I don't think it'd hurt to publish this matter as an article too... Seeing to how blind so many people are to this in the name of "It didn't go like that in the books!!!" So, let us look into the books to see if it might make sense.

But before that - let me explain:

In the film; The producer of the film in F.A.Q at Warner Bros's QOTD site:

"Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view.”

I know! I agree. It really does.

”We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute.”

I was really surprised to read all that after I'd spent a lot of time analysing how it indeed does work extremely well for the chatacters and how Marius indeed is a terrific substitute, if looked into the books, while I was in the impression that they just thought about saving minutes.
But apparently someone saw how well it would work BUT why the hell did they fuck it up and didn't use those chatacter-motivations?

But nothing changes the fact that ditching Magnus in the first place, not to mention turning Marius into the cold one, was probably the most crucial change they could ever make. And thus basically very wrong. There is a reason why Magnus and Marius are two different characters. Two VERY different chatacters. The idea of Marius as Lestat’s maker greatly fascinates me personally, and Anne Rice knows this, and is "delighted that the relationships described in the books have the deprh to withstand differences of opinion and interpretation." But I mean for a little fanvision. Not a profit feature film that was supposed to adapt the books’s storý and show it to the world in a cinematic form!

And as said, they didn't even bother to stay true to the characters and their motivations. But what's done is done. Read the rest and you should come to see, what I am talking about.

All in all - let's look into the books;
Some fans seem to object to the change regardless of Magnus. They don't mind all that much if Magnus is in it or so it seems, but they do cry about the fact Marius is his maker in the film. I believe Marius is the only other reasonable option for Lestat's maker of all the characters that were around during that time.
That vision DOES work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. And here's why:

X Rice's vampires make vampires of people they love - usually. And thus, seeing to the amounts of love between Lestat and Marius from Marius's side as well and the DEPTH of their relationship, I see nonthing standing against the very realistic and logic possibility of Marius being Lestat's blood maker - had he been the one who found Lestat. You see, in the books Marius does take Lestat as if Lestat was his own, as if he had made Lestat.

But there's a fine line between being someone's vampiric "father" and being someone's human type father but they can naturally be combined. I always saw the vampiric fathers, mothers and children as simply symbolical terms. As Magnus called Lestat his son but admired only Lestat's looks and his bravery and fighter-nature and ha chosen him for those reasons and not in any intention to raise him in any emotional way and Lestat looked up to him as marely a teacher,
Armand was Marius's vampiric son but they were lovers, as were Marius and Pandora though symbolically a father and daughter... New born vampires are symbolically their makers' children only because they're of their blood and need guidence in vampire life, in other words very practical type of children and in emotional level it may develope to anything. Now that I think of it - I don't recall any other case besides Lestat and Marius, where a fledgling is thought of as a real child to be a real parent to. Well, as said, in the books of course Lestat wasn't Marius's fledgling but here comes the point that Marius seemed to take him as if he was. He seemed to think of Lestat as both; his vampiric son as in a fledgling and as his own son as if they were a human family.

X And Lestat's deep, burning need for a loving father would make the fact Marius took mortality away from him matter very little to Lestat. Sure, he became a bit bitter for that but obviously, he also didn't in the end care so much as long as Marius was with him. And by the way, in the book too when Marius came to Lestat, Lestat was all dried up of blood and after Marius fed him his, 99,99% of the blood in Lestat from then on, was Marius's blood, just like in the mvoie. I don't see the maker-vision destroying anything in their relationship, while I can see the relationship being a very realistic reason for the bite.

X And Marius would've had better reasons for the act than Magnus did. Emotional and soothing reasons (even if the film makers fucked that up and didn't use the realistic ones) - while Magnus had psychotic and shallow. And Marius would be determinate but loving and gentle - not aggressive and cold where as Lestat might resist but he certainly wouldn't be afraid. I bet the heartfelt and beautiful father-son connection would've shown itself perfectly clear from the very moments, probably making Lestat confused but trusting enough
not to be afraid.

So I don't think the movie vision should be shot down like that. One just has to think more logic than the film makers did when it comes to the reasons why and how. The film makers however did have an in-character moment there; Marius saying "You've been brave enough for one night, my son." with compassionate tone and eyes, Lestat seeing and hearing this, clearly calmed down and began to drink. That was the key moment of their bond in the film's otherwise messed up vision. There was this sorrowful but now hopefull longing flash in Lestat's eyes instantly after the words "You've been brave enough for one night, my son."

