Some things that were thought lost to time...

I was just going though some QotD -related stuff that you can't find except via web.archive.org and I found a few cool things but this caught my eye:

Jorge Saralegui, is interviewed (hah!) by qotd-cast.co.uk

Jorge Saralegui, the Producer of ‘Queen of the Damned’, was kind enough to grant me this interview. I was helped by Vampvan and various other members of the Forum to compile the questions. As you can see, there are quite a few revelations here! Enjoy!

If you want to read some more of his comments on 'Queen of the Damned', I've compiled a lot of his points, answering various questions on the Official Queen of the Damned Message Board, .


What attracted you to ‘Queen of the Damned’?
Having read INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE when it first came out. I loved it, but it broke my heart at the same time, because it was the vampire novel that I wanted to write. When WB asked me to read QUEEN OF THE DAMNED about twenty years later, I felt the hand of fate (albeit in a corporate glove).


In the official forum you mentioned that ‘Queen of the Damned’ is a sequel to ‘Interview With The Vampire’, but will it be billed as a sequel?
I don't know of any movies that are billed as a sequel - that is, INDIANA JONES & THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, THE SEQUEL - but WB certainly views it as the sequel to INTERVIEW. That we've changed every last actor won't affect that! It's hard for me to say the same thing, because I don't know if that's how Anne Rice sees it. I see it more as part of a series titled THE VAMPIRE CHRONICLES. It's hard to say that the story of THE VAMPIRE LESTAT follows INTERVIEW in any traditional manner. In fact, it's more prequel than sequel.

( the rest of the interview )

*!*!*!*

I'll be posting my favorite parts of this interview without an LJ-cut in the next entry

Lost to time---post 1.5

Something I thought was rather important when concerning the "Queen of the Damned" movie. Something to consider while viewing the QotD (Keep an open mind is one of them.) that was pointed by the interviewee out in the previous post.


How many scripts were written and why didn’t you get Anne Rice to write the script?
Neil Jordan worked on an adaptation of THE VAMPIRE LESTAT that never saw the light of day. Our version of QUEEN probably had at least eight distinct drafts by three different writers, as well as a draft by Michael Rymer, and a scene or two by another writer.

If Anne Rice offered to write the script for free and was turned down, it either preceded my involvement with the project, or was never made known to me. I seem to recall her saying on her site that she did, but this could be way off. I do know that Anne wrote a "bible" script of all the CHRONICLES, and she may have offered that to WB.
*~*~*~*
In the auditions, what impressed you about Stuart Townsend who plays Lestat? And also, the same question about Aaliyah, who plays Akasha?
Lorenzo diBonaventura, WB's head of production, heard about Stuart in Cannes, and passed his name along to us. I saw the opening image of RESURRECTION MAN, and knew we had found our Lestat. Why? He was pale, sexy, androgynous, cocksure, and dangerous as all hell. His audition communicated the same charisma that I felt that first moment, but for me, it was redundant. (By the way, this sort of "Hollywood" moment almost never happens to me.)

Aaliyah was actively championed by Lorenzo, who had seen her work on ROMEO MUST DIE. Michael met with her, staged an audition, and felt that her sexuality could work for Akasha. It was a matter of her feeling dangerous as well. Michael saw something that made him believe she had it, and put her to work on honing the skills she would need for such a difficult role.
*~*~*~*
Did Michael Rymer direct his own vision of this film? How much input did you and/or the studio have overall?
Michael definitely directed his own version of the film. In fact, the film was never more his than during production. Michael wanted the movie to have a contemporary raggedness, contrasted by the more traditional lushness of its period moments. You'll see that it does. He got the cast he wanted. And what compromises he made in the script were dictated by my oft-stated belief that we couldn't keep everything. If he has any regrets, it's that he wasn't able to flesh out all of the characters as much as he would have liked.

Michael and I have a very good working relationship. He knows that I support his vision, and he in turn always took my reservations or suggestions seriously. It has been a very rewarding collaboration for me; it wouldn't have been if I hadn't had as much input.

The studio has input on everything; it's how things work. I know this is hard for Anne Rice fans to believe, but WB stuck its neck out making this movie. Given the risk they took, I found them to be often helpful and reasonable overall.


We know that Anne Rice was not involved with this movie. Has the studio received any feedback from her regarding this film?
Anne Rice was much happier with the later drafts of the script than she was with the first. She approved of most of our casting, and got along very well with Stuart, who visited her once we were done filming. She liked the look of the trailer. And she has yet to see the movie.

