#1976 (2022)

[lemaldusiecle]

horror eyes 👀 artwork by https://goryhorroor.tumblr.com/

[faithfoolery]

When ur a girl and u have a thirst for blood and u are also wearing a dress ❤️

I wanted to draw different characters and their cool costumes cuz I’ve kinda been obsessed with costume design lately!

[fanofspooky]

Orange - Ritualistic, Burning, Madness

[gl4m0ur0us]

women in horror: red

carrie (1976)

house (1977)

suspiria (1977)

pearl (2022)

the shining (1980)

the love witch (2016)

black swan (2010)

us (2019)

terfs dni with this post

[peachyfuck18]

Horror family headcanons

The Meyers-Voorhees

Dads

+

Their kids they stole adopted

The Batemans

Maternal Grandma

+

Older Brother + Sister

The Lecters

Dads

+

Son

So anyway if you have any other headcanons let me know

[fireworkss-exe]

horror girlies >>>>

[m0tel6mxzzy]

she is suffering — manic street preachers / carrie (1976) / x (2022) / delta of venus — anaïs nin / ready or not (2019) / scream (1996) / you first — paramore / don’t worry darling (2022) / the witch (2015)

[dust-rat-lives-here]

The colors of horror

[cherryxsapphic]

Happy Halloween to my mentally ill and unhinged pookies 🎃

Ps. Please be safe while trick or treating, don't go alone at least have someone with you. Especially if your trick or treating at night, also please check your candy before eating because you never know, but other than that stay safe, I love you and happy Halloween!!!!! 🦇🦇

[noahsartt]

My reservations with the 2022 Interview with the Vampire tv series:

My thoughts on amc’s Interview with the Vampire (2022) tv series compared to the 1976 source material and what I liked about the 1994 movie.

Some reflections before the second season airs. I watched the series as it was coming out in 2022, so these thoughts have been sitting for over a year.

This is a subjective critique of the show, not me hating on it. I liked the show a lot & watched it twice. Many of the key changes were extremely creative ways of exploring those characters from new perspectives, instead of just pointlessly remaking something that's been done before. Distinct creative change should be the basis of every remake, no point is making something 'new' if there's nothing new about it. This show knew that, and the changes for the most part were written beautifully. ...But the movie is still my favourite despite its many flaws. Camp classic right there.

Issues with the show:

Making it take place 100 years later, it ruins the specific aesthetic of the book for me. (But I understand they had to in order to re-write Louis & Claudia as black).

Aging up Claudia. The way Bailey Bass played Claudia was amazing, no notes at all for her. I just wish they kept her younger because that was a very symbolic part of what made Claudia’s original character so tragic. She suffers in an entirely different way to Louis because of her age. New Claudia is supposed to be in the body of a 14 year old, but the actress was 18/19 so she looks much older already,  and no matter how well she played it, the age factor can’t be helped. Being stuck eternally in the body of a 5 year old (book) is so different to a 14 year old, who looks much older (tv show). Kirsten Dunst who was 10 in the movie, was able to play the little child - adult vampire progression a lot better. People say Claudia's original age is too 'disturbing' to see on screen... but that's the character...

Daniel being old… WHY?? Just so they could tie together the storyline or him meeting Armand multiple decades before ???? I only read IWTV and some of the TVL so I don't know everything that happens down the line for him, or what amc plans for the character in the show... but I don't understand the aging up except for 'diversity' reasons. Which, ok, but just to check a box? Louis and Claudia's race change make sense as a creative decision. But the Daniel in the book and film is a 20-something year old which is why he's so fascinated by Louis' 'gift', and doesn't understand the message Louis is sending, instead wanting to become a vampire too. Why would old Daniel want those same things? Changing Daniel's age is such an inherent thing... it's like if they didn't make Lestat blond. Eric Bogosian plays him funny though, I will say that. Christian Slater kind of just sat there.

Louis having no money and needing Lestat's financial support for his business ventures????? When it’s supposed to be Lestat leeching off Louis' estate … WHY. Why did they change something so fundamental about their dynamic. Lestat moves in because he needs wealth and Louis has it. And then he starts acting like it's both of theirs and Louis just lets him. Funniest thing ever. But in the show Louis moves in with him instead. That's just wrong.

Louis asking (basically begging) Lestat to make Claudia when Lestat is supposed to be the one to do it in order to ensure Louis doesn't leave him. Another fundamental part of their relationship that just got flipped around completely... and for what? Why did it change the things it didn't need to?

Antoinette... girl why are you there... we don't need more characters. Go away.

The guy that Louis gets with to make Lestat jealous …. why is he there either? In the book they don't need to bring other people in to irritate each other.

One of the most perfect scenes from the film was when Lestat was tormenting that girl and trying to get Louis to kill her. The show’s version with the opera singer wasn’t the same. The original scene is such a good depiction of their dynamic with each other: Lestat's eccentric killing methods and Louis’ shame and guilt. The show’s version didn’t live up to it. That scene was so excellent in what it set out to do. It captured their back and forth in such a simple way. That dynamic follows them forever, even as Louis begins to accept his nature, that spark of annoyance towards Lestat is ready to become a full fire at any moment. That scene is enough to be a full character study. The show has little bits here and there which capture something similar. But they should have recreated that scene at least.