X I could see Marius turning Lestat into a vampire against Lestat's will even though it's usually not like Marius:
He could only give him the choice of either dying or becoming a vampire. And to Lestat, dying would've been far worse, plus Marius loved Lestat too much to even think of killing him instead of turning him. And Marius would know he'd be giving Lestat more than he'd be taking from him, by turning him. This also becoming a another realistic reason why he'd turn Lestat regardless of his young age, in which he already regretted taking Armand. He'd take Lestat into the vampire world against Lestat's will and at such a young age but under his wing and only eventually when the time would be right would send Lestat to live out one lifetime, SO that eventually should Lestat die, he'd at least die happy as he'd have had a loving father in his life.

That's why I think in Lestat's case not giving the choice would be perfectly Marius - as in being the parent who'll pull his child through the fear they have no need for, and why as I said, Lestat wouldn't mind not having the choice. He would resist - but only to a degree. And as said, in the end it might not be so much against Lestats will and thus not so much forcing:

Marius is an ancient with the whole godlike vibe oozing from him, added to how he just is kind, gentle and loveable. Whereas Lestat surely would begin to resist due to his fear of death and darkness, the situation however would have to be and develope in so, sooo much the opposite way than it does with Magnus.

Leading to the quite probable point of the situation, where Lestat might not resist so strongly that it could purely be called being forced. Maybe he wouldn't say exactly "Ok, I'll take it!" - but then again, why not? Who WOULDN'T be awfully tempted to get to know Marius better, especially if seen in him the daddy that's been yearned for? But you know, in the least, I believe Lestat might not be completely against becoming a vampire. Marius would probably talk to him about what it would be like and what they could be. Not in manipulative way/tone but the truth 'cause we all know, they're a perfect match and Lestat does enjoy being a vampire anyway.

And let's think if; if Lestat really truly resisted all along - Marius turning him against his wishes I would just see an act of a parent who's pulling his child through a fear the child has no need for. Especially since at that point the only other option would be death, which is one of the things the child fears and there is no time to let him overcome it other way - so um, yeah. Marius forcing Lestat to take the Dark Gift can't stop making sense to me, whereas in the end I believe he wouldn't even have to so literally and purely force him after all.

X As for the probablity of Marius ever crossing Lestat's path, noticing him and even turning him;
Marius did not spend all his days on the island but he travelled far from there, countless times. As he said to Lestat, he had seen Lestat's written messages himself and that sometimes they had been closer to each other than Lestat even knew. And as said, I believe the father's love he feels for Lestat combined to how much Lestat yearned for it and it must have oozed from him, might be a valid reason why he'd end up turning Lestat, but also what Nicolas said to Lestat about him (Lestat): "There's a radiance in you, Lestat. It's there even when your sad or discouraged. There's a light in you that's almost blinding. And it draws everyone to you."

That would naturally apply to Marius the same as anyone else in noticing, being drawn to and wanting to be with Lestat. Besides, the things in Lestat, that Marius at one point describes himself to "already love rather too strongly", are all there in the mortal Lestat as well. At least for how I see the mortal Lestat. Marius said to him something like "Then I'll be the one who begs you not to leave me. I'll fall in love with your company, your conversation, the mare sight of you, your recklessness and your stanima, your lack of belief in anything. All the things about you I already love rather too strongly."

X I think Marius would offer the Dark Gift to Lestat; The light in Lestat, the things he loves about Lestat, and Lestat's daddy issues. Sure as hell he would give it a lot of thought and consideration unlike he had done with others, but there seems to be enough reasons for why he'd want to offer it, and why he might think it could work.

The time he'd live with Lestat before sending him out to live a lifetime on his own would naturally make and keep Lestat happy enough (and give him strength for the future) due to his daddy issues being the most significant part of his mortal misery. And it is not as if Marius is like the film version, all you-can-not-do-anything-with-mortals-ever-again but he rather encouraged Lestat to live as mortal-like as he could with still valuing the vampire secrecy and he gave valuable and wise guidelines for how to act if and when he'd get lonely and make other vampires for company. He so very clearly constantly cared about Lestat's feelings and tried to help him in remaining happy and strong even without him by his side. To guide him to have as good life as he possibly could in the vampire situation. Marius did absolutely nothing spontaniously when it came to Lestat but always seemed to think of both, what he himself wanted and what would be best for Lestat. Oh, except of course saving his life was a thing he certainly didn't stop to think on.

So yeah... I think he'd want to offer, consider it well, and probably end up doing so for a selfless reason, and knowing or believing he has the potential, will and strength to work it for Lestat's best even more than it in the first place already would be. And partly also because naturally he would've learnt from his past mistakes. That was after all, why he insisted Lestat to go alone for the lifetime even though he desperately wanted Lestat to remain and was very tempted to go along.

I just think Marius's mind, motives and understanding when it comes to Lestat, have always been very right, determined and clear to himself.

