INTRODUCTION
I'm Jorge Saralegui, the producer of QUEEN OF THE DAMNED. I've been involved with the project since early 1998 — shortly after Warner Bros. hired Michael Rymer to direct, which is before we even hired a writer to adapt Anne Rice's work. Since then I've been involved with all of the decisions that have been made in the making of this motion picture, and was on the set every day (and night!) of our Melbourne shoot. As a result, I hope to be able to answer most of your questions regarding QUEEN OF THE DAMNED: its genesis, the script's development, its casting, the shoot, the music, the pageantry, the Aussie-rules football team we sponsored, not to mention the upcoming mini-series. Fiction replaced fact midway through that last sentence, so I better stop here. Cheers!
ON PRODUCING QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I would hope to benefit from any criticisms you may have after seeing the film. Judging a person's talent based on one work is a little harsh — just about every creative person has one critical failure on their resume — but I respect this perspective, especially if that failure happens to mean a lot to you. This was the second of four films I have now produced. Before that I worked as a studio executive, where my job wasn't too different (just not as consuming), and I supervised quite a few other films.
I was on the set all the time. The cast was chosen in a series of discussions involving the director, producer, and the studio. The definition of "producer" is very fluid. Producers who make small films... and those who work in just about every country other than the U.S.... have to spend a lot of time chasing money. Because I have worked exclusively with major Hollywood studios, the financing is handled entirely by them. One way to define my job is to say that I am there to help first the writer and then the director do the best job they possibly can.
In the abstract, I would like to produce another of Anne Rice's novels. Some are obviously less suitable for adaptation than others, and I am not a fan of all of them. (I haven't read THE WITCHING HOUR.) I don't control the rights to any of them, so whoever does would have to agree.
CHOOSING QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
The decision was made by the studio before either Michael Rymer or I joined the project. Neil Jordan had tried and failed to develop a satisfactory version of THE VAMPIRE LESTAT. I think there's a great mini-series there, but not a feature film. It lacks the sort of narrative drive that most movies need, ironically due to one of its strengths: how far afield it ranges. From a feature point of view, this makes it too episodic. So, as others have already pointed out, we chose to focus more on QUEEN OF THE DAMNED, but incorporated key aspects of Lestat's experience from the earlier novel.
We focused more on THE QUEEN OF THE DAMNED than on THE VAMPIRE LESTAT because LESTAT doesn't have the bones for a compelling normal-length film. Someone who hasn't read Anne Rice's novels will obviously have no problem with our choice. People who are familiar with the novels will also have no problem picking up what we have kept or changed.
WB paid a lot of money for the rights to more than one Anne Rice novel. Why would they want to write off their investment, and let Anne Rice sell the novels all over again? As with many aspects of the film business, the fact that there was a deadline moved it to the front burner... but that happens all the time. Believe me, there was no big rush or sense of panic on their part to get the film made. It was more like, it's now or never, so let's see what we can do. They were satisfied enough with the screenplay to give it the go-ahead.
WB doesn't control the rights to all of the CHRONICLES, but thought that QUEEN would make the best movie of the ones they had. When I came on board, that decision had already been made. As I've written elsewhere, the reaction of some of the more doctrinaire Anne Rice fans surprised me quite a bit. But it doesn't worry me at all.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCRIPT: ADAPTING THE BOOK FOR THE SCREEN
The film story changed the most from the start in our first story meetings in 1998; it didn't change all that much subsequently. From the beginning, we felt that we would have to rewrite the "guts" of the story, because they wouldn't possibly fit into the length of a typical feature film. We didn't film THE VAMPIRE LESTAT first because it was even harder for us to find a narrative spine that made sense for a 120-minute movie. It could be argued quite well that the way to do full justice to Anne Rice's second and third vampire novels is to film them as a mini-series. However, this was not our mandate.
There is no way to replicate either the facts or the greatness of the Vampire Chronicles in a feature film. A mini-series might be a different story. But movies by necessity tell tales in a very different way. The necessity of veering from the text leads to unavoidable compromises and the occasional inspired moment of originality. I hope that in the end, you feel that the scales tilt in the right direction. We will always have Anne Rice's books. The movie is, in many respects, something different.
I don't mind responding to thoughtful criticism, but there's no point to replying to posts along the lines of "Your movie sucks and you should burn in hell because Tom Cruise and Louis aren't in it."
Answering as best I can, Louis is not in the movie because his role in the novel QUEEN is relatively insignificant and we could only include so many characters. 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.
Anne Rice's books have been extremely popular from the moment she published her first one... but never mind that. Louis is not included, because dropping him is a very minor storyline change — he barely figures in the novel. We realize that any changes at all to the novel's story will prove disappointing to hard-core fans. The complexity of the novel and the limits of a feature film's running time... not to mention structural issues... required major changes and deletions to the novel's story in its transition to film. The hard-core fan will have to let go of a lot of preconceptions, or miss what we have to offer due to focusing on what we don't.
I could add that someone needing to have read the second book in order to understand the third, has nothing to do with needing to have read either in order to understand the movie. While the movie has many details that will resonate only with Anne Rice's fans, it can be enjoyed with no exposure to either of the books, or the first movie.
My advice is to read the book after you see the movie. This would apply to any adaptation. You want the funnel to widen, not narrow.
Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. Marius also made Armand in our movie, but it's not relevant to the story (as it wasn't in the novel).
I agree that this is an issue of creative freedom, combined with various real-world limitations. My suspicion is that most of the people who object to any changes lack creative vision, and therefore "lock in" on what engages their imagination: in this case, Anne Rice's very creative novels. While many of them feel, quite understandably, that Lestat belongs to them, as alive as he is in their imagination, they cannot comprehend that a filmmaker does the same thing... and has the mandate and the vision to do something different with it. That's what creativity is: starting with something, adding something of your own, and ending up with something different... maybe better, maybe not.
We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute. I don't think that the Lestat you'll see on the screen would behave differently at any point if he had been made by Magnus, and then abandoned... because something very similar happens here. I have little doubt that this won't satisfy you, but thought I'd let you know what the basic thought process was behind our decision.
On Lestat and Jesse
In the novel, Akasha and Lestat don't hook up until near the end. We needed a human character to both be the audience's way into the movie, and someone besides Marius with whom Lestat could have a dynamic. In a feature-length story, characters often have to do double duty.
Let me clarify that in our movie, Lestat and Jesse do not mirror Romeo and Juliet, although they do share some similarities. I agree that Lestat is much less likely to fall for Jesse than she with him. However, certain aspects of her could intrigue him, maybe even remind him of what makes humans special... and then fate or circumstances could bring them together in a way that he would never have predicted. The story is seen from the point of view of Lestat (the vampire) and to a lesser degree Jesse (the human), with a great deal of gap-bridging provided by Marius.
Focusing the Movie on Lestat
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.
