Did anyone see Queen of the Damned? because if they did then they should know that is was drastically different from the book, in fact there were parts of two different books in that movie. Is that what we can expect on the new Narnia movie? God I hope not.

Did anyone see Queen of the Damned? because if they did then they should know that is was drastically different from the book, in fact there were parts of two different books in that movie. Is that what we can expect on the new Narnia movie? God I hope not.

Were going on Book 5 movie 3. Seriously they've already skipped things. Deal ok and get over it. Its not the end of the world.

Malachi, the movies are being made in the order the books were published, not the order they take place in Narnia.

I have NO kind words for Michael Petroni. His Queen of the damned was a disaster. As a sequel to Interview with the vamprie (as the DVD and VHS cases claim) the time line doesn't work. As a stand alone film it's just bad even without Anne Rice's novels...

There's a hero killing the innocent because we're all just 'food' to him never mind a big part of the plot even in the film is supposed to be Lestat's love of humanity (He only fed on murderers who feel no remorse in the books for this reason). He felt 'evil doers' was too much of an abstract concept. If the story is about good and evil you can't throw these ideas away because they're 'too abstract.' What's so abstract about murderers who feel no remorse?! Then this 'genius' of a writer has TWO separate scenes where this so-called Lestat is told Akasha killed her old king and each time he's surprised! This man has to be the WORST fantasy writer I have ever had the misfortune to come across in my life!

Also his turning The Queen of the damned into a love story about a vampire and a teenage girl felt as if he really wanted to do Twilight and when he couldn't get the rights to Twilight he decided to use it's plot with the names of the Anne Rice characters instead. And that whole bit about them turning to literal stone (even their clothes) does NOT make sense! His homophobia turned Nicolas de Lenfent's character into a gypsy girl named Sophie. He left out almost the entire cast of characters of Interview with the vampire. He re-wrote Lestat's backstory as if Anne Rice didn't already have a perfectly sensible one written. And again... Vampires turning to stone because they 'drank the last drop'? Clearly he never actually read the books or saw Interview with the vampire. Drinking from the dead makes a vampire ill (The blood isn't oxygenated) NOT turn them into literal stone. Akasha's motives made no sense in the film. The love story with Jesse was contrived. The entire film felt condescending and dumbed down. And then there was David Talbot, played by a man only five-years-older than the man playinng Lestat but he was 'too old to live forever.' What the...!? This was the wost scripted vampire film I have ever seen and I'm saying that as someone who liked Demon Under Glass (which is as low budget as you can get with vampire films).

Again, he is the WORST writer whose material I have ever had the misfortune of being subjected to. Why is he still getting employment!? He's a disgrace to genre writers...

By the way, in case my first post was ambiguous, I actually love Anne Rice's novels and Interview with the vampire as a film. Queen of the damned however leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I can't imagine what this man will do to Narnia.

Uh, Mandy, Queen of the Damned (the film) was made LONG before the Twilight books were even WRITTEN. I highly doubt this screenwriter was "wishing he had the rights for Twilight". It didn't *exist* back then.

...seriously.

I said it 'felt as if' he really wanted to do Twilight, not that he actually did want to do Twilight. It's a comparison based on the type of story he turned it into. I know the Twilight books are still very new and that Queen of the damned was made in 2002, but that doesn't change that the film felt Twilight-esque which is nothing at all of Anne Rice's intent.

I was not originally happy with Queen of the Damned, but it eventually grew on me. I liked the feel and the look of the film. I felt that they captured the idea of how an ancient vampire would appeal to people in the late 90's.

The screenplay tried to tackle too much and not enough. Skipping all of Lestat's background was a serious mistake but that would have made for another movie called The Vampire Lestat. Though I am not sure it would have made for a very stand-alone movie.

When I bought the DVD I found additional footage of the ancients that was deleted because the producers felt that the audience could not handle a dual storyline. That hurt the film but was it the fault of the screen writer?

Would I have rather seen a better version, yes. But something over nothing is still something. And it can eventually be re-made.

Ann Rice is a hard act to follow especially if you are trying to write an adaptation of her works. Look at all the detail spent in describing scenery and characters. It is difficult to transfer to film.

The Narnia stuff is pretty open to visual details as it was written for children.

Again, I would rather have a film version of all the Narnia books over nothing, ever.

