Reading
I decided to read "Interview with a Vampire" I had seen the movie. It was alright. One of the most vivid images i remember fromt he movie was Claudie and MAudeline being exposed to sunlight and destroyed. I alsways felt dsorry for her...until I actually read the book.
The book is so COMPLETELY different from the movie in it's fundemental philosophies. I understand that you can not fit all the content from a book into a movie..there simply isn't enough time...but to completely and thuroughly change the entire concept of the book?
Here is a for instance...and a HUGE for instance at that. You never had to guess that Lestat was alive he pops up throughout the entire book. In fact HE is the reason Claudia and Maudeline is burned to a crisp...how can you leave that out? But the real philisophical difference comes to this. The whole story is Louis recounting his "life" to a reporter. The hopes was to show this reporter that Louis is damned. That the life of a vampire is no life at all. The reporter still asks Luois to change him and, in the movie Louis scares the crap out of him and he flees. Grateful that he was not changed and that he wa still human afterall. And then of course Lestat shows up out of the blue with the intention of changing him. In the book Louis not only scares the hell out of him, he drains him of blood, leaves him nearly dead, and disappears which only shows the reporter how being a vampire gives you the ulitmate power of life over death and makes the reporter want to be a vampire even more. He rewinds the tapes he made of Lopuis' life and find the part where Louie tells him where he found Lestat and the reporter then seeks him out.
There is a huge fundamental difference between being "scared staight" and being consumed with greed and hunger for power...and the entire book/movie comparison is like this. Deep differences. I wonder if the people who made the movie read the book at all.
The book is so COMPLETELY different from the movie in it's fundemental philosophies. I understand that you can not fit all the content from a book into a movie..there simply isn't enough time...but to completely and thuroughly change the entire concept of the book?
Here is a for instance...and a HUGE for instance at that. You never had to guess that Lestat was alive he pops up throughout the entire book. In fact HE is the reason Claudia and Maudeline is burned to a crisp...how can you leave that out? But the real philisophical difference comes to this. The whole story is Louis recounting his "life" to a reporter. The hopes was to show this reporter that Louis is damned. That the life of a vampire is no life at all. The reporter still asks Luois to change him and, in the movie Louis scares the crap out of him and he flees. Grateful that he was not changed and that he wa still human afterall. And then of course Lestat shows up out of the blue with the intention of changing him. In the book Louis not only scares the hell out of him, he drains him of blood, leaves him nearly dead, and disappears which only shows the reporter how being a vampire gives you the ulitmate power of life over death and makes the reporter want to be a vampire even more. He rewinds the tapes he made of Lopuis' life and find the part where Louie tells him where he found Lestat and the reporter then seeks him out.
There is a huge fundamental difference between being "scared staight" and being consumed with greed and hunger for power...and the entire book/movie comparison is like this. Deep differences. I wonder if the people who made the movie read the book at all.