Many characters (Louis, Daniel, Gabrielle, Mekare, Eric) are not in the story. 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 is 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, 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.
Is Queen of the Damned a Sequel to Interview with the Vampire?
QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the sequel to INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, to the degree that the novel THE VAMPIRE LESTAT was a sequel to INTERVIEW the novel. It's probably more accurate to view them as parts of a series. As you may know, none of the actors featured in INTERVIEW reprise their roles in QUEEN. As for whether Anne Rice promotes the movie in New Orleans... I sure hope so!
I would have loved to produce INTERVIEW. It would have made my decade. Please remember that a producer is not a director, and how a director approaches a movie — never mind a star like Tom Cruise — weighs more in the end. That said, I would have tried to make the ending feel more like a resolution... even if that means "Louis fails to get any answers which make him more comfortable with his vampirism." By the time of the interview, Louis is leading a starkly existential life, and I would rather have had a sharper sense of that with Christian Slater, rather than the "if you can't be serious, be funny" tag with Tom Cruise and the Rolling Stones. Of all the VAMPIRE CHRONICLES, INTERVIEW is by far the easiest to adapt, in my opinion. While it covers an unusually long time span and is told in flashback, its plot follows one character in one plot, from point A to point B. That makes it easy to compress, and easier for the audience to follow. The rest of Anne Rice's novels in the series all have multiple plots... but not necessarily one throughline on which they all hang... and QUEEN in particular has multiple protagonists. This may help to explain, if not the choices we made, then why choices had to be made. Frequently.
On Anne Rice's Involvement with the Project
Anne Rice has now seen the movie. You can hear her comments on her web site phone message, but I can tell you that she was pleased enough to offer the use of her name and possessory credit in our marketing materials.
ON CASTING
Early Casting Ideas
Wes Bentley told us that he was exhausted and not up to the challenge of the role at that time. We considered just about every young actor, as you might imagine. Heath Ledger was doing FOUR FEATHERS, and Josh Hartnett couldn't get out of his Miramax options. Hugo Weaving was considered for Marius, but wanted to rest before embarking on back-to-back MATRIXes. Aaliyah was the first person we cast, and no one else was considered for that role. I think it would be unfair to say who we passed on for the role... but it most certainly did NOT include some guy who corresponded with Vampvan, and claimed we met with him in Texas (I think). That was a complete hoax and amused the hell out of me!
The Reprise of the INTERVIEW Cast
It's not so much about a lower-budget version as it is committing to a series of films, as with HARRY POTTER or LOTR. WB didn't do this because the performance of INTERVIEW proved that there wasn't enough interest to warrant it. We failed to get Tom Cruise to reprise the role; Brad Pitt isn't going to take what would have been a very small part in QUEEN; I could go on, but I hope you get the point as to why the cast of INTERVIEW didn't return.
Casting Choices
Why is it okay to cast Aaliyah, despite her not looking at all like the Akasha of the novel, but not okay to let Stuart Townsend keep the hair color that suits him best? I'm not sure how Anne Rice feels about all of the casting, but I have reason to believe that she was happy in the end with our choice of Lestat. In the end, casting is a matter of taste, and very hard to quantify. We made the best choices that we could, given our circumstances, and are quite happy with the overall results.
Tom Cruise was offered the role of Lestat. He passed due to prior commitments and the understandable impulse of an actor not to repeat himself.
Khayman is my favorite male vampire in the novel QUEEN OF THE DAMNED. Bruce Spence was chosen from our Australian casting list for the part due to his talent and distinctive looks. As I said elsewhere, these standards were applied to all of the Ancients, so that they would be more noticeable. Again, due to our need to focus on Lestat in the story that we are telling, Khayman and most of the Ancients don't get nearly as much screen time as we would have liked. Maybe next time!
THE CAST
Aaliyah
Aaliyah probably had the toughest part to play in our film, in that she was then a 21-year-old with one movie under her belt, asked to play a 4000-year-old Egyptian queen who was transformed into the most powerful vampire of all. I was most concerned as to whether Aaliyah would be able to command the respect that Akasha would certainly draw. Aaliyah arrived in Melbourne extremely well-prepared, and delivered a performance that will make everyone who loves her proud.
Aaliyah was obviously a woman of many talents, and very much in command of them, despite her youth. She was also a very giving person who made everyone around her feel comfortable. I believe much of the credit for this goes to her terrific family, which was always with her, giving her support and a sense of home even when abroad. It's much easier to be an exemplary person and spread one's creative wings in such a nurturing environment. Aaliyah's work speaks most eloquently for itself, and I can only hope that the rest of our film does her justice. We will address how we feel about her life and her passing at the end of the film.
I wouldn't say that Aaliyah had a difficult time, but rather that her role was a very difficult one to play well. That she did play it exceedingly well is one of the lasting tributes we will have of her. Aaliyah was a wonderful, giving person who never complained about anything, including how long it took to dress and make her up.
Aaliyah never had a chance to see the finished film. However, I watched some of her scenes with her in dailies (rushes), and she was very happy with her performance... as she should have been.
I was blown away by Aaliyah's acting in the movie. She showed promise in ROMEO MUST DIE, but in QUEEN she pushed her talent much, much further.
Thank you for supporting our choice of Aaliyah to portray Akasha. We did indeed go in the direction of someone with African ancestry because of the historical reality. However, I can't argue with Anne Rice's choice of a non-African character in what is clearly a mythical time.
We're doing our best to have an Aaliyah song in the movie. I don't think it's right to rank actors, but I can easily say that Aaliyah's talent and potential blew away everyone on the set.
I looked into the Rashad story a little. You will never "hear" Rashad in the movie. If we use his voice at all, it's to provide clarity in the two scenes that take place by the seashore. But the effect will be subliminal.
You're absolutely right about the advantages of her sensuality. Probably the most difficult specific aspect of her performance was the accent that she herself developed for the role. From my perspective, it was generating a sense of command that befitted Akasha, the most powerful vampire of all. To me, this was her (Aaliyah's) greatest success.
Aaliyah's death has affected our movie in many ways... but I don't think that it will keep people away.
I would just add that she was also a devotee of Egyptian history, and liked vampires, too. In effect, she had every base covered. That she was an actor who became famous as a singer puts her in the same company as, for example, Frank Sinatra and Cher, who delivered more than one critically lauded performance.
The only vampire who has an accent that sounds like their country of origin (an accent they may well have lost over the centuries, in my opinion, especially when speaking English) is Akasha.
On Producing a Movie about Aaliyah's Life
Please remember that I am not producing a movie of Aaliyah's life. This is something that I would imagine her family will do, when they are ready. They are doing as well as could be expected, and the support of her fans definitely makes them feel better.
This will definitely be discussed at the right time, with my support, regardless of whether or not I wind up being involved.
Stuart Townsend
Everyone who has seen Stuart Townsend's portrayal of Lestat marvels at his charisma and sexiness. He managed to integrate Lestat's soulfulness, brattiness and bravado into one pretty damn seamless performance.
