Stuart Townsend as Lestat in my opinion was successful"

Agreed again, and I think Stuart Townsend showed very much potential to play the role of a true version of Lestat and I think he'd be perfect - (from the parts after IWTV, I don't think he'd fit too well the character Lestat was originally.) The detailed and in-depth reasons for why I think this, can be read from my Lestat & Marius fan site's "Lestat" section.

"Vincent Perez as Marius was perfect and even his character is true to the books"

I agree Vincent was perfect and I'd give a lot to see him and Stuart play the true versions of Lestat and Marius. But how do you see Marius being true to the character? I don't think Marius was all in all true to the character. With lestat he was more like Magnus would've been and this is exactly why Lestat's character too in this film, changed significantly and the whole storyline was *beep* up. I do see Marius could realistically and logically be Lestat's maker (reasoning on my Lestat & Marius fan site's "Film: Why The Changes?" section) BUT Marius would never attack Lestat the way he does in this film's scene in question, and he would not have chosen Lestat for such a shallow and random reason (and I don't think he actually did in the film either, even though he said so because the film shows so much love between them after all), and Marius would never ditch Lestat the way he does - the parting scene in the film couldn't have been more upside down seeing to the book's version - and they trashed the loving and protective live-out-one-lifetime reason and replaced it with the "you almost cost me everything" bs as for the reason why Marius left. That was all true to Magnus, not Marius. They also stripped the relationship of any physical affection and gentleness which was a huge flaw as it's a very important part of the Lestat & Marius relationship. It makes no difference that they never even refered to Lestat's morta life. Already the strength of Lestat's love and bond for Marius would require much more than that cold tone the film's vision of their relationship now has. I think the concert stage scene saved a lot as they had Marius protect Lestat there risking his own life, which I believe he would've done in the book too had he not been buried in the ice by Akasha. The film turned Marius mostly into just-the-man-who-made-Lestat from the loving, gentle, protective and earnest father and friend he is to Lestat in the books. So yes, I think Vincent was perfect for Marius's character but no, I don't think the character he played was true enough to the books.

Anyways... As a film independently, this is a vey entertaining piece of work. Good vampire flick and the storyline holds together more or less and is easy to follow. Most of the characters remain interesting and all the actors were great in their roles. The music is awesome too - mostly the songs Jonathan Davis wrote ffor Lestat's band but the instrumentals too. The only thing that keeps this film from being just about perfect independently is the Lestat & Jesse relationship.

Even if we make believe that every bit of this film's story was original work of the script writers' - the Lestat & Jesse relationship would still be the same, ridiculously unrealistically written in storyline and having no chemistry, not to mention even any place to fit the story. The ending is ridiculous: Lestat had obsessed about getting Marius back all through this story and when Marius finally came back, Lestat just seems to forget about him and leave with this chick who had by the way offended him in numerous ways and been a total dumba$$ anyways and had clearly annoyed Lestat for all that. There' no realisticness in that ending what-so-ever seeing to how they prtrayed Lestat's feelings for the characters throughout the film. So I think this eats away from the quality of the film in any case - regardless if it's looked at as an adaptation or independent film.

Had they left out that Lestat & Jesse thing, focused on Lestat's relationship with Marius and on Akasha, the character the title is all about, this film would be a whole lot better as well as an adaptation as an independent film.

I think it's clear that this film is all about the Lestat & Jesse relationship. Even more clear if you read the original script. This is why they should've practically left any books alone and written their own story with their own oiginal character - they might have even succeeded in what they tried.

LESTAT & MARIUS FAN SITE:
http://hiddenkiss.net/lestatandmarius.php

reply

[–] donnas-3 15 years ago

You really put a lot of thought into this :)

The one thing I don't get (and I must admit here, I haven't read the books...becuase I've read other of Rice's books that weren't from the Chronicles and didn't care for them)....is that Lestat in IWTV says "I'm going to give you the choice I was never given"...he says this over and over, to Louie and to Christian Slater's character...how was Marius this caring, wonderful father-figure, then? That must mean that IWTV strayed from the book, as well.