A few things I would like to address here...

'I was not originally happy with Queen of the Damned, but it eventually grew on me. I liked the feel and the look of the film. I felt that they captured the idea of how an ancient vampire would appeal to people in the late 90's.'

It was made in 2002. Not the nineties. That's only seven years ago (unless you're some little kid). And Lestat wasn't that Ancient. When Anne Rice's vampires can be as old as 6000. 250 is not that old.

----------------------------------

'The screenplay tried to tackle too much and not enough. Skipping all of Lestat's background was a serious mistake but that would have made for another movie called The Vampire Lestat. Though I am not sure it would have made for a very stand-alone movie.'

It worked as a San Francisco play until it was dumbed down for the New York show and then it failed miserably.

---------------------------

'When I bought the DVD I found additional footage of the ancients that was deleted because the producers felt that the audience could not handle a dual storyline. That hurt the film but was it the fault of the screen writer?'

I didn't bring that issue up. Note I listed the reasons why The Queen of the damned was very poorly written. That wasn't even an issue.

-----------------------------

'Ann Rice is a hard act to follow especially if you are trying to write an adaptation of her works. Look at all the detail spent in describing scenery and characters. It is difficult to transfer to film.'

Anne Rice offered them a free script, much like the one they used for Interview with the vampire. They turned her down because they wanted to do the film 'their own way' which translated into using her characters names and that was about it.

You don't know how annoying it is when you see Queen of the damned fans angry that Lestat was not made by Marius in the Lestat musical because the musical (At least the San Francisco version) actually followed the book. But even straying from the book it was poorly written. 'Boo.' and 'boo back.' Please! And two scenes where he's told Akasha killed her old king and each time he's surprised! That's not only bad writing, it's also bad editing for no one noticing it!

---------------------------------

'Again, I would rather have a film version of all the Narnia books over nothing, ever.'

Then watch the older film version done by the BBC. It's currently on DVD.

Queen of the damned was also overly simplistic and insulting to the intellects of the audience.

Queen of the damned technical mistakes.

1. When Townsend's Lestat is walking from the cemetery he's carrying the 'gypsy girl's' (coughs) homophobe director (coughs) violin. Yet he doesn't have it when he feeds or when he goes to the rock band. did he drop it somewhere? Yet it turns up later so he must have paused in his dramatic spree to drop off the violin.

2. When Lestat walks in the attic studio his leather jacket is open but then when the camera pans from a band member back to Lestat it's suddenly zipped up. Preternatural speed zipping?

3. The motto 'We observe and record but never interfere' is given at the Talamasca mother house. This is the motto of The Watchers from the television series Highlander. Ironically The Watchers were based on The Talamasca of the novels. The Talamasca motto is 'We watch and we are always here.' Little confusion about which was based on which?

4. When Lestat crawls on the ceiling his hair remains perfectly still.

5. Even when a character isn't moving that fast he's making a vapour trail. Drugs? And why a helicopter sound effect when they fly?

6. 'I'm too old to live forever.' Why did they have David say this if the actor is only five years older than the actor playing Lestat? Also just four years earlier he was in the made for television movie of Dr. Who and he was called a young man in that.

7. Marius told Lestat that Akasha killed her old king. Then roughly ten minutes later Akasha told him this and he's SURPRISED. How short was his attention span in that movie? Was the writing THAT bad on that movie that no one noticed he was told this twice? He saw the images flash between them of the king being sucked dry when Marius told him. He had no reason to think Marius would lie. And to act surprised to Akasha about it had no purpose, she already knew Marius was at the concert, he was still standing on the stage in the adbuction scene. So why do it? Was that version of Lestat really that stupid?

8. Why is America's version of MTV playing on an American TV / VCR in Jesse's LONDON flat?

----------------------------------------------

Mistakes only if you try to connect it to Interview with the vampire and or the books

9. On the DVD and video tape boxes for the movie Queen of the damned it claims that Queen of the damned is the sequel to the movie version of Interview with the vampire. And Suncoast video even sells the movies as a boxed set (about five dollars cheaper than buying Interview with the vampire seperately- telling me they're paying me for taking Queen of the damned.)