Stuart has a slight Irish accent, which is what you'll hear in the movie. The only person in our very international cast who noticeably altered their normal way of speaking was Aaliyah, who developed an ancient Egyptian accent for the role of Akasha. Stuart is indeed a good singer, but we didn't learn that until after we chose him for the role... which is well after we had already signed up Jonathan Davis to sing (as well as compose our songs and score).
Stuart's stand-in had become quite a favorite of the crowd at Werribee by the time that Stuart was to first appear on stage. He was nervous about being perceived as a "movie star," nervous about performing a rock song in front of a big audience, and very nervous once he found himself suspended fifty feet above the stage for his entrance. Stuart fortified himself as much as was seemly (ahem!) (i.e., had a drink or ten), then met his fears. He was terrific from his first swoop down, the crowd loved him, and he now considers that night the highlight of his acting career.
It was difficult to cast Lestat because we were asking a young actor to carry a movie, not to mention risk looking very silly as a rock star. To make the concert work as well as it does, we needed a psyched-up audience, a band that didn't look put together, and someone to hold the center. That was Stuart. He is terrific as a singer, and even better when all hell breaks loose. I think Stuart is a better Lestat from Lestat's point of view than Tom Cruise would have been. (Remember, Cruise played a radically different character — Lestat from Louis' point of view).
Stuart is a very serious actor, who wouldn't take a role he didn't believe in. Lestat is a terrific character, and Stuart enjoyed enacting many of Lestat's aspects. I don't recall Stuart staying in character after "cut" was called, but he certainly didn't crack jokes, either. Rather, he remained focused. Stuart did a lot of training for the fight scenes — working out with a trainer, movement tutoring, wire work, and action choreography — but he was a natural at it. He made it look effortless.
Claudia Black
You should know that I have been blown away by the response for Claudia Black, and that such an outpouring of interest does have an effect.
Let's say that if we already have an interview with Claudia on tape, then it will definitely be in the DVD. And if we don't, I will look into the feasibility of having one shot and included. (This does not fall into the "promise" category.)
Claudia Black was very professional, quite adept at wire work, and helped us to flesh out her role. I am trying to make sure that, once the film opens, we post whatever scenes she and the other Ancients shot that don't make it into the final cut.
Claudia looked like she was licking her lips with delight at what awaited her outside her tomb as she emerged. However, not everything we shot will be in the film. I hope that what isn't will appear not only in the DVD, but also on this site.
In the novel, the third chapter describes Pandora going to the Himalayan temple retreat of the vampire Azim from the crowded streets of Old Delhi. So, even though her origins were Greco-Roman, Pandora quite plausibly could be depicted as wearing Eastern attire, based on some of her latest travels.
Claudia's accent is very... ancient. But please, please remember that you'll hear most of it on the DVD and maybe on this site, not too far down the road.
Michael Rymer suggested she audition for the Pandora role, not me. Claudia would be perfect in any part that doesn't call for blond hair, including bald ones.
Paul McGann & Vincent Perez
Paul McGann makes the most of his screen time, and I will try to get his mug up on the site. The line you are referring to in the trailer, however, belongs to Marius. Since Vincent Perez has a noticeable French accent, however, it is safe to assume that the marketing folks had someone else loop that line for the trailer. It isn't the only one that's looped, by the way.
Will the cast reprise their roles?
I have personally heard nothing about any of the actors wanting to work in another Anne Rice adaptation, but would imagine that most would indeed be interested.
THE LOOK OF THE CHARACTERS AND THEIR COSTUMES
Characters don't often look as they did in the books because this is a movie that hopes to stand on its own feet as an original creation, based on Anne Rice's amazing work. For example, we thought that Stuart Townsend's darkly sexy persona would translate into a terrific Lestat, and it did. However, Stuart looks better with dark hair than light. Because it's Stuart-as-Lestat, rather than the Lestat-as-on-the-page, he doesn't have blond hair. I know that some Anne Rice fans are already pleased. I hope that all of them will be engaged and stimulated, even when they don't agree with some of our changes.
Having already made Lestat a non-blond and Akasha non-Caucasian, we weren't that concerned about making the more minor characters match their written descriptions. We chose our Ancients with a focus for distinctive features, since they weren't going to be onscreen that much, and we wanted to differentiate them from the newbies. We felt very fortunate to gain Paul McGann's interest in the role of Talbot, and went with a younger approach to the role. I understand why these changes may be tough to accept for fans who have visualized the characters in their own minds for years, and again ask for you to consider our perspective, which is that the movie, while an adaptation, is its own creation, and entitled to many of the same creative liberties that other film adaptations have taken.
I was very surprised that so many people cared about things like a character's hair color, mainly because I never think about these things. My own focus tends to be more internal; I never visualize actors when reading a script, for instance. That said, I immediately understood that these characters are indelibly alive in your minds, and that (surprise) they look to you just like Anne Rice described them. I learned something from it, and will take care to remember it in the future. Vincent Perez had a long white wig and we all agreed he looked better with his own hair (short and dark). I would say that this type of case-by-case thing occurred with most of the actors. We never decided to deliberately change things as an artistic choice, or anything of the sort. The exception might be Jesse, whom we felt should be younger than Lestat, to better suit some of the themes that were important to us.
In every case, we started with the novel's description of how a character dressed. Some survived, like Marius; others were altered to look as if they were from their geographical origin, like Khayman; others are dressed according to what our story dictates — Armand rises in Pere Lachaise cemetery, promptly drinks the blood of some Jim Morrison worshippers, and absconds with their duds! (PLEASE NOTE: this last is backstory — we don't see it happen.) Now why does Claudia look like she's from Nepal or somewhere like that? Honestly? We all thought she was associated with such a locale from the novels. Not that she was born there, but that she spent time there, went to sleep there... I forget precisely what it was. Maybe it was a collective gaffe on all our parts.
I doubt that Lestat's blond hair is a basic element that attracted anyone to the story. More likely, it's an image that you have become comfortable with over the years, and are having a hard time shaking for the two hours you may spend in a movie theater. Our Lestat isn't blond because the actor playing him looks better with darker hair. As to who our audience will be: it is our hope that all Anne Rice fans come, and that this number is exceeded by those unfamiliar with her work.
My feeling is that the people who don't like the casting of Aaliyah because she's black have the same motivation as the people who don't like Stuart Townsend not being blond. They want everything just as it was in the novel. I've already explained how I feel about this elsewhere, and obviously I sided with those who prefer the most talented available candidate to someone who looks more like the role was described in the novel. That happened to be Aaliyah. I do think it's important that people remember that while bitching about Stuart not being blond comes off as merely fanatical and redundant, bitching about Akasha not being white could seem racist to some, and thusly offensive. Many people have indeed taken this into account, and gone to some pains to stress that their opinion is not racially motivated. If they say so, then I'm happy to leave it at that.