Claudia and Lestat's relationship evolving from enjoying each others company and similarities, to detesting each other and competing for Louis’ affection. They didn’t spend enough time on Lestat and Claudia’s relationship in the show to fully demonstrate that, only a few scenes of them driving together and hunting together at the beginning. Even the two hour movie found a way to intergrade that better. Their relationship and the way Claudia is so starkly similar to Lestat when they move to Paris, is one of the my favourite parts of the book to analyse. Louis leaving Lestat and moving all the way across the ocean, only to be reminded of him in everything Claudia did. The show did have some purposeful parallels between Lestat and Claudia in the dialogue which I appreciate, I hope that continues in season 2.

Louis being in on Claudia's plan to kill Lestat and even being the one to finish off Lestat when it’s supposed to be Claudia’s idea on her own...?? Lestat's death is supposed to be an "ok, I guess that was necessary, time to move on with our lives now," moment for Louis. But he wasn't supposed to have the courage or the want to be the one to do it himself. He was hesitant and regretful in the show, but he still slit his throat... it was supposed to be Claudia alone. Credit where credit is due, the scene was beautifully filmed, the red blood on white cloth looked incredible and the entire scene captured the tone of devastation that the movie didn't. It was all very quick and emotionless in the movie.

Even though I hate Br*d Pitt's acting, his Louis was way more accurate to the book Louis. He basically was the embodiment of book Louis. Just sad and whiny the entire time. New Louis had more to him, I think Jacob Anderson even said in an interview that it was a purposeful decision to give Louis more grit. It's not a change I appreciated because it alters the original character too much. You can't change something that fundamental. Just ugh. In the show, Louis is more angry than pathetically sad, it’s very different to how the character was originally written. 

Sam Reid’s Lestat is pretty on the nose but still more serious than the original Lestat & Tom Cruise’s portrayal which was the perfect level of camp and eccentric. Tom cruise was playing Lestat from just IWTV but Sam Reid is playing him with the baggage of his entire life as written in the other books, maybe that's why he is different. Maybe his performance is even better because of it. I haven't read the other books so I can't really say.

I won't say anything about Armand (yet) because he hasn’t had his time to shine. We’ll see after season 2. I loved Antonio Banderas as Armand, and even though he was very different from how book Armand was, it was a change I liked. New Armand is going to be more accurate to the books I believe, but i didn’t like how Armand was there the entire time Louis was being interviewed… why...

Maybe I am one of the few that doesn't overtly appreciate the 'fresh' take of this story. Many of the things that draw me to the book and the movie have been taken away in this adaptation.

---

I recommend this fan fiction that explores the idea of Louis being a person of colour in the context of the original book's 1700s timeline. It explores the intersectionality of Louis' struggle with vampirism, queerness & race while still being authentic to the book. Go read it.

In the Author's words: This is NOT a rewrite of the AMC TV show, nor does it intend to be. This is us making one (subtextually plausible) change to canon in order to 1) explore underlying issues with the source material and 2) see how it affects the way the events of IWTV played out.

Ok that's it. Will maybe add to this when the second season airs. For months, this was just for me in my notes app but what is tumblr for if not to air out my locked away ideas.

[guadalajarawontdonow]

my beloved dvd collection

(a good chunk of these are second hand and i've bought like half from abroad cause i can't find a lot of movies in finland (and i don't like ordering stuff and paying for shipping) (had to go to london to vg, trainspotting and my own peivate idaho)

[knightotoc]

Just finished IWTV book, so now I can say the differences between the book, movie, and show. The movie is quite accurate to the book, while the show is more original. I love them all quite a lot, but I think the show is my favorite since it's the most romantic. Long post with spoilers below the cut.

book:

The depth of Louis' interiority, especially his thoughts about religion, can only be found in the book. I am also ex-Catholic so this is high-key my shit. Especially knowing Anne Rice went back and forth later in life. I can relate. Louis wants to talk about his feelings with other vampires, but Lestat and Claudia aren't interested, which is the main reason Louis is attracted to Armand. Where is the Brideshead Revisited crossover?? Louis get in a bisexual love triangle with the Flytes for me🙏

I learned in the Matt Baume video on Anne Rice that she wrote IWTV while grieving her daughter, who died of leukemia just before her sixth birthday. This feeling of grief, reflected so clearly in Claudia, is the most moving and unique aspect of the book, far more than anything between the adult characters.

One reason this feeling is watered-down in both adaptations is that in the book, Claudia is only 5/6, the age of Anne's real daughter. In the movie she is 10 and in the show 14. Of course it would be impossible to find a 6 year old actress who could act with the maturity of an 80-year-old woman. But the character is even more pitiful and bizarre as a little child than as one nearing puberty.