9 A. Ignoring the books why does Lestat look nothing like the version of himself of the earlier movie?
9 B. If Lestat went underground in a cemetery in 1880 how did Louis see him in the nineteen eighties in New Orleans?
9 C. If he didn't rise until 2002 how was he in the convertible with Daniel Molloy in 1994? (Interview with the vampire film canon). (Malloy in the British versions of the books).
9 D. What became of Daniel after Interview with the vampire?
9 E. What became of Louis and the interview Louis gave? Why does Lestat not mention him at all?
9 F. How was his violin not destroyed in the fire in the town house or the plantation if he had it all that time and we just never saw it?

10. On the video tape box look closing at Stewart Townsend and imagine him without Akasha in front of him. The nipple is too close to the armpit. They removed and digitally put back the nipple because they thought it looked better. Without Akasha in front of him he's got a freakish nipple making it's way to his armpit.

11. Lestat mocks Marius for wearing velvet yet Lestat himself loves velvet, in the books espeically red. Even without the books Lestat was wearing a black velvet shirt when feeding on those groupies just a few scenes earlier! So why was he mocking Marius for wearing velvet a few scenes after that?

12. A concert in Death Valley... Do I really need to elaborate here?

13. Why would drinking the last drop of the first vampire turn you into a statue? Drinking from the dead in Interview with the vampire does not kill you, it just makes you very ill. That's what he means when he says 'Lest the death take you down with it.' He doesn't mean you'll turn to stone! What the?!

14. The novel described Akasha and Enkil as being 'statue like' only in that they were cold and motionless. NOT in that they were literally stone. Why are they literally stone? And WHY does their clothes turn to stone?

The entire commentary is 'Anne Rice did not like this.' or 'Anne Rice did not approve of that.' The Director even mentions 'You see that vampire impaled through the stomach with a microphone? He's de ad.' Since when does that kill a vampire?! A scene of Marius 'disappearing' is literally the actor ducking under the camera.

Holy crap, someone on this message board is either massively OCD or doesn't have to work for a living (I suppose it could be both). Feel free to guess who...

Don't make assumptions. I can type 120 words a minute and have something of a photographic memory when it comes to movies so I notice flaws and mistakes pretty quickly. I actually haven't watched Queen of the damned all the way through since 2003.

Allright.. I never saw Queen of the Damned all the way thru... just a few scenes of it.

I've read the book, tho... and those few scenes I saw of the movie, suggest that the film took three disctinctly different characters.. Magnus, who first made Lestat a vampire; Marius, Lestat's wise & benevolent 'father figure'; and Armand, Lestat's chief rival.... and made them all into one character.

This would be like making a Batman movie where 'Joe Chill', the Joker, and Alfred were all the same character-- just one guy who killed Batman's parents, then raised him to be a hero, and afterward became his arch enemy.

I've never seen the movie for this reason.. what little I've seen of it seems to have tossed aside some pretty significant plot points.

I feel pretty bad for any serious fan of the Narnia series at this point.

I figured this post would have comments of people happy that we get a new Narnia movie. Instead it's a bunch of nerds talking about Queen of the Damned? Lame. Long live Narnia!

Yeah long live Narnia, but a good version. The new writer wrote queen of the damned and ravaged the crap out of it and we don't want the same thing happening to Narnia. Thus the complaining. And you are a nerd too because you have seen and/or read The Chronicles of Narnia

Tim's right. You're no less a nerd than the rest of us so join the geekdom. And he's precisely right in that this man destroyed Queen of the damned. There's no telling what he'll do to Narnia. I suspect he was only hired because he's cheap and desperate. And Harvey, you're exactly right. Save yourself the headacle. Don't watch Queen of the Damned.

Narnia should never have been made into a movie in the first place. It was just Disney wanting to cash in on the popularity of other fantasy franchises such as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. I know CS Lewis has his fans but he was probably the least interesting and least talented of the Inklings.

Butterbur, this was not the first adaptation. There was an animated version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and a BBC version.

Butterbur is so disinterested in the writings of Lewis that he:

1. Takes time out of his day to read an article about one of Lewis’ books being made into a movie
2. Spends even more time reading the comment section about one of Lewis’ books being made into a movie
3. Has more time to spare by adding his own comment regarding one of Lewis’ books being made into a movie

Actually , if some did their home work they would have known that Queen of Damned was written by a group of writers and Petroni was horrified by the out come of the collaboration- he walked off it in fact - but his name was left on it - so next time read before you bleed.