I agree that the color of these characters' hair is integral to their appearance in the novels. But they are not integral to their personalities. Personality — not hair color — is what a character is all about. So when we made our movie, we tried to remain faithful to the characters' personalities; their looks were secondary. Just as they are in life. To some people. For people who can't see Lestat beyond the color of his hair — meaning every single poster who has questioned his hair color, but not asked about his character — I say, don't be so shallow, or so rigid. Your perceptions may expand a little as a result.
Marbleized Vampires?
We discussed this quite a bit. Marbleized vampires with natural hair and clothes may also have looked weird. It was a close call, and we went the way we went.
We weighed the illogic of having clothes turn to marble along with the vampires, versus the potential cheesiness of having a marble statue with colorful clothes on. It was a close call, believe me.
Costumes
Angus Strathie of MOULIN ROUGE renown did the costumes. The inspiration for Akasha, Khayman and Pandora was the period in which they went to sleep; Armand stole his from some hippies outside his tomb. The other characters are dressed in somewhat outlandish but contemporary garb. I had a say in the design of the costumes, but the director and the studio had the absolute final ones.
ON THE CHARACTERS
About the Relationships between Vampires
We had a scene that alluded to Marius and Pandora's relationship, but it has unfortunately been cut. I hope to post it on this site, and it will be on the DVD.
Marius made Armand and lived with Pandora. Mael lives with Maharet, and as a result is protective toward Jesse. They all come together when summoned by Maharet because of the threat that Akasha poses. Only Khayman, Maharet and Marius know Akasha. It is not definite at this point, however, how much of this will be stated explicitly in the movie.
About Peter Olsen Playing Enkil
Breaking my own rule about giving away the plot... no, you don't ever see the actor in the flesh. (Nor did you in any of the drafts.) Marius explains it to Lestat.
Akasha's Past
As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to be too specific about what is in and out of the movie, as it may spoil it for some. That said, I can safely say that there will be some references to Akasha's past that go back more than 100 years.
Akasha's history and condition as of 1788 are explained in the film, although I'm sure this explanation will be too concise for those who (understandably) want it all.
It doesn't matter so much which version of Akasha is more evil, rather which one makes more sense. The movie version wants to go back to the good old days, when she lived in the open and made life miserable for all. From a human perspective, I would call this "hell on earth." But I can see where the queen vampire is coming from — why shouldn't she do what she always did? Who's going to stop her? The Akasha from the novel, however, says she wants to kill 90% or 99% (unsurprisingly, there is some confusion about the exact number) of the male population, to make the world a more peaceful place. As vicious and wrongheaded as this is — anyone who engages in genocide is butchering their soul — at least it makes sense from an extremely radical feminist perspective. But the Akasha of the novel is anything but a feminist. In fact, she seems to spend most of her time finding ways to make the lives of two women (the Twins) miserable. In the end, very little of Akasha's original plan made sense to us. So we made it just as evil... but more consistent with what her character seemed to be the first time she made life on earth hell.
ON THE PRODUCTION
The first "scenes" we filmed were the videos. The first proper scene, on day one of the shoot, was Marius visiting Lestat in L.A. — a scene that was reshot later. The first scene that was shot that's still in the movie is when Jesse visits Lestat's house in L.A. And the last scene to be shot was... the reshoot of Marius visiting Lestat! The people in charge of this site will most likely add samples.
I enjoyed the filming of the concert the most, because... it was a concert! I also had a lot of fun in the filming of two scenes in a London vampire bar — visited first by Jesse, then by Akasha. Why? A lot of cool-looking vampires were in attendance! It's too hard for me to say what my favorite part of the finished movie is, and it's too soon to talk about what could have worked better.
The fighting at the concert turned out very well. So did Akasha's denouement (as you already know in part). I also like how Lestat impresses some groupies. On the simple end of things, there are three now-you-see-him-now-you-don't and vice-versa moments that work seamlessly, and were achieved with nothing other than agile camera and actor work. Most of the effects are effective, actually, without being splashy.
I guess the most difficult scene to shoot was the concert sequence, given the logistics, the cold, the sheer numbers involved, and the vfx. In fact, we were so worried about how difficult it would be that we prepped it more thoroughly than anything else in the movie, and it all went more smoothly than just about anything else.
On Michael Rymer's Direction
I would describe Michael Rymer's direction as intense, and the look of the film as ravishing... but of course, I'm biased.
On the Steamy Scenes between Aaliyah and Stuart
They seemed to have a good time doing both, although the other one was a bit more uncomfortable! The second scene was more uncomfortable because Aaliyah was in a harness. Aaliyah was as cooperative in the shooting of these scenes as she was with any other, and quickly overcame the natural embarrassment most people would feel. Aaliyah loved how the movie looked, and her role in it. One of my favorite memories of her was how much she was Akasha while the camera was rolling — deep voice, commanding presence — but then, the second the director yelled "cut," she would make a funny face, or stick out her tongue, or do something to let you know that she was Aaliyah, not Akasha.
The Film's Running Time
Do not carve this in stone, since the movie is not absolutely finished, and I don't have editor Dany Cooper around to ask right now, but I would say just over 100 minutes. It's not longer because, in our opinion, that's the best length for the material that we shot of the story we decided to tell. Akasha obviously has a crucial role in our movie, but doesn't really step in until the second half of the story.
On the Visual Effects
How Akasha "comes to life" in the trailer doesn't match what happens in the movie... and I'll say no more here, for fear of spoiling the moment.
The most difficult vfx to do right: the blood tears rolling down Maharet's cheek.
Akasha's eyes aren't brown, but red. In our movie, the irises of the vampires turn red when they are inflamed by bloodlust.
First, consider how many Lestat scenes in the novel of QUEEN would require cgi, versus what you saw in INTERVIEW. I think it's night and day. Given that, we were quite sparing with the use of cgi. I don't think it overwhelms the movie any more than it did the novel.
Do Vampires Walk in Daylight?
Speaking of pale images, Debbie, some of those posted on your site are over-exposed (or something), so that they look as if they are shot in broad daylight. In the movie, each of those images appear as dusk or out-and-out nighttime. I hope this answers all but one of the "their vampires walk in the light" questions.
Marius is painting in the early evening. And yes, it is a gorgeous image.
Those outdoor scenes are poor quality images. In the movie, those scenes are all clearly after sunset.
Vampires and Music Videos
We made three Lestat music videos. MTV may not play them, because the movie has an "R" rating, but VH1 could. In addition, we intend to release them on the net.
The videos are seen in part in the movie. They will almost certainly be on the DVD. They will probably be shown at some point on the TV music channels. However, we hope to release them in other formats soon.
The videos are of Lestat and his band, so no one else from the cast, including Aaliyah, is in them. In other words, they aren't QUEEN OF THE DAMNED videos (which could include Aaliyah); they are videos from the band "The Vampire Lestat" (aka "Satan's Night Out"). For those who care, they each have a classic horror-movie theme: THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, Murnau's NOSFERATU, and Browning's DRACULA.