X I prefer Marius for many reasons and I do not mention all of them here, but I still would never wish the books to be any other way because they're brilliant and beautiful just the way they are. And of course I'd have rather seen Magnus in the film too - as said, you shouldn't maje this crucial change for a feature film. My preference is only for a little fanvision. But for some reasons for my preference I could mention here that I think it works well for the characters, and I love Lestat's psychological bases which Marius address to, and I love exploring all the possibilities of the characters.

You see, in The Vampire Lestat,
Lestat does state that the fact he was, in his mortal life, held back from a chance to live a life and his dreams, that it didn't matter - that it couldn't account for such unhappiness as he was feeling. And he had just a moment before confessed to repeatedly dream of maniacally slaughtering his father and his brothers. Lestat's sanity and happiness was clearly bound to having a loving father.

Magnus as Lestat's maker and then only later meeting Marius, enables Lestat to adventure and spend money, live a life out there in the world but he had ssaid such things don't matter to him as much as having a loving father does and thus naturally his glorious acting carrieer wasn't really giving him what he really needed and knew that would make him truly happy.
For Lestat's emotional developement the maker naturally also matters, in it's differing it's exactly what fascinates me. Especially as it still would not make Lestat into a completely different man.

In fact, I don't see anything changing significantly, because of the maker - at least not long-termly, even if his actions would develope in a different storyline and so in a different way.

But after all, his mortal life naturally affects him all the way (and no I don't mean just the family relationships but everything that happened to him), and be the maker Marius or Magnus, he would've been the same. His characteristics were formed and set during those intense 21 years of his human life. What did happen to him when becoming a vampire, was that he got to be himself more freely. Magnus didn't make his personality even if he did affect him in a way, for a time. As for the storyline, he would've lost Nicki and Gabrielle - probably in a different way but still lost them. Gabrielle too forever, as she was dying, which would've affected Lestat different than when he was able to save her, but the fact he wouldn't have dealt with it alone would balance it a little.

Marius's love naturally would make anything easier to cope, Marius as Lestat's maker would makke Lestat's emotional developement in a way more complicted - or would the correct word be, more indepth, and naturally partly different, as Marius is his ultimate source of strength - but as said, it wouldn't change anything completely... as strength to cope with things doesn't mean they wouldn't affect you enough.

And 9 years is a long time - who knows what could've happened to him during them basically the same as if Magnus made him as Lestat was still the adventurous, childlike and sensitive himself.

The maker alters the storyline, affects Lestat's inner strength and happiness, but I personally think - even though the maker and some vampire life events are very significant - the key events and feelings to what kind of a vampire he turned out to be, lie in his mortal life before he ever met a vampire... His human life was so extremely intense in emotional matters that it can't not permanetly affect him in many ways. His rebelious attitudes spring from his mortal life, his desire to murder was caused by it and exsisted already in it, his yearning to adventure and live his dreams were there as well, he had trust issues there already and he was also eager to learn already then... Magnus as his maker added to some of those but they were there strongly and permanently even before Magnus. Marius as Lestat's maker naturally would affect those things in a positive way but as said and in the books too proved, he didn't affect them so much that they'd fall away. Always, always look firstly into a person's childhood and early life when you want to understand who they are because that's what makes a person's psychological base, and only then think of how later events and reltionships affect it.

As for Marius teaching values and morals of being a vampire, he did so and Lestat respected them to no limits yet broke some of them deliberately anyways - it wouldn't matter when they were taught. All said, hence what I said earlier - the maker change would be psychologically best for Lestat, it would work perfectly too and it wouldn't change Lestat's personality. The only thing that changes is the storyline.

So while I think Magnus in all his psychotic and vampiric creepiness in every way, is quite a fascinating character especially for Lestat's first touch with vampires, I still prefer Marius as Lestat's maker because of the psychological basics of Lestat's character and story as it is which of course brings it around to because of the relationship - but in general level; I think it works for the character AND is fascinating idea with the whole practical dying-for element. The fact that the relationship is something adorably in-depth and beautiful only adds to it.

All this is trying to suggest; Think and look into things before you pass your judgement, for better or worse. In my reviewing opinion, Marius as Lestat's maker isn't too bad, while it's also the only other logic option to the original of the books.

To make even clearer how the maker doesn't affect or change Lestat's personality and how even the storyline wouldn't need to drastcically differ, and how it is very easy to come to the idea of Marius as Lestat's maker even without the film, read Myf_1992's article link

This, and so much more on my Lestat & Marius fan site:
link

PS.
This article was improved by the debate with Myf_1992 that follows, so don't wonder if she argues things I do cover in this article. She also helped me in phrasing the way the maker does not affect Lestat's personality so much as everyone tend to think he does.