The Queen of the Damned
discussion
WOW
message 1:
by
Ruby
(new)
Jan 25, 2009 04:19AM
apparentely the book is good but the film is really bad... the music to the film is outstanding though... vampire heart (HIM) very good. what do you think?
reply
|
flag
Agreed. The movie was one long KORN video with dialogue and plot. But the music was good, indeed. The book is excellent, of course. Still, the film is good eye-candy... That's something.
The book was out of this world, the movie was all eye candy and music, so I enjoyed it a little bit, especially the statues... Love the comical ending.
The book was Anne Rice's best by far, and the movie was a bad combination of The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of The Damned. Terrible.
I agree, the movie's terrible. But nobody should be dissuaded to read it because of this awful movie. The book is very well written, it goes back to the origin of vampires. The plot is amazing and well found. Original.
Absolutely. That's why it's my favorite book of hers.
The movie sucks if you compare it to the book, but as a stand alone movei i think it's pretty good :) I love both the book and movie for different reasons..
It's strange that the Interview with the Vampire movie was done so well and then with Queen of the Damned it was like the wheels had fallen off. Chalk and cheese. But you can't beat the books. Wonderful stuff. Lestat 'the brat prince' is such a great character
All True. Great book, rotten movie, good music. (sigh) Ann Rice rocked before she got religion.
Great book and I liked the movie. But, no I wouldn't really compare it to the book because then it doesn't seem all that great.
Stacy wrote: "The book was Anne Rice's best by far, and the movie was a bad combination of The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of The Damned. Terrible."I agree wholeheartedly! The book was deliberately paced where the movie bombards you with false history right out of the gate.
Alice wrote: "All True. Great book, rotten movie, good music. (sigh) Ann Rice rocked before she got religion."
Could not have said it better myself!
Faye wrote: "It's strange that the Interview with the Vampire movie was done so well and then with Queen of the Damned it was like the wheels had fallen off. Chalk and cheese. But you can't beat the books. Wond..."I don't think any of the movies even come close to the books magic.
True. But I don't think movies ever do. I think it's impossible to get that same intimacy and emotion on screen compared to a book.I also really liked Tale of the Body Thief and Servant of the Bones.
I really enjoyed Stuart Townsend performance. Vincent Perez was stunning. Pity they didn't follow the full story of this book without side lines. But I like the movie much. But book is a brilliant thing, much much better, like all Rice' s books. Nowadays I finished Mayfair Witches saga and it was superb.
Mmm yeah the movie got turned off after about 10 minuets.
Anne Rice's books are amazing, and so detailed. I don't think it's possible to translate that into film, there is just too much the movie--it would that hours more than the time allotted. Neither Interview with the vampire or Queen of the Damned even compared to the books.Too bad.
the movie was bad, the book was WORSE. You can't spend 3 books building a world based on certain premises and then come up with an ending that makes <<AKASHA IS THE MOTHER, SHE CAN'T BE VANQUISHED BY ANY LESSER BEINGS THAT DEPEND ON HER FOR THEIR VERY EXISTENCE!
Ah, the movie was bad. I think because it was too rushed. Something like this has to be done carefully and thoughtfully. Interview with a vampire was great. though the book was far superior. QOTD was awesome as a novel but I still agree with Brian when he commented that it was crazy how easily Akasha was defeated by lesser beings with all the powers she had.
The first 3 books are my favorites! Anne Rice rocked out awesome vampires! Too bad Hollywood only got one movie right which was Interview with a Vampire. Queen of the Damned just doesn't have the appeal that Interview did at least for me.
Angie wrote: "The first 3 books are my favorites! Anne Rice rocked out awesome vampires! Too bad Hollywood only got one movie right which was Interview with a Vampire. Queen of the Damned just doesn't have the a..."Well, the only thing I think they got wrong in the first movie was Tom Cruise--he was soooo wrong for Lestat. It's funny though, I loved the movie IWTV but the book was my least favorite in the series. I hated Lestat in the movie but in the books he was a way better hero--or is that antihero--than Louis.
I have to agree that this is one of the best books of the series. The movie was not horrible, but not great either. I do, however, LOVE Stuart Townsend as Lestat. Fit the picture in my head from the get-go!
I am in love with the book but the movie was horrible. It did Anne Rice an injustice when they decided to mash some parts of Lestat and QotD together. And Steward Townsend was a terrible Lestat (Tom cruise ruined me for other actors). Also, Alliyah wasnt a very good Akasha. It could have been better if they had more time and a better screenwriter.