The "Death Valley" Concert in Werribee, Australia
Let me thank you for coming out to Werribee that very long, cold and windy night. The same goes for Vampvan and the 1200 other Goths who cheered with such conviction that Stuart Townsend describes it as the best night of his acting career. There is quite a bit of the concert and the crowd in the film, but it's unlikely that, because of their very number, all 1200 will be identifiable... although I expect a lot of freeze-framing searches through the QUEEN DVD next year!
I hate even thinking about how we chose the concert site — I can't imagine more boring location scouts. Basically, we needed a wide-open place that wasn't too far from Melbourne. The openness was meant to reflect Death Valley, which in turn was an idea of Michael Rymer's after hearing of the Burning Man concerts. There was a racetrack also considered, as well as an airport. But all had more disadvantages than Werribee, when you factor in "look." As I suspected at the time, since we were shooting at night, it wouldn't have mattered all that much where we shot. You didn't ask why we bussed everyone in. The answer is, so no one would get cold and decide to slip away and drive home while we were shooting. Twelve hours is longer than you imagine when it's cold, right?
ON PROMOTION AND MARKETING FOR QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I look forward to further correspondence, Vampvan. You and Debra should know that the "secrecy" or lack of interest that you seemingly encountered with Warner Bros. regarding QUEEN was neither, but rather the absolutely typical studio attitude to early promotion, or most promotion for that matter that is not being steered by them. This is usually not a problem, because there is rarely that much early interest in film projects. QUEEN is obviously an exception; I'm sure the same is true of LORD OF THE RINGS. All studios have something to learn from sites like yours, which is that they are already of great help in promoting interest in a film, and could do so much more with some official cooperation. They are learning, but it's a slow education.
QUEEN is being promoted at roughly the same rate and pace as most movies. However, I can definitely see why it would seem late to CHRONICLES fans! I hope we make up for it.
I had a conversation with Don Buckley, the WB executive in charge of all their sites, and he agreed that the effect of fans who post is exponential — in effect, they represent more than one movie ticket each (and not just because they're more likely to be repeat customers). It stands to reason that — as you suggest — the sooner and more often you reach them, the greater that exponential number will be.
Aaliyah's death obviously affects our marketing, but we are confident that we will make its existence clear to her present and future fans. The other actors, for example, will still be able to promote the movie. Is it the same? No, it's not. On a lot of levels.
We don't want to give away everything that is planned in terms of promotion, between now, the movie's opening, or (hint) afterward. I hope you understand. We'll look into the possibility of getting some of the actors to join in (on the official website), but it's unlikely, given their schedules and/or lack of net-connectedness!
Rated "R" for Vampire Violence
You are right in saying that WB would make a lot more money if this movie were rated PG-13. That in itself is the best answer to those who think the movie is a sell-out. We left it as an R because that was the only way for us to capture what we felt was critical: the extreme passions and atmosphere of the novels.
Is QUEEN OF THE DAMNED a Teen Movie?
Have we made a "teeny-oriented" movie with QUEEN, as opposed to INTERVIEW? While there have been many opinions posted about this, no one has ever asked me that question, until now. According to WB Marketing, the core audience for INTERVIEW was young women, and they were largely drawn to the movie by the hunks it featured. Does that make INTERVIEW a teen movie? Your call. QUEEN is rated R, which makes it hard to gain a teen audience, especially now that advertising for R-rated movies is restricted on MTV. Our story is sexy, but not in a graphic way. Like INTERVIEW, it is not campy. It is much more dense and complicated than INTERVIEW. It features precisely one person who was an existing teen draw: Aaliyah. So while it contains the rock music and vampire violence of the novel, there is not a lot here that could be seen as aimed at a younger audience than INTERVIEW. The exception might be the star-crossed romance between Lestat and Jesse, which is not in the novel. Jesse and Lestat are both in their twenties in our story. Does this romance make QUEEN a teen movie? I would ask, is ROMEO & JULIET a teen story? So, in conclusion, I would say that QUEEN is a demanding movie with a large amount of elements that appeal to women, a reasonable amount of action that appeals to men, and enough Anne Rice detail to (I pray) not drive her loyal fans bonkers.
As I have written elsewhere, this movie is rated R, which bans anyone under the age of 17 without a parent. That doesn't sound like very good marketing for a teen movie to me. You also say that the movie is going to be "very sexually driven" — which it's not — but then complain that it doesn't have more of a homosexual element. That seems inconsistent to me. You presume that we have shortshrifted the homosexuality in this movie because of ratings, ignoring the fact that our R rating could handle all the homosexuality someone who doesn't want a very sexually driven movie would want. The reason why there's not much homosexual feelings is because there's precious little homosexual activity in the novel. If there's one being who Lestat lusts for in the novel, it's Akasha. Again, what you seem to want is a movie that will give you everything you like about the CHRONICLES. I don't think that's ever going to happen.
ON SNEAKS, SCREENINGS AND OPENING DATES
There has been no sneak preview in Australia, although friends of director Michael Rymer saw early versions of it at the start of this year. There is no date yet for the Australian release. Whether Stuart attends an Australian premiere will be based on his schedule at the time. If there is a premiere in Australia, it should definitely be in Melbourne. This leads to what Evilteddy brought up: that the 200+ extras who continued after Werribee were promised their own preview. I'll look into this early in the new year, and will post an update on this site.
Test Screenings in California
If I had to summarize the audience reaction in one sentence, it would be that, like it or not, most of the viewers were unusually engaged.
Domestic Opening and International Release Dates
There are no guarantees in life, he says glibly. But it's very unlikely that we'll change the date. If we did, it would be for a better date, and not because we weren't ready.
Spain is one of the world's top five or six film-going nations. There will definitely be a Spanish release of QUEEN. I just don't know when. I'll research the international release dates when I return to work in the new year.
I have the release dates for all around the U.S. I will post what Warner Bros. has planned so far for around the world — an incomplete list, no doubt — as soon as I am settled in my office.
The Premiere
I'm not sure where in Los Angeles the premiere will be held, although it'll be common knowledge in time for anyone who wants to show up. Unfortunately, premieres are "industry" events, and all of the guests are invited.
We don't know how we're going to handle the premiere yet. You can be sure that consideration for Aaliyah's passing will be foremost on our minds in the planning.
I don't think a cast of hundreds (or thousands) can all be invited to the premiere, but your names should all be in the credits. And if I haven't already said it here, believe me that I often talk about the terrific attitude of our Australian cast and crew. I wish I could make even more movies there.