You're right, any adaptation strays from the original book...it's impossible not to....to put every little thing into a movie...impossible! I watched Twilight and then read the book, and could pick out what was different...the scene where he flew around the forest with her on his back, for example, wasn't in the book...but I just pointed out the differences...they didn't bother me, because she was there, approving all the changes on the set...so it can't be all bad, just someone else's interpretation of the scene to make the pace quicker. I know some people who were really ticked, though, that it didn't follow the book scene by scene.

Just curious about the Marius thing, though...he did seem very cold-hearted in the movie (no pun intended), the way he left Lestat...and that jived with what Lestat said in IWTV.

Hugs,
Donna

PS. Gotta run, Lestat is in his leather hip-hugger pants LOL.

reply

[–] wolfoutlaw 15 years ago

"You really put a lot of thought into this :)"

Yes, yes I have. (: I don't recall ever being this passionate about anything before The Vampire Chronicles. After all, this is a totally crappy adaptation and I still gladly dig deep into it the same as into the books. =DD

"The one thing I don't get (and I must admit here, I haven't read the books...becuase I've read other of Rice's books that weren't from the Chronicles and didn't care for them)....is that Lestat in IWTV says "I'm going to give you the choice I was never given"...he says this over and over, to Louie and to Christian Slater's character...how was Marius this caring, wonderful father-figure, then? That must mean that IWTV strayed from the book, as well."

It's a bit more complicated than that. See, in IWTV the book Lestat was only a side character. It was only after Lestat received tons of love that Anne Rice decided to make him the main character of the serie - however for some reason she turned out not to like the IWTV Lestat much and changed the character drastically, so in "The Vampire Lestat" book, which is the second part in the serie, Lestat's almost completely different character and the IWTV Lestat is announced to be mostly Louis's lies, through Lestat's own words.

However, it is true that Lestat really wasn't given a choice. Lestat's maker however was never mentioned in the IWTV part but only in the next part. But Marius isn't the character who made Lestat into a vampire in the books. And Marius of the Queen of the Damned film is criminally out of character anyways. They mixed his personality with the one's who made Lestat in the book.
In the book it was this completely different vampire named Magnus, who made lestat and didn't give him the choice. Magnus was a psycho. He had gone mad from immortality and the vampiric powers, he admired Lestat just because of his blonde hair and blue eyes and his bravery and fighter-nature, chose Lestat to inherit his huge legacy, and he commited a suicide almost immediately after turning Lestat. (And in the book Marius comes to the picture 9 years later, which years Lestat searched for him amongst other things he did.)
But...

...regardless of Marius being completely different personality from Magnus, Marius too, would turn Lestat into a vampire against his will, if he was the maker. Only, Lestat wouldn't be so bitter about it.

You see, the only choice a vampire could give, is to either kill the victim or turn them into a vampire because vampires must remain in shadows, mortals can't know about them and stay alive unless turned. Besides, to Lestat, dying would've been anyway a lot worse as close to the end of his human life he had become to fear darkness and death to a degree he got physical symptoms if came to face either of them. And death was literally on the streets of the 18th century Paris, where he lived at the time and so he made sure he was safely inside before dusk. Also, Marius loves Lestat way too much to even think about killing him instead of turning him. All his life, Lestat had yearned for a loving father and Marius was able and wanted to be that to him, amongst teaching him all the things he wantd to learn about being a vampire and of it's purpose. In the book Lestat sought Marius out to be his teacher but their relationship turned out to be even more that of a father and son in the very human way. So, even if Marius was literally the one who made Lestat into a vampire like the film version suggests, and against Lestat's will like the film suggests, he would indeed still be the caring, wonderful father-figure 'cause as said the only other option would've been death and Lestat so needed the loving father-figure that Marius was to be for him. This is also a reason why Marius is the only considerable other option for Lestat's maker. And why Lestat needed that is beecause all he ever got from his mortal father was emotional and physical absuse, as well as from his brothers and he had ended up repeatedly dream of murderign them. Literal quote from Lestat to his mother:
"Mother," I said in a low voice, "there is more to it. Before it happened, there were times when I felt terrible things." There was no change in her expression. "I mean I dream sometimes that I might kill all of them," I said. "I kill my brothers and my father in the dream. I go from room to room slaughtering them as I did the wolves. I feel in myself the desire to murder..."

