I love the way you write about writing, so I have a writing question.
How do you think the inclusion of Armand in the interview itself will affect the narrative? In the book, part of the devastation was that neither Louis nor the reader saw the betrayal coming, since Armand is all mysterious and shit (until you realize he's basically an Unseelie faerie). Having Armand's side of things be relatively open, even if he's still hiding a lot, could take away some of the impact of that reveal that he was behind "the thing." It's not an absolutely necessary reveal, but Louis being the POV character who gives us facts as they come means that if they're open about Armand's plotting from the start, the audience can get frustrated with Louis for not seeing it coming. But there will be at least some clarity provided by Armand, if he's willing to talk about his Children of Darkness days in such a way where he looks positively feral (/pos) in the promo pics.
How do you think they can pull this off?
Hi! Sorry for the short delay in replying but, as I said, I wanted to think about this for a bit before I answered.
Warning -- Spoilers for the books and possibly Season 2 below:
So, of course, the key here will be how they structure when the reveal of not only "the thing" (and I'm assuming you mean the Claudia thing) happens. But also the reveal of Armand's backstory, especially the Children of Darkness stuff.
I can only speak for myself, but the way I think/suspect they will do it is to have the first few episodes play out exactly like the book does, with the majority of it being from Louis' POV; adding in Claudia's POV (via her diaries), and with the added bonus of Armand's POV sprinkled in as well, mostly being when he's interacting with Louis -- and with Claudia when she's with Louis. No indication there is anything amiss with the way he's acting toward either of them. (Claudia's diaries, of course, are missing more pages during this time.)
If done this way, then you'd only see of Armand what mostly Armand wants Daniel (and via Daniel, the audience) to see and perceive of him, mainly through his and Louis' POVs.
And all we, the audience, see of Lestat during this time is via Louis' hallucinations of him for the first few episodes.
Then, when Louis and Armand start telling the tale of Claudia's fate, play it so that THAT is the first time real!Lestat shows up, at the trial. However, there'll be something very off in what Louis and Armand (mostly Armand) are telling Daniel about this moment.
And that is when Daniel pounces and calls them out on trying to BS him again. (Bonus points if it's a memory from during the Devil's Minion Era that helps to give Daniel a clue that they are BS'ing him.)
And it's after this that the show starts showing the flashbacks, not only to Armand's Children of Darkness days but specifically his interactions with Lestat during then.
It's at this point where it is also revealed that Lestat made it to Paris from New Orleans before Louis and Claudia did (which is what happened in the book) and that Armand has kept him locked up in a dungeon the whole time, manipulating him to testify at the trial and all that.
And, of course, then we get the real flashback of the trial and Armand's orchestration of "the thing" (including the major reveal of the head thing he did to her).
If you structure and set things up this way, not only do you keep the reveal that Armand was behind "the thing" the whole time up until it happens, but you reveal the context as to why Armand is the way he is when you do so at the same time.
I could be wrong, but I think the show might very well structure things this way in Season 2. Doing the story this way not only explains Armand's line at the end of Season 1 ("When you hear it you'll be ashamed of yourself, ashamed of what you say to him now!") but also what we know about the show revisiting things from Season 1 again.
Doing things this way has you do all the revisiting/truth/twist revealing during the last 3-4 episodes or so of the season, after what amounts to a misdirect during the first 3-4 episodes of it.
Because I don't think Armand, at the moment Season 2 starts, will have any desire to tell the full truth to Daniel about all of these things at the start. I think he is very much in the mode of protecting Louis (in his eyes) from the truth of what happened in any way he can still think of. So he'll obfuscate as much as he can after Daniel broke through the narrative Rolin Jones said Louis came up with and told himself via what Armand has told him.
I said before I think Armand knows very well what Louis would/will attempt to do -- i.e. what he does toward the end of the book Merrick -- if he remembers everything and how it actually happened, particularly wrt Claudia. Which is why these false narratives exist in Louis' head the first place. And now, with the confirmation after TCA24 that Louis wants to remember the truth, (and wants Daniel to help him do it), I think that is what it's going to take for Armand to finally stop obfuscating things (along with Daniel calling him out as well IMO).
After that is when I think Claudia's missing/cut out diary pages will finally be produced, and we'll get the things that were only glossed over before from them (mainly her feeling for Louis matching up with what they were revealed to be in Merrick). Along with this being when Armand's full Children of Darkness backstory is revealed, as well as the full reveal that he was behind "the thing" concurrent with that.
So yeah, I think a misdirect right up until the trial wrt the narrative, and then a full revisit of the narrative -- with Armand's cult background fully revealed then -- is how you can structure things without giving away Armand being behind "the thing."
That isn't to say that we wouldn't/won't see anything about Armand's Children of Darkness days before that but, if we do, I think it would be presented way more sympathetically at first -- leaving out things like what Armand and the cult did to Nicki, which is what made Lestat come in there and bust Armand's cult up in the first place. If it goes like this, then Nicki actually being there would be revealed later, during a revisiting of that moment during the second half of the season.
I think this would be the way to pull it all off and could be easily done so in the eight episodes we have for Season 2.
35 notes
·
View notes
I’m unfamiliar with all the later VC books but do people become younger when they are made vampire? Do you know if it could be that the young Daniel actor play the older version if he was made vampire??
No, vampires stay the age that they were when they received the dark gift. Luke Brandon Fields was cast in the role of young Daniel, but to my knowledge he's just playing Daniel as a young man in flashback sequences, not as some future reverse aged Daniel. I take it you don’t like Daniel being old?
Personally, I'm fine if Daniel stays old, I just hope that if he and Armand have a relationship Armand is aged up. Since they did so for Claudia in the show I think it's only logical they will do the same with Armand. There's a theory I've seen a few times that Daniel is going to get the young body that the character David got via the body thief in book 4. I don't completely hate the idea, but if that's the route the writers are taking I hope they rework the details because in the book an old white dude gets the body of an ethnic twink. I'm not going to even attempt to unpack all that here.
I wouldn't have mentioned this theory at all because it seems like the one people upset about Daniel being old seem to latch onto, but I don't think it's an impossible theory anymore. Seeing as the show writers decided to give Daniel a debilitating terminal illness, it makes me think Daniel is going to become a vampire at some point, whether he is made as is or in a new body like David was in TotBT remains to be seen.
14 notes
·
View notes
i'm reading Merrick, and my brain immediately linked this to Daniel (i wrote about this before, 2nd part of this post)
«When you're old and you're afraid, when you're weary and you're sick, when you've begun to suspect that your life means nothing … Well, that's when you dream of vampiric bargains. That's when you think that somehow the vampiric curse can't be so very dreadful, no, not in exchange for immortality; that's when you think that if only you had the chance, you could become some premier witness to the evolution of the world around you. You cloak your selfish desires in the grandiose.»
i still think that “A still hand, time to watch your daughters marry.” is Daniel's “I can take away that sorrow, Louis.” or at least the closest (so far)
13 notes
·
View notes
she magging on my the til i archives
they magging on my thussy til i archives
he timming on my stoker til i fucking explode
she elias on my bouchard til meow (or: til i- if you ever want to know what you father looked like-)
they martin on my killbill til i blackwood (or [MARTIN STABS DEEPLY; THERE IS A SINGLE GASP]
he jonathan on my sims til i ceasely watch (or: til he finds two ribs in my desk drawer)
she ate on my sasha til she not
they jurgen on my leitner til i brutal pipe murder
he distorting on my michael til i spiral
....
she elias on my bouchard til i- apologies for the deception, jon...
228 notes
·
View notes