ABOUT THE DVD
The accurate answer would be that I have no clue as to what will be on the DVD, as it hasn't been discussed yet. Now what is likely to be on it, apart from interviews with the cast and filmmakers, that isn't in the finished film? More of the concert, the Ancients, and the band, as well as the three excellent music videos we filmed in Melbourne just before the start of production. These will be released very soon elsewhere, by the way, but should be nicely packaged on the DVD. That is, if I have anything to do with it, which is likely to be the case, as long as one of the more indignant among you doesn't hunt me down and kill me first.
On Outtakes
This is the sort of thing that may appear on a DVD, or "The Making of..." feature, if Aaliyah's family feels it's appropriate. I don't think we'll do anything like it right now, though.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments almost as much as I do your seconding of our choices so far. I agree that almost everyone in the cast turned out as well as we could have hoped, and my only regret is that the final edit, by necessity, shortchanges many of them. One solution is to structure the DVD just as you said. I'll do my best to make sure this happens, and want to add that the posts on this site have made all the difference in how I will approach the composition of the DVD. Its buyers have definitely spoken.
ON FAN SITES
Regarding debs qotd site: I was indeed aware of this fine site, and have long appreciated its existence, regardless of what was written in it! Warner Bros. launched the official site at this time, and not earlier, because experience has taught them that interest in a site tends to peak, and then wane. They wanted it to peak shortly before the movie opens (22 February), so here we are. In the meantime, fan sites carried the ball for us... so thanks again!
Vampvan's site was the first that I encountered, and I've been following it fitfully since, oh, the start of the new millenium or so. I wrote in at least once, to confirm the rumor that Stuart Townsend would play Lestat. My pseudonym and altogether low profile were a result of the rather militant negativity toward the movie that I encountered... so I was relieved to see a gradual lightening of the general mood, capped by your euphoric account of our all-nighter in Werribee! Unfortunately, I can't answer your question right now, because the page with the prop photos isn't loading the images. (I'm currently plugged into a fast broadband line.) I'll keep trying, though, and will let you know what was used, and what wasn't, when and if the images load. In closing, I want you to know how much respect I had and have for your passionate efforts, regardless of whether we were getting bashed or not.
Vampvan, all of your prop photos were used in the film. However, not every scene that they were in survived the final edit, and not every prop that did survive is necessarily identifiable. I guess the point is that there are no "bum steers" on your page.
Vampvan, there is no question that sites such as yours and Debs' kept interest in the movie alive. At the time I often felt that the overall "vibe" was negative, but have come to realize that this is an inevitable by-product to not getting answers to questions of great importance to the hardcore fan, like "why are they changing so much of the story?" A response of silence implies (however inaccurately) a lack of consideration not just for you but for the novels, which only serves to confirm your worst suspicions. WB is doing a good job promoting this movie. They aren't treating it like HARRY POTTER or LOTR because they are, understandably enough, a profit-oriented corporation. Their investment in those two movies is much larger than the one in QUEEN, and so it makes sense that they would put much more marketing emphasis on them. That said, more could have been done with — or any other movie, for that matter. But you have to remember that corporations aren't light on their feet; to mix my metaphors, it takes a long time to turn those ocean liners around. This is one place where I could have done a better job, by having taken it upon myself to have contacted you all much earlier. I think a lot of anxiety on all sides would have been lessened if I had. I have visited your "Australian locations" page, as it's fun for me to engage in occasional forays of nostalgia. The Anubis statues are featured prominently in the film. They are in storage in Melbourne at this time. Eventually, WB will decide whether to keep them for their very impressive museum, or unofficially give them away.
FAN INTEREST IN QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I have two other movies that will be released within five weeks of QUEEN, and there hasn't been anywhere near the same level of fan interest in either. The films that I notice attract the strongest early interest — particularly on the net — are book adaptations, comic-book adaptations, and fantasy/science-fiction. These are the areas that seem to positively breed cults. (I was the studio executive on ALIEN RESURRECTION, for example, and was blown away by the number of people who found fault with our plot, starting with the return of Ripley).
ON USING MESSAGE BOARDS TO TALK TO THE FANS
It was my idea to answer questions here, and WB was happy to arrange it. As you might have guessed, the notion occurred to me based on the sort of questions that you (Debs) and Vampvan posted on your sites.
Our movie is not perfect, but I believe in it, and want to stand up for it. I also enjoy feeling the heat from the passion that most posters exhibit. Real life should be more like this. (Not 24/7, mind you.) I've learned something from all these posts, as well as from Debbie and Van's sites, and will be much more of an advocate of my projects in the future. Most projects don't call for the level of grass-roots involvement that QUEEN does, by the way. I have a much bigger movie called SHOWTIME opening in three months, but nobody takes it really personally, know what I mean? It's funny and smart, but it's not about... vampires.
I'm Jorge Saralegui, the producer of QUEEN OF THE DAMNED. I've been involved with the project since early 1998 — shortly after Warner Bros. hired Michael Rymer to direct, which is before we even hired a writer to adapt Anne Rice's work. Since then I've been involved with all of the decisions that have been made in the making of this motion picture, and was on the set every day (and night!) of our Melbourne shoot. As a result, I hope to be able to answer most of your questions regarding QUEEN OF THE DAMNED: its genesis, the script's development, its casting, the shoot, the music, the pageantry, the Aussie-rules football team we sponsored, not to mention the upcoming mini-series. Fiction replaced fact midway through that last sentence, so I better stop here. Cheers!
ON PRODUCING QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I would hope to benefit from any criticisms you may have after seeing the film. Judging a person's talent based on one work is a little harsh — just about every creative person has one critical failure on their resume — but I respect this perspective, especially if that failure happens to mean a lot to you. This was the second of four films I have now produced. Before that I worked as a studio executive, where my job wasn't too different (just not as consuming), and I supervised quite a few other films.
I was on the set all the time. The cast was chosen in a series of discussions involving the director, producer, and the studio. The definition of "producer" is very fluid. Producers who make small films... and those who work in just about every country other than the U.S.... have to spend a lot of time chasing money. Because I have worked exclusively with major Hollywood studios, the financing is handled entirely by them. One way to define my job is to say that I am there to help first the writer and then the director do the best job they possibly can.
In the abstract, I would like to produce another of Anne Rice's novels. Some are obviously less suitable for adaptation than others, and I am not a fan of all of them. (I haven't read THE WITCHING HOUR.) I don't control the rights to any of them, so whoever does would have to agree.
CHOOSING QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
The decision was made by the studio before either Michael Rymer or I joined the project. Neil Jordan had tried and failed to develop a satisfactory version of THE VAMPIRE LESTAT. I think there's a great mini-series there, but not a feature film. It lacks the sort of narrative drive that most movies need, ironically due to one of its strengths: how far afield it ranges. From a feature point of view, this makes it too episodic. So, as others have already pointed out, we chose to focus more on QUEEN OF THE DAMNED, but incorporated key aspects of Lestat's experience from the earlier novel.
