Queen of the Damned: The Movie. What the Hell happened?

[Kroc1138]

know that this might have been discussed some time back but seeing as how I recently read the first three books in the Vampire Chronicles I thought that I might create another discussion on this matter.

I saw parrts of Queen of the Damned some years back on TV. (against the insistent warnings of my sister not to) By then I had realized that it was to be a sequel to Interview with the Vampire. When it was out in the Theaters I didn't know that, because the last Time I saw IWTV was in 1995 on HBO.

Not that any of that matters, but I found the movie to be lousy. (not surprisingly) Where were the references to the previous film? What is the deal with Lestat becoming a rockstar? Second I certainly didn't care for Stuart Townsend playing Lestat.

Generally my opinion of both films was thisprior to reading the Vampire Chronicles)
IWTV: 9/10
QOTD: 5/10

After reading them My opinion of the Films changed somewhat: I now Loved IWTV much more, but was saddened by some of the omissions and changes from the book. I think on the whole the movie was beautifully directed, acted and cast.
However, Tom Cruise was a bit of a Diamond in the rough. When I first saw the movie, I thought he was great and it was probably one of his best performances. (and one that made me take him seriously as an actor: Like Born on the 4th of July) After read IWTV, I realize that (despite the omissions and changes) Tom Cruise nailed Lestat.

Queen of the Damned: However now became totally unwatchable. It ruined two great books, made tons of unnecessary changes, omission, and character omissions. The director also did a truly terrible Job. It was like watching a really bad hour long music video. The casting was atrocious, everyone was horribly miscast and generally the movies completely missed the entire point of what Anne Rice making. All the characteriszation were one Dimensional and totally wrong. While the movie was miscast, I can't blame the actors. It was the entire productions fault.

Since I had such a gripe with casting:
I would keep it the same as it was for Interview with the Vampire: (ie: Lestat: Tom Cruise, Louis: Brad Pitt)
But for the rest: (To Start)
The Vampire Lestat:
Magnus: Jermy Irons
Gabrielle: Either Michelle Pfeiffer, Emma Thompson or Cate Blanchet
Nicholas: Johnny Depp
Marius: Either Sam Neil or Hugo Weaving

Queen of the Damned
Maharet/Mekare: Either Salma Hayek or Aishwarya Rai
Akasha: Rosario Dawson
Jesse: Mili Avital

 

[Joker]

wrong forum...and yeah, the Queen Of the Damned movie was f**king AWFUL...they should have done The Vampire Lestat right after Interview With The Vampire, and then done this movie...you know, as a trilogy with the same actors and everything.

 

[Kroc1138]

wrong forum...and yeah, the Queen Of the Damned movie was f**king AWFUL...they should have done The Vampire Lestat right after Interview With The Vampire, and then done this movie...you know, as a trilogy with the same actors and everything.

OOOPPPS! Sorry. I was in a hurry and didn't even realize that it was in this forum.

But yeah, I totally agree with you on what they should have done.

 

[vibeke_T]

the soundtrack was fun

 

[Warhammer]

This movie was garbage and weird as hell.

 

[DACrowe]

Interview with the Vampire is a classic vampire movie. One of the few proofs (alongside Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry McGuire, Collateral, Minority Report, Last Samurai....okay more than a few, just they are forgotten due to a bad ego) that Cruise is a good actor.

I thought Brad Pitt was decent though in recent viewings his narration I find can be a bit wooden and Dunst is amazing at such a young age (too bad after this and Virgin Suicides she hasn't really given one since....maybe Marie Antionette will change that) and despite the changes I liked Banderas in his role too.

It was well directed and beautifully shot and put together from costume, set design and the very subtle but brilliant special effects. My only gripe is that it purposely went too over the top sometimes and on multiple viewings some scnes thus wear thin (Lestat being set on fire, the "judgement" on Louis and Claudia, Louis burning the Theatre of Vampires, etc.).

But overall a really good movie and imo a vampire classic, among the best cinema has ever offered (right up there with Nosferatu and Tod Browning's Dracula).

BUT

I am more than disappointed by Queen of the Damned. What a wretched movie. 'Nuff said.