Just curious about the Marius thing, though...he did seem very cold-hearted in the movie (no pun intended), the way he left Lestat...and that jived with what Lestat said in IWTV.

Well, as already refered to, this film's Marius is not even nearly the person he is in the books for they combined him with a totally different character. In the trueful image that is the books, Marius never ever left Lestat the way he does in the film. They said long, loving goodbies with a long embrace, and Marius gave him comfort and reassuring promises about how they would reunite and Lestat could always call out for him as he did before - and the reason why they had to part was not the bs selfish and cold reason the film abuses the relationship with, but for Lestat's own good, to live out one mortal lifetime on his own so he would stay satisfied in eternity which is practically living a lifetime over and over again. And in the book Marius had literally saved Lestat from ugly death the night before they parted. Marius was even tempted to never even leave Lestat but go with him, but he was strong enough to stay behind. He said "It's more tempting invitation than you know. But I'd do you a great disservice if I came with you. I'd stand between you and the world. I couldn't help it." This saying he would protect Lestat way too much as he loved Lestat like a daddy who'd do anything for his child. True Marius is extremely kind, gentle, loving and protective with Lestat. He couldn't love Lestat more the same Lestat adores him.

This film's Lestat is suicidally depressed exactly because they messed up Marius and his relationship with him. The book's Lestat isn't lonely nor depressed even though he does need Marius. He however hadn't called out for him in those 200 years because, as he put it himself "through all my struggles it had become a matter of pride not to call for him." and in the end of Queen of the Damned book Lestat says to Marius "You comfort me. AH of you. I couldn't even think of leaving you, not for very long, anyway."
The only thing the film got right in their relationship image was that they're purely a human type father and son, and that Lestat yearns to have him by his side and that Marius came to protect him on the stage. Well, he doesn't do that in the book but only because he was prisoned in an iceberg by Akasha and thus unable to come for Lestat's protection. The film truly messedup the entire storyline but I'm glad they had Marius literally on the stage instead of in the iceberg as in this situation it was the only way to show what they truly are about. But then they have to mess it up again by having Lestat leave with Jesse. Jesus, they're morons. :P

And as for the impossibility of adapting books to film as loyally as fans would like, it's indeed impossible but in this film's case, I understand why this film ticks most of the fans off me myself included. This truly messes up absolutely everything. This never even tried to adapt the books. As you see, this film is all about a Lestat&Jesse relationship that does not exsist in the books at all. And that affects every relationship that truly does exsist in it and completely alters the storyline and might I add the Lestat&Jesse relationship is ridiculously and unrealistically written too so it also completely destroys the storyline all in all as an independent one as well. But what I do think is that if the fans bothered to look deeper into this adaptation they would find some changes quite fine. That it's not after all completely bad. But as an adaptation the only thing they got right in the practical plot is that Lestat becomes a rock star and Akasha is awoken by his music. But in the books he didn't become a rock star for loneliness and truly he meant to wake Akasha with his music but in this film he obviously had no clue that he had done so and was surprised to see it had happened, so obviously in this film it was never his goal...

LESTAT & MARIUS FAN SITE:
http://hiddenkiss.net/lestatandmarius.php

reply

[–] donnas-3 15 years ago

Thank you for replying and again putting so much thought into it LOL. I appreciate that.

Maybe I will read the Chronicles, since I'm kinda obsessed with vampires nowadays LOL, and then I will have a comment...but I cannot comment on something I haven't read.