We focused more on THE QUEEN OF THE DAMNED than on THE VAMPIRE LESTAT because LESTAT doesn't have the bones for a compelling normal-length film. Someone who hasn't read Anne Rice's novels will obviously have no problem with our choice. People who are familiar with the novels will also have no problem picking up what we have kept or changed.
WB paid a lot of money for the rights to more than one Anne Rice novel. Why would they want to write off their investment, and let Anne Rice sell the novels all over again? As with many aspects of the film business, the fact that there was a deadline moved it to the front burner... but that happens all the time. Believe me, there was no big rush or sense of panic on their part to get the film made. It was more like, it's now or never, so let's see what we can do. They were satisfied enough with the screenplay to give it the go-ahead.
WB doesn't control the rights to all of the CHRONICLES, but thought that QUEEN would make the best movie of the ones they had. When I came on board, that decision had already been made. As I've written elsewhere, the reaction of some of the more doctrinaire Anne Rice fans surprised me quite a bit. But it doesn't worry me at all.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCRIPT: ADAPTING THE BOOK FOR THE SCREEN
The film story changed the most from the start in our first story meetings in 1998; it didn't change all that much subsequently. From the beginning, we felt that we would have to rewrite the "guts" of the story, because they wouldn't possibly fit into the length of a typical feature film. We didn't film THE VAMPIRE LESTAT first because it was even harder for us to find a narrative spine that made sense for a 120-minute movie. It could be argued quite well that the way to do full justice to Anne Rice's second and third vampire novels is to film them as a mini-series. However, this was not our mandate.
There is no way to replicate either the facts or the greatness of the Vampire Chronicles in a feature film. A mini-series might be a different story. But movies by necessity tell tales in a very different way. The necessity of veering from the text leads to unavoidable compromises and the occasional inspired moment of originality. I hope that in the end, you feel that the scales tilt in the right direction. We will always have Anne Rice's books. The movie is, in many respects, something different.
I don't mind responding to thoughtful criticism, but there's no point to replying to posts along the lines of "Your movie sucks and you should burn in hell because Tom Cruise and Louis aren't in it."
Answering as best I can, Louis is not in the movie because his role in the novel QUEEN is relatively insignificant and we could only include so many characters. 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.
Anne Rice's books have been extremely popular from the moment she published her first one... but never mind that. Louis is not included, because dropping him is a very minor storyline change — he barely figures in the novel. We realize that any changes at all to the novel's story will prove disappointing to hard-core fans. The complexity of the novel and the limits of a feature film's running time... not to mention structural issues... required major changes and deletions to the novel's story in its transition to film. The hard-core fan will have to let go of a lot of preconceptions, or miss what we have to offer due to focusing on what we don't.
I could add that someone needing to have read the second book in order to understand the third, has nothing to do with needing to have read either in order to understand the movie. While the movie has many details that will resonate only with Anne Rice's fans, it can be enjoyed with no exposure to either of the books, or the first movie.
My advice is to read the book after you see the movie. This would apply to any adaptation. You want the funnel to widen, not narrow.
Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. Marius also made Armand in our movie, but it's not relevant to the story (as it wasn't in the novel).
I agree that this is an issue of creative freedom, combined with various real-world limitations. My suspicion is that most of the people who object to any changes lack creative vision, and therefore "lock in" on what engages their imagination: in this case, Anne Rice's very creative novels. While many of them feel, quite understandably, that Lestat belongs to them, as alive as he is in their imagination, they cannot comprehend that a filmmaker does the same thing... and has the mandate and the vision to do something different with it. That's what creativity is: starting with something, adding something of your own, and ending up with something different... maybe better, maybe not.
We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute. I don't think that the Lestat you'll see on the screen would behave differently at any point if he had been made by Magnus, and then abandoned... because something very similar happens here. I have little doubt that this won't satisfy you, but thought I'd let you know what the basic thought process was behind our decision.
On Lestat and Jesse
In the novel, Akasha and Lestat don't hook up until near the end. We needed a human character to both be the audience's way into the movie, and someone besides Marius with whom Lestat could have a dynamic. In a feature-length story, characters often have to do double duty.
Let me clarify that in our movie, Lestat and Jesse do not mirror Romeo and Juliet, although they do share some similarities. I agree that Lestat is much less likely to fall for Jesse than she with him. However, certain aspects of her could intrigue him, maybe even remind him of what makes humans special... and then fate or circumstances could bring them together in a way that he would never have predicted. The story is seen from the point of view of Lestat (the vampire) and to a lesser degree Jesse (the human), with a great deal of gap-bridging provided by Marius.
Focusing the Movie on Lestat
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.
Many characters (Louis, Daniel, Gabrielle, Mekare, Eric) are not in the story. 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 is 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, 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.
Is Queen of the Damned a Sequel to Interview with the Vampire?
QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the sequel to INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, to the degree that the novel THE VAMPIRE LESTAT was a sequel to INTERVIEW the novel. It's probably more accurate to view them as parts of a series. As you may know, none of the actors featured in INTERVIEW reprise their roles in QUEEN. As for whether Anne Rice promotes the movie in New Orleans... I sure hope so!
I would have loved to produce INTERVIEW. It would have made my decade. Please remember that a producer is not a director, and how a director approaches a movie — never mind a star like Tom Cruise — weighs more in the end. That said, I would have tried to make the ending feel more like a resolution... even if that means "Louis fails to get any answers which make him more comfortable with his vampirism." By the time of the interview, Louis is leading a starkly existential life, and I would rather have had a sharper sense of that with Christian Slater, rather than the "if you can't be serious, be funny" tag with Tom Cruise and the Rolling Stones. Of all the VAMPIRE CHRONICLES, INTERVIEW is by far the easiest to adapt, in my opinion. While it covers an unusually long time span and is told in flashback, its plot follows one character in one plot, from point A to point B. That makes it easy to compress, and easier for the audience to follow. The rest of Anne Rice's novels in the series all have multiple plots... but not necessarily one throughline on which they all hang... and QUEEN in particular has multiple protagonists. This may help to explain, if not the choices we made, then why choices had to be made. Frequently.
On Anne Rice's Involvement with the Project
Anne Rice has now seen the movie. You can hear her comments on her web site phone message, but I can tell you that she was pleased enough to offer the use of her name and possessory credit in our marketing materials.
ON CASTING
Early Casting Ideas
Wes Bentley told us that he was exhausted and not up to the challenge of the role at that time. We considered just about every young actor, as you might imagine. Heath Ledger was doing FOUR FEATHERS, and Josh Hartnett couldn't get out of his Miramax options. Hugo Weaving was considered for Marius, but wanted to rest before embarking on back-to-back MATRIXes. Aaliyah was the first person we cast, and no one else was considered for that role. I think it would be unfair to say who we passed on for the role... but it most certainly did NOT include some guy who corresponded with Vampvan, and claimed we met with him in Texas (I think). That was a complete hoax and amused the hell out of me!