*~*~*~*~*
What would you tell Anne Rice fans to expect from this film?
Anne Rice fans should expect enough changes and omissions from the novels that they will have no choice but to view this as a creative variation on the author's work. What they will find in common with the novels is a gorgeously textured, very emotional atmosphere, and characters whose psychological concerns mirror the ones they have in the novels. The themes we explore are grand - love, death, immortality, personal expression, loyalty, selfishness - and presented seriously. There is also a well-realized contemporary "rock" feel, very kinetic action, and the occasional dollop of humor. It is a very ambitious undertaking that, like most such undertakings, did not succeed in achieving all of its ambitions. I just hope that everyone who sees the film agrees that the filmmakers gave it their best, and that was enough.


When a book is transferred to the big screen, it is understandable that many alterations must be made. However, a brand new element is the love story between Lestat and Jesse - why was this added, and what importance does this storyline have in the film?
It's hard to find a successful film in which the protagonist doesn't have a relationship through which he resolves his own dilemma. In the film, Lestat's first important relationship is with Marius, who presents Lestat with the "facts of life" that Lestat finds so unsatisfying. This is a teacher-student relationship, and Lestat quickly reaches the familiar place where he feels the need to move on and become his own person - an adult - even though he is still, psychologically speaking, an adolescent. In the novel of QUEEN, Lestat became involved with Akasha, but this occurs near the climax of the story; their relationship doesn't fully convey Lestat's struggle with himself as to what he wants. This is where Jesse comes in. Jesse is the only major human character in the film. (Talbot is very important, but has only a few scenes.) As such, she serves as the way in for the audience - especially those who are unfamiliar with Anne Rice's novels. But characters often serve double duty in adaptations of works as complex as those of Anne Rice, and we thought that Jesse was a perfect counterweight to what Akasha meant for Lestat: everything that vampires find attractive in humans. As such, she attracts him, offering the possibility of assuaging his loneliness with her company, versus feeling good by living in the light and burning down the house with Akasha. While this can be viewed as a romantic choice, and often conveys that feeling, for us it was less about Lestat choosing one woman over the other, than choosing one lifestyle over another. I think you'll find that the movie will give you the same feeling.
*~*~*~*

Lost to time.....part 2

As linked to in two posts below this here are somethings I thought interesting regarding questions that commonly asked in regard to the "Queen of the Damned" movie. Quotes from Jorge Saralegui about the QotD film as posted on the official message board before it got shut down.

Fair warning right now this is less than half of the stuff that was posted there and its still looong.

LEAVING OUT KEY VAMPIRES SUCH AS LOUIS ETC.
(Answering why no Mekare, and no story of the twins) Because she has no dialogue? Sorry, just kidding. The Story of the Twins is a movie in its own right; if we told that story, we wouldn't have room for Lestat's. We felt that focusing the movie on Lestat was the more pragmatic way to go. With less than two hours to work with, this meant no Story of the Twins. We kept Maharet, but only in how she connects to our main story. This is one of those changes that was all but dictated by the constraints of our situation, but that I realize is painful to all lovers of the book. You have our sincere apologies for not being able to give you everything that you wanted.

Answering as best I can, and please note, repeating myself, as some of these questions have been answered elsewhere: Louis is not in the movie, because his role in the novel QUEEN is relatively insignificant, and we could only include so many characters. I'm not sure what you mean by "stand alone." The liberties we took in the making of this film were a combination of necessity - a feature film is only so long - and creative license, which in my opinion is the right of anyone engaged in any creative activity. Lestat looks "gothie" because, as you may recall from the novels, his music was "Goth." I can't imagine how one could compare... let alone duplicate... the mood of a novel with the mood of a movie. The story of the Twins has very little to do with Lestat, who is the protagonist of our movie; the Twins' story is a movie in its own right - and this isn't it. The public was considered unwilling to watch a 12-hour movie, which is what I estimate would be required to do full justice to Anne Rice's novels. As to characters living or dying in a way that varies from the novel, refer to the end of my third sentence.

All of the characters you mentioned (Louis, Daniel, Gabrielle, Mekare, Eric) are not in the story, for the reason that you both mentioned: there isn't enough room for all of the vampires, and their roles seemed less crucial to the telling of our story. If you're seeking a connection to INTERVIEW, then you ought to find it in Lestat.

(Gabrielle) She's a very interesting character, but not essential to the novel, and irrelevant to the parts of the novel that we focused on.

Louis and Daniel aren't in the movie because, as you seemingly realize, they don't have a meaningful role in the story. Armand is in the movie, but only briefly. And I can't talk about Jesse's fate without giving away too much; suffice it to say that, given the nature of our story, our ending makes more sense.

( Read more... )