Much like most movies that are made after a book, it's neve as filling. The book was wonderful, the movie failed in so many ways. I think it might have been better if they would have stuck with the same actor for Lestat (not a Cruise fan but it not in good taste when you switch actors around for the same character). And I wasn't thrilled with the acting for Akasha either. All in all, the movie sucked and was really a waste of time to even see. If you've never read the book, the movie might be ok. Maybe one day they will redo it and get people who can really act. I don't think the actors who played lestat and Akasha even read the book which would have given them a better idea of how to act. Or maybe they just need some acting school. Either way, bad movie ... great book!
fyi to all fellow Goodreaders; anne rice's talent reaches beyond the vampiric you know. How many of you in this commentary have read Servant of the Bones? Or The Mummy? Both are standalones that are awesome as such in my opinion. If you haven't yet, i encourage everyone to devour them. they are great shelf-fillers because of their rereadability. I've read each of them more than 3 times already!
Alfred wrote: "fyi to all fellow Goodreaders; anne rice's talent reaches beyond the vampiric you know. How many of you in this commentary have read Servant of the Bones? Or The Mummy? Bo..."Totally agree although, sadly, I really hated Vittorio.
Katie wrote: "Much like most movies that are made after a book, it's neve as filling. The book was wonderful, the movie failed in so many ways. I think it might have been better if they would have stuck with th..."Maybe Tom Cruise read the screenplay and decided that it would ruin his career if he made such an awful movie.
Stacy wrote: "The book was Anne Rice's best by far, "THIS.
I don't know why so much people dislikes this book in light of the previous ones, is much better on many levels for me...
Movie is horrendous though.. so disappointing after Interview being that good.
If you like the Vampire Chronicles, you will love my new book Amaranthine, you can get it here: http://www.amazon.com/Amaranthine-Tri...
Carmon wrote: "The movie sucks if you compare it to the book, but as a stand alone movei i think it's pretty good :) I love both the book and movie for different reasons.."Same here!
I read the book but I didn't see the movie. My girlfriend said the movie didn't do the book justice. I'll have to see it for myself. I loved the book.
You’re correct, the movie didn’t do the book justice, but I absolutely LOVE the soundtrack. I think Aaliyah and Steward T did the best they could with the scripts they were handed, but the writers who decided to “rearrange” the storyline missed the mark big time. The story from the book is so complex and endearing. It left so many avenues they could’ve taken to make this a hit motion picture. But they veered from the many beaten paths shown to them by Anne Rice, and the movie failed as a result. That aside, I still bought it on blu-ray. LOL! What can I say, I love Aaliyah. On top of that, there are some enticing parts of the movie that I enjoy. Like the love scene. *grin*
Now the book…I read it 3 times. There is so much to absorb and so many wonderful characters introduced. The main characters were compelling, as usual, especially Lestat. I loved it, and will read it again as soon as I get the chance.
I think one of the reasons QOTD was so bad as a movie was they didn't get Anne in to consult on the movie making process where as the producers did on IWTV.Wondering at the oddity of having River Phoenix die right before filming for IWTV to have his part taken by Christian Slater ~hence why he's very River-ish~ and then Aaliyah being killed in the plane crash after QOTD.
The book of QOTD is far better and they'll have to remake the movie if there are to be further Chronicles made in the future thanks to the royal stuff up of the lineage.
Tom Cruise was an amazing Lestat and while Stewart Townsend was okay the Queen of the Damned movie was just TERRIBLE. Lestat didn't even LOOK like he was suppose to look and then they made Marius his make? WTF. <.<The book however was great and I would suggest that people never watch that movie.
I loved the book. I haven't seen the movie but purchased it for the music. I'll watch it one day.Read the book if you get the chance.
The book is fantastic. Do NOT judge the story based on the movie. The movie left out ALL of the good parts
The movie is HORRIBLE. One of the worst movies of all time. AWFUL. Very good soundtrack though - if you like Korn.
The movie was not horrible. I read the books and saw the movies. Either one is like what it suppose be and truth be told neither did really had a connection. I saw the three movies separately and didn't connection til i read the books. and even then I think didn't think that the three book necessary together either. the book could have gone a singles. i think the movies and the book were great in their different world. the movies would never capture the intimacy which in book are overfull with and likewisebut to each their own!!