In the book, Lestat is shown to have survived the murder attempt pretty early on, and he keeps jump-scaring Louis and Claudia on their adventures. I prefer the movie's version where they hold off on this reveal. Though of course I always love to see him, lol

In the book, I got the impression that Lestat and Louis are both bi, but Lestat prefers men and Louis prefers women. Still, their motivations aren't driven by sexuality in a straightforward way. For example, Lestat's ideal prey is a young man, because he loves to destroy their potential. Louis feels something like love for a few women characters, because he feels empathy for their misfortunes.

The adaptations soften/change Louis' status as a slave-owner; in the movie, he frees his slaves, and in the book he just flees. As much as Louis is a soft-hearted quasi-feminist, defined by his guilt and regret, he is still racist and close-minded in most ways. This seems realistic to me.

I did think it was interesting and cool that the enslaved people can tell Louis and Lestat aren't human, while the other plantation owners and even Lestat's dad have no idea. But we don't get their perspective, just Louis' racist assumptions.

Yeah in the book Lestat has a dad! It is rather confusing since Lestat explains nothing, but it creates some great melodrama. I guess I have to read the next one and hope for a backstory reveal.

Fun spooky detour into Eastern Europe! I hope the show goes there in season 2.

Louis and Armand's discussions are really cool. I especially loved Louis' monologues after Claudia's death. There wasn't room for these discussions in the movie, but I feel like it'll be a main focus in season 2 of the show.

movie:

Like I said, the movie is impressively accurate, and a beautiful work of art on its own. The best innovation is holding off on the Lestat reveal until almost the very end. This makes it look like their murder attempt really did a number on him, and it took decades and decades of rat-eating to even drag himself out of the swamp. I like that.

The movie also has a more exciting and ridiculous ending, in which Lestat attacks the reporter in his car and drives away to Guns N' Roses. The book ends with the reporter hurrying off to find Lestat himself. It's funnier and more awesome if Lestat is the one driving the plot and the car. Pleased to meet you :D

"How avant-garde." Best line in the movie, and it's not from the book!

Since the movie cut out most of the minor characters, there isn't as much evidence for Louis' bisexuality. Louis seems more like, gay but closeted. And Lestat seems more like, gay but misogynist, so he'll prey on women just for sport lol.

I'm a Fight Club guy so I love that this is, like, a reverse companion movie (this time, Brad Pitt is the pushover in a dangerous gay duo)

show:

This is the only version that is clearly gay. But this dynamic is the same: Louis wants to talk about things, and Lestat does not. In this case, the focus of these discussions is not vampirism or religion but their relationship. Louis points out that he is gay and Lestat is bi. Perhaps it's just because I saw this version first, but this is my favorite version of their sexualities. The show simply spends more time with this dynamic, and how it affects everything, including their interracial relationship and openness in society.

In the book, Lestat is a talented but soulless musician. He can play anything, but without heart. In the show, music is Lestat's one genuine connection to humanity (even if this connection just leads him to kill musicians who don't impress him). I believe later books go more into Lestat as a musician, so I'll have more thoughts on this later.

Since the reporter is cynical, old, and dying, this creates a much more compelling conversation within the framing device. He holds Louis to task with a forcefulness that rivals Lestat. It is a clever way of modernizing the story, since Daniel references their last interview in the 70s (when the book was published), and you are meant to wonder which version is more truthful.

Since Claudia is 14, she can pass as an adult, and she is able to go on her own rather disastrous adventure. It is exciting, terrifying, and sad, and a welcome addition for this character, though it is much different than the book's helpless, heartless Claudia.

The Catholicism in the show is flashier, but not as interesting as the book. For example, in the book, Louis is haunted not just by Paul's death, but Louis' failure to meet Paul's faith-driven monetary demands. In the show, Paul's ideas seem like more of an annoyance. Maybe there will be more religious doubt in season 2, but I don't really expect it.

In the book, it seems like Louis and Claudia throw Lestat in the swamp since it's faster and more thorough than fire. In the show, the oven they use is a major plot point, and Louis can't bear to put Lestat's body in it because he still loves him. Instead they throw Lestat in the trash, which is one of my favorite tropes (see: Maul in The Clone Wars, Soldier 1998). This is just one of the many ways the show complicates and deepens Louis and Lestat's bond.

I feel like the show is more believable and has more deepness in general, since it's a smart retrospective on an old franchise and a response to decades of vampire fun in pop culture. For example, in the show Louis has volunteer humans to feast upon, and it's very "safe, sane, and consensual," versus the universally predatory relationships in the book and movie. Because we all know now that if vampires were real, and they were hot and rich, they could get all the blood they want without hurting anyone. An ethical vampire like Louis isn't impossible anymore. Compared to other billionaires, he's a pretty decent guy.

So, I'd say the book has the most profound perspective on grief, the movie has better structure, and the show has the most complex romance.

[fanofspooky]

What’s your favorite Stephen King adaptation?

[scolothanatos]

I made this to send to my friends as an “experiencing technical difficulties! Please be patient” image. Feel free to use it.

[ghostskyee]

carrie. my baby girl my MUSE

CARRIE. my babygirl and muse of this year apparently

[immortalagony]

fellas