Thanks again,
Donna

reply

[–] carlos_townsend 15 years ago

People need to realise that movie adaptations will never exceed their source material as you can go more in depth in a novel. Also some things would not transfer well across mediums, as it could be unfilmable or over the top and cheesy. This means means they have to change things so it can work,but it also means taking some liberties. Plus a whole novel cannot be crammed into a 2 hour movie, so they cut it down and change it, but in the process it p***** off the minority that have read the novel.

reply

[–] wolfoutlaw 15 years ago

I agree but I'm still sticking to what I've said before: In this film's case they never ever even tried to adapt the novels. They never even tried!! As the original script too is clearly basically about Lestat&Jesse's so-called "romance", which is not in the novels on any level. So they always were intenting and ended up writing and portraying, their own story, only using character versions and some storylines and elements of someone else's story.

The film is all about something that isn't in the source material at all, and it borrows a father-son relationship from the source material that is in it a warm, close and strong but in the film it's cold and distant, and tehy borrow a love relationship (Lestat&Akasha) from the source material that in it is strong, twisted and passionate even if Lestat is wishing to get away from it, but in the film they write Lestat not even care about her and her trying to kill him. Marius is cold-hearted and abandones Lestat for selfish reasons whereas in the novels he's warm, gentle and always thinks of Lestat's best. Lestat is joyful and enthuastic towards life in the books but in this film he's depressed, suicidal and bitter, which however is directly affected by what the film did with Marius. In the novels Lestat's main reason for becoming a rockstar is to wake Akasha but in this film he doesn't even know he has waken her so it obviously wasn't his goal in the film. THAT is NOT efforts to try and adapt the novels. That is bucthering them in favor of the part that isn't in the novels at all. And even in that part they miserabley fail in portraying it in any way realistically as their story supports hate and not love, plus they write Lestat obsess about getting Marius back all through the film and still regardless of those two facts they write Lestat&Jesse end up togetehr happily hand in hand and Lestat seems to have forgotten about Marius - the ending is complete, utter nonsense.

You'd think something like that should be though of as an independent story and not an adaptation but NO, they don't even suppose us to do that as they advertise this film as an adaptation of Anne Rice's story AND on the commentary track they talk about this as an adaptation. GAH!

Fans are right to tick off. These script writers deserve the hate. All I do recommend for fans is to cool it and try to look for good things in the film, 'cause there actually are some. Relatively. Judging something blindly isn't a respectable attitude.

But really, if those people were trying to adapt the books they wouldn't have written it all about something that isn't in them and they would've respected the source material's character nd relationships much more than that where they turn them into almost entirely opposite things. They took the novels and did whatever they wanted, they didn't care.

LESTAT & MARIUS FAN SITE:
http://hiddenkiss.net/lestatandmarius.php

reply

[–] jingizu_z 11 years ago

Very well said, and fully agreed.

reply

[–] fannyalex123 11 years ago

Totally agree. For the adaptation part, it would have been much better. But as a movie itself, it may not be the best but I really enjoyed watching it. It's the type of movie that I could include in my favorites list since I have watched it so many times and never got tired with it.

Plus, Stuart Townsend is so hot as hell in this movie. He alone is a reason to watch it.

reply

[–] posh_avolon 16 years ago

ok i agree this is a great movie but this is nothing to the book it seems like the writer of the screenplay just read the back of the book and said i can make a movie out of this
secondly interview's screenplay was written by ann rice herself so of course it stays true to the book as much as hollywood would allow i of course i mean the things like armond not being a teenager and all the gay refrences remove. this of course says something about queen of the dead cus they removed alot of the homosexual drawing point of ann rices books

reply

[–] terrencepatrix 16 years ago

Simply put, as stand alone movies these were ok. "Interview with a Vampire" imo, was much better writen, directed, and acted. Queen of the Damned was also acceptable as a stand alone vampire adventure.

Compared to the books though, both completely butchered the source material. Comparing the two...IWAV was much closer to the actual novel. QOD was so completely wrong, if I hadn't read the books I would have never guessed it was from a novel in the first place...it's so packed full of just...generic vampire fanfare, goth cliche, crap. They butchered or completely omitted some of my favorite characters.