Interestingly enough Broadway produced a show this year called Lestat. It was pretty good. It was not the greatest show, and in fact had problems it should have worked out in previews (mostly in flow and pacing) but the performances were all solid to great, especially the very talented Hugh Panaro as Lestat and Carolee as Gabrielle (the teenager who played Claudia was an exceptional singer too).

But it wasn't neccesarily the greatest musical in the world, though quite faithful to the book Lestat and it took some scenes from Interview too. But the ending was very muted and bleak for a musical (no flashy show number, Lestat ends broken, remorsless, depressed and alone right before he became a rockstar and the books went downhill in a major way in my opinion) with him accepting his gift tragically and walking away.


So....then it closed after half a year. Too bad though at least it adapted The Vampire Lestat faithfully, something Hollywood SHOULD try and do though.

 

[bluejake01]

They had their hands tied...The film rights to The Vampire Lestat were owned by another company and the changes they made were out of a need to distance themselves from the story in said book, thus avoiding a lawsuit.

For as bad as the film was, I felt it had a few redeeming qualities. Lestat was finally played by someone the right age range. Tom Cruise was way too old to pass for a teenager, which lestat was in his late teens when he was turned. Armand, again, cast much better, even if he was in the background. And Akasha was perfect.

There is so much rich material between the two books, but you need to own the rights to both books to tell the story right. You can't make TVL without TQotD

 

[DACrowe]

Ah, but Tom Cruise NAILED Lestat and Townsend was terrible in the role though.

 

[Mandi-chan]

I've only seen a couple of scenes from this movie and thought it was absolute crap!

The music was annoying and bad, Stuart Townsend can't act to save his life, and Akasha was horrible!

There's a Broadway show about Lestat?!

That's so awesome! Is it (or will it ever be) on dvd?

 

[Kroc1138]

They had their hands tied...The film rights to The Vampire Lestat were owned by another company and the changes they made were out of a need to distance themselves from the story in said book, thus avoiding a lawsuit.

That's not what I heard. From what I know, when IWTV movie rights was bought by the WB they had the right to all of Anne Rice's Novels. They made IWTV and then they somehow were unable to make the rest of the movies. (Development hell??) When their contract ran out, Anne Rice had the Option to shop her material to other Film Companies. Thus they rushed they remaining novels to fim getting the awful end result.

For as bad as the film was, I felt it had a few redeeming qualities. Lestat was finally played by someone the right age range. Tom Cruise was way too old to pass for a teenager, which lestat was in his late teens when he was turned.

No he wasn't. IIRC He was well into his Twenties when he was made. Tom was in his Early 30's but nontheless aptly cast. (and despite his height, looked like Lestat) Townsend looked nothing like Lestat on film at all. (Blame the Makeup people)

Armand, again, cast much better, even if he was in the background. And Akasha was perfect.

Not really. Antonio Banderas however was a bit too old for Armand but still looked more like him than that other guy.
Akasha on the other hand was probably the most horribly written and miscasted ppl on the film. (through no fault of Aaliyah) To me I think Rosario Dawson would have fit the role better.

There is so much rich material between the two books, but you need to own the rights to both books to tell the story right. You can't make TVL without TQotD

They did have the rights, the WB just got lazy.

 

[bluejake01]

Lestat was in his late teens...and no actual age is given. Not yet a man, but not a child...I and many other Anne Rice fans have always figured him for 17-19...it could be that he is in his mid twenties, but that would contradict the descriptions given of his age and the era he grew up in, and the family he was born into.

 

[Nivek]

Yeah, it was a pretty horrible film, miscasting, overdone FX, and after making Tom Cruise Blond and Blue Eyes, they make townsend look like some run of the mill Nu-metal/Goth mallrat with Brown Hair. bUt I could've lived with that, then we get frigging Vincent "worse Crow ever" Parez getting the Marius role! I hated him in the film, between him and the stale Aaleigha (sp?) playing the Queen. Thank god blade 3 took it's spot in my list of worst Vampire sequels ever. The Subspecies Full moon Entertainment movies rival this dreck.