I think saying that QOTD as a book couldn't be captured as a movie is bs. When showtime did Rice's Feast of All Saints, while yes they had to cut out a few chunks of the very complicated and not all together neccesary complexities, they did an amazingly accurate job. And if they can do that thick thing which was like half the size of QOTD,they could've done QOTD craptons better. I personally loved Tom Cruise as Lestat (even though I'm not huge on the actor himself) and maybe with some coaching from a QOTD expert and a dye job (cause he's blonde damnit!) Stuart Townsend could've been a better Lestat. I realize his heart was in the right place and he didn't completely butcher it. But the movie in its entirety when related to book was a bloody butcher massacre of stinking shit. Believing its just a coincendence the titles the same as the book is the only thing that allows me to watch it unbiasedly and actually enjoy it (which I do but only under said circumstances lol.)
SO many thing were SO WRONG! Armand didn't look like a cherub, he looked like a bloated tard. Marius (who was suppose to be a fine piece of lush commanding Roman ass not a boring stuttering fool) WAS NOT his maker and Lestat WAS NOT made on some fancy island. He was made in the bottom of a tower/pit and its no spoiler for those who don't know that his maker committed suicide less that 24hrs after he was made. What I loved the most about the book was the story of the twins, Maharet and Mekare. Their story is basically the spine of Anne Rice's novel a.k.a. without the twins vampires wouldn't exist and to leave that very pivotal key out and make the film all about Lestat....masogany maybe? (I mean I'm not trying to be a feminist here but I'm just saying.) I'd always felt like their story was the soul of Rice's third book, predetermining and paving the way for our errant Lestat. Yet they didn't even acknowledge Mekare's existence in the film who in all Anne Rice actuality was the one who took Akasha down AND I personally believe in a much more bad ass way then what the film writers pulled out of their asses.
In the end I think a better more accurate film can be made from the book and I pray to all that I'll be around to see it.
Love the book. I didn't want to story to end. The movie on the other hand was not so good it takes so much away from the story and not to mention they changed so much of the story line but I loved the soundtrack though.
I agree....the movie fell flat for me....the book though was very powerful! I read it almost 20 yrs ago and am going to listen to it again on audible!
i didnt think that the queen would die. im happy because the red headed twins got back together
I absolutely loved this book. I never thought I could look at cannibalism objectively. She always makes you think so much. Maharet and Mekare, the red-headed twins were just...their story was so deep. One gets her tongue torn out, the other her eyes. The book's ending bring things about a full circle.The movie, like most book to movie adaptations was terrible, but it shouldn't effect the book for book lovers since we all know better than to judge a book by its movie.
Although I have to say, this isn't for light readers. None of Anne Rice's stuff is for light readers.
Zen wrote: "Stacy wrote: "The book was Anne Rice's best by far, and the movie was a bad combination of The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of The Damned. Terrible."I agree wholeheartedly! The book was deliberat..."
Agree with you both. Had they separated them instead of combining they may have made enough money and fans to continue the series to film.
I agree the movie was not a comparison to the book. The book was probably my favorite of the vampire chronicles next to the Vampire Lestat.
Anne Rice herself called Queen of the Damned - the movie a "disaster." http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpa...
P.S. Anne Rice runs her own fanpage.
The book: amazing, one of my faves. The movie: needed a much better screenplay and directing aka $; tried to cram way too much into a short film, thereby, losing depth of character and plot. Still, I've watched it four times, 'cause I love Lestat. The soundtrack: one of the best I've ever heard; listen to it all the time.
I read the book when the movie was about to come out in theaters. The book was great, a little hard to read because I was only 15 but I still enjoyed it.I was so disappointed by that movie, the first one (even if with actors that didn't really match the description of the book) was great. It managed to only cut minor things and keep all the important stuff.
What I really hated about the film was that half the characters are never introduced, you just see them there in the end. They only took the shocking factor, this vampire named Lestat who's a rock star and reveals dark secrets in his lyrics to provoke other vampires...
You can't really compare the movie to the book. The author is usually 'made' to give away movie rights when signing with a publisher and it usually goes downhill from where when someone in a hollywood suit tries to think of adapting a non-commercial storyline for full commercial release. Love the book :)
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Servant of the Bones (other topics)
The Mummy (other topics)
Servant of the Bones (other topics)
The Queen of the Damned (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Mummy (other topics)Servant of the Bones (other topics)
The Mummy (other topics)
Servant of the Bones (other topics)
The Queen of the Damned (other topics)