I will admit I liked alot of the music at least. I don't dislike either movies, but I by far prefer the books.

reply

[–] galoipo 16 years ago

Agreed. Great movie and awesome soundtrack although Jonathan Davis sounded a little too whiney at some parts (and that's coming from a Korn fan) but still good. And Stuart - man he is the hottest vampire ever... moreso then Robert Pattinson (who I also like).

reply

[–] cloudstain79 15 years ago

What is even more depressing is that Anne Rice offered to write the screenplay to Vampire Lestat for a very small amount of money but WB passed on her offer. Nice move!

reply

[–] ocelotssnake 15 years ago

my main gripe was this was supposed to be about akasha. i wanted to see the origin story and the twins. everything i said wow i want to see that on the big screen was omitted from the story

reply

[–] milesreilly 15 years ago

I've read 10 vampire chronicles books in order, There fantastic.
Interview with the vampire was a masterpiece for a book to film.
Whereas Queen of the Damned was truly awful, they changed so much, and shifted through events so quickly and badly, It is a disgrace of a film. ugh, hated it.

Actor for Marius, didn't look like what i imagined
For David Talbot, bit silly, too young, he even says "oh im too old for this" hes meant to be like 70

as a film, ignoring the book, badly structured story , You really dont care or feel for the queens beliefs, for someone who hasnt read the book, they wouldn't have much idea of whats going on. Don't understand why "the vampire Lestat" wasnt made into a film, interesting story of his life, 18th c france.

I heard there may be a new film, perhaps Robert downey junior as Lestat, at first I thought it was a bad choice, though I think he can pull it off.
Hoping "tale of the body thief" gets made, The V Chronicles could easily be turned into epic few films like lord of the rings, harry potter etc, continuation of films. Thanks to That lame film Twilight, set off a vampire trend again.

reply

[–] butterK 15 years ago

I've never read the books so I have no opinion on the movie as an adaptation. As a stand alone, I thought it was an ok movie yey I felt it somehow had the potential to be really good but was missing something.

reply

[–] blasphemous_brat_prince 15 years ago

And you know whats the big missing in this crap? The sense of the whole story from the book. Believe me If you ready The Vampire Chronicles you will never view anymore an okey film. More like a parody and fake makeups when you think about it.

-------
"Take my hand grip it tightly (Don't let go!) Promise pain will past you silently"--Violent Kiss

reply

[–] crowess_spawn 15 years ago

a parody. well put.

reply

[–] crowess_spawn 15 years ago

you never read the book, so how do you know if they did or didn't stick to the book? besides, it's not "book". it's BOOKS. this movie was a horrible train wreck between "The Vampire Lestat" and "Queen of the Damned". it even tells you that at the beginning of the movie.

better evaluation:
Stuart Townsend was not playing Lestat. his Lestat and Cruise's Lestat are two COMPLETELY different people. yes, I know the obvious. they are two different people because the actors are two different people. what I mean is the characters are totally different from each other. Lestat was not like that in the books.

Vincent Perez...gotta love him for his part in "The Crow: City of Angels", but he bombed in this one. he was trying to hard to pull off the "vampire accent" without trying too hard to sound like he had a "vampire accent".

Lena Olin, she was about the only one I cared for in this movie.

Aaliyah...I take it you've never seen "Romeo Must Die" or even looked at her IMDb page. she had experience as an actress. not much, but she still had experience. her "blah, blah, I am the queen of the vampires, blah, blah" crap accent was enough to drive a sane man crazy. she wasn't sexy, she was laughable. I'm sorry that this was her last film.

name one movie that really stayed true to the books AND was good. I can't think of one. I know many book movies that I love and I love the book too, but I can't think of many that did follow the book AND was actually good. the Hannibal Lecter movies (minus "Hannibal Rising") are about the only good, on track ones I can think of.

reply

[–] arnar2005 15 years ago

i loove this movie its one of my favorite vampire movies! i havent read the book so i dont know how diffrent it is to the novel :) but i really wana read it actully

Bridget Regan For Wonder Woman

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BridgetReganWW

reply

[–] Edren 14 years ago

Simple answer, it was a very, very lame movie. It needs to be put out of it's misery, like a crippled horse.

"A lot of people say to me... get out of my garden" - Stewart Lee

reply