 

[vibeke_T]

I've only seen a couple of scenes from this movie and thought it was absolute crap!

The music was annoying and bad, Stuart Townsend can't act to save his life, and Akasha was horrible!

There's a Broadway show about Lestat?!

That's so awesome! Is it (or will it ever be) on dvd?

the show got axed cuz it was horrible

 

[DACrowe]

Horrible? Maybe. I would call it average. Definetly not a classic but there were a few good songs in it (and SOME real lousy ones) courtosy of Elton John. My biggest problem was the book was a little too light until like the last two scenes to be anything of real menace. I'll agree it ain't a patch on the book or Jordan movie. I'll try and post some vids from the show I saw on the internet some time of the few good songs in it, when I have time then.

 

[DACrowe]

Okay I looked at a few of these, and the ones that work are still good, but yeah....it probably should never have been a musical (despite some good talent behind it) and definetly should have been darker. However most of these are the "high points," that I thought were decent enough. The last clip is the closing to the show which I find kind of cheesy but hey, if you want to see how it ends, go for it. The other 4 or 5 are just the better points in the show (musically, I couldn't find the scene where Claudia cuts Lestat open on Youtube).

But having seen the movie again recently and being months since I saw the show....yeah the film is much better, but hey at least the musical was relatively faithful to the novel Lestat unlike the movie titled in this thread though:

The quality ain't the best (bootleg anyone?) but you get a good look at the acting and singing, though the stage design is completely lost, oh well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5iFZwS2xCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haaJmMyxhL4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owVhBUoRu2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2kkwaqYKc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0tR9bPXnBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfb6uLy8T18

I still particularly like "Make Me as You Are," "I Want More" and "After All this Time" a lot though.

 

[Majik1387]

I haven't read the book so I don't know how good of an adaptation it is but I haven't heard anything good from my frineds who have read it. I thought the movie was average, I only thought Marguerite Moreau was miscast but it could be due to me only thinking of her character from the Mighty Duck movies. Aaliyah actually impressed me with her acting, too bad she only made 2 movies in her life. Stuart Townsend was good but I thought he could've been a bit better.

One small thing that bothered me in the movie was that Lestat was somehow able to be recorded by a video camera. I'm no technician but I thought video cameras operated based on reflections, correct if I'm wrong, and seeing as how vampires aren't supposed to have reflections, it annoyed me.

 

[vibeke_T]

bah! terrible, just terrible

 

[DACrowe]

If you are referring to the musical....yeah it was. Ha! Oh well, it did have some good actors in it and I still like 3 songs in it anyway. But at least we have IWTV in a good film adaptation though.

 

[DACrowe]

P.S. Lestat does have a refelction though.

 

[Bad Superman]

Queen of the Damned was a mix of both the book and bits and pieces of Vampire Lestat. I hope there are plans for a new trilogy (a film for each book) with the same actors. Queen of the Damned fell very short of exploring the book's story and characters. IWTV was a decent adaptation.

I agree with QOTD's soundtrack. It's badass.

 

[jimmylace]

meh, anne rice was milking it by that point anyway when she wrote the sequels....(how many has she done now,...like 9?!)

but I agree IWTV was a great great movie, that got pretty mixed reviews when it came out, but like a lot of dark movies, becomes more appreciated with time.
Queen of the Damned was terrible on every level....squashing two huge novels into one movie was the biggest mistake, as was having no returning cast or neil jordan directing....

I'd love to see a proper trilogy, or at least "the vampire lestat"....but I did like the QOTD novel...especially the earlier chapters and the wicker man rituals...really quite epic.

 

[bluejake01]

Wickerman Rituals were invented by Julius Ceaser as a bit of propaganda to increase support for his campaign against the Celts!

 

[Kroc1138]

Lestat was in his late teens...and no actual age is given. Not yet a man, but not a child...I and many other Anne Rice fans have always figured him for 17-19...it could be that he is in his mid twenties, but that would contradict the descriptions given of his age and the era he grew up in, and the family he was born into.

I'm currently reading The Tale of the Body Thief and it definatively gives Lestat's age as 20 year old when he was made. Cruise at that time was still very young looking so I can buy him being twenty.