|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless that this is partly anti-fan toned, this is a FAN article; this is a FAN's review from a FAN point of view on a film adaptation of a book with reasoning critisism, so this should be an accaptable article.
Over-all for why this pairing ruins the film's quality as an independent film:
This pairing doesn't have a place in this film's story as long as those other relationships that truly belong into it, exsist. And it's no wonder since Anne Rice didn't write Lestat to have such a relationship with Jesse or anyone else. In other words they try to force something into a story where that something just simply won't fit in and then it all turn out into an extremely nonsense ending scene. This pairing doesn't work in any way, has no chemistry, she's not his type at all and still the film's end suggest they end up together and that he leaves with her and seemingly forgets about the man he had obsessed about finding all through the film.
Even the producer of the film says it's unlikely that Lestat'd fall for Jesse. Then throws in "fate or circumstances" & "in a way he would never have predicted" - so admits there's no chemistry nor...
|
|
|
|
|
Many people are judging Townsend without looking at all into anything that means something when it comes to a character adaptation. Let me write a review of Townsend as Lestat and then of Tom Cruise for the same version of the character.
Like everyoen else who have read the books, I see the Queen of the Damned film's version of Lestat is criminally out-of-character but I personally hold only the script writers' and possibly the director and whoever really had any say on it, responssible.
Not the actor; not Stuart Townsend, at all - because he could not possibly have changed the character into more true version, in any case. Because the script writers created the version; they wrote the scenes and the lines given to the character - Townsend could only do his best and bring the written text to life and add to it, improvising himself.
And even if Townsend had known who Lestat truly is, the script was already too radical - it was impossible to portray a totally true Lestat in that film's story that is nothing like the books's. Marius's character was more like Magnus in personality and since Marius is an extremely important person to...
|
|
Invite friend
Join this Club
write article