The Reprise of the INTERVIEW Cast
It's not so much about a lower-budget version as it is committing to a series of films, as with HARRY POTTER or LOTR. WB didn't do this because the performance of INTERVIEW proved that there wasn't enough interest to warrant it. We failed to get Tom Cruise to reprise the role; Brad Pitt isn't going to take what would have been a very small part in QUEEN; I could go on, but I hope you get the point as to why the cast of INTERVIEW didn't return.
Casting Choices
Why is it okay to cast Aaliyah, despite her not looking at all like the Akasha of the novel, but not okay to let Stuart Townsend keep the hair color that suits him best? I'm not sure how Anne Rice feels about all of the casting, but I have reason to believe that she was happy in the end with our choice of Lestat. In the end, casting is a matter of taste, and very hard to quantify. We made the best choices that we could, given our circumstances, and are quite happy with the overall results.
Tom Cruise was offered the role of Lestat. He passed due to prior commitments and the understandable impulse of an actor not to repeat himself.
Khayman is my favorite male vampire in the novel QUEEN OF THE DAMNED. Bruce Spence was chosen from our Australian casting list for the part due to his talent and distinctive looks. As I said elsewhere, these standards were applied to all of the Ancients, so that they would be more noticeable. Again, due to our need to focus on Lestat in the story that we are telling, Khayman and most of the Ancients don't get nearly as much screen time as we would have liked. Maybe next time!
THE CAST
Aaliyah
Aaliyah probably had the toughest part to play in our film, in that she was then a 21-year-old with one movie under her belt, asked to play a 4000-year-old Egyptian queen who was transformed into the most powerful vampire of all. I was most concerned as to whether Aaliyah would be able to command the respect that Akasha would certainly draw. Aaliyah arrived in Melbourne extremely well-prepared, and delivered a performance that will make everyone who loves her proud.
Aaliyah was obviously a woman of many talents, and very much in command of them, despite her youth. She was also a very giving person who made everyone around her feel comfortable. I believe much of the credit for this goes to her terrific family, which was always with her, giving her support and a sense of home even when abroad. It's much easier to be an exemplary person and spread one's creative wings in such a nurturing environment. Aaliyah's work speaks most eloquently for itself, and I can only hope that the rest of our film does her justice. We will address how we feel about her life and her passing at the end of the film.
I wouldn't say that Aaliyah had a difficult time, but rather that her role was a very difficult one to play well. That she did play it exceedingly well is one of the lasting tributes we will have of her. Aaliyah was a wonderful, giving person who never complained about anything, including how long it took to dress and make her up.
Aaliyah never had a chance to see the finished film. However, I watched some of her scenes with her in dailies (rushes), and she was very happy with her performance... as she should have been.
I was blown away by Aaliyah's acting in the movie. She showed promise in ROMEO MUST DIE, but in QUEEN she pushed her talent much, much further.
Thank you for supporting our choice of Aaliyah to portray Akasha. We did indeed go in the direction of someone with African ancestry because of the historical reality. However, I can't argue with Anne Rice's choice of a non-African character in what is clearly a mythical time.
We're doing our best to have an Aaliyah song in the movie. I don't think it's right to rank actors, but I can easily say that Aaliyah's talent and potential blew away everyone on the set.
I looked into the Rashad story a little. You will never "hear" Rashad in the movie. If we use his voice at all, it's to provide clarity in the two scenes that take place by the seashore. But the effect will be subliminal.
You're absolutely right about the advantages of her sensuality. Probably the most difficult specific aspect of her performance was the accent that she herself developed for the role. From my perspective, it was generating a sense of command that befitted Akasha, the most powerful vampire of all. To me, this was her (Aaliyah's) greatest success.
Aaliyah's death has affected our movie in many ways... but I don't think that it will keep people away.
I would just add that she was also a devotee of Egyptian history, and liked vampires, too. In effect, she had every base covered. That she was an actor who became famous as a singer puts her in the same company as, for example, Frank Sinatra and Cher, who delivered more than one critically lauded performance.
The only vampire who has an accent that sounds like their country of origin (an accent they may well have lost over the centuries, in my opinion, especially when speaking English) is Akasha.
On Producing a Movie about Aaliyah's Life
Please remember that I am not producing a movie of Aaliyah's life. This is something that I would imagine her family will do, when they are ready. They are doing as well as could be expected, and the support of her fans definitely makes them feel better.
This will definitely be discussed at the right time, with my support, regardless of whether or not I wind up being involved.
Stuart Townsend
Everyone who has seen Stuart Townsend's portrayal of Lestat marvels at his charisma and sexiness. He managed to integrate Lestat's soulfulness, brattiness and bravado into one pretty damn seamless performance.
Stuart has a slight Irish accent, which is what you'll hear in the movie. The only person in our very international cast who noticeably altered their normal way of speaking was Aaliyah, who developed an ancient Egyptian accent for the role of Akasha. Stuart is indeed a good singer, but we didn't learn that until after we chose him for the role... which is well after we had already signed up Jonathan Davis to sing (as well as compose our songs and score).
Stuart's stand-in had become quite a favorite of the crowd at Werribee by the time that Stuart was to first appear on stage. He was nervous about being perceived as a "movie star," nervous about performing a rock song in front of a big audience, and very nervous once he found himself suspended fifty feet above the stage for his entrance. Stuart fortified himself as much as was seemly (ahem!) (i.e., had a drink or ten), then met his fears. He was terrific from his first swoop down, the crowd loved him, and he now considers that night the highlight of his acting career.
It was difficult to cast Lestat because we were asking a young actor to carry a movie, not to mention risk looking very silly as a rock star. To make the concert work as well as it does, we needed a psyched-up audience, a band that didn't look put together, and someone to hold the center. That was Stuart. He is terrific as a singer, and even better when all hell breaks loose. I think Stuart is a better Lestat from Lestat's point of view than Tom Cruise would have been. (Remember, Cruise played a radically different character — Lestat from Louis' point of view).
Stuart is a very serious actor, who wouldn't take a role he didn't believe in. Lestat is a terrific character, and Stuart enjoyed enacting many of Lestat's aspects. I don't recall Stuart staying in character after "cut" was called, but he certainly didn't crack jokes, either. Rather, he remained focused. Stuart did a lot of training for the fight scenes — working out with a trainer, movement tutoring, wire work, and action choreography — but he was a natural at it. He made it look effortless.
Claudia Black
You should know that I have been blown away by the response for Claudia Black, and that such an outpouring of interest does have an effect.
Let's say that if we already have an interview with Claudia on tape, then it will definitely be in the DVD. And if we don't, I will look into the feasibility of having one shot and included. (This does not fall into the "promise" category.)
Claudia Black was very professional, quite adept at wire work, and helped us to flesh out her role. I am trying to make sure that, once the film opens, we post whatever scenes she and the other Ancients shot that don't make it into the final cut.
Claudia looked like she was licking her lips with delight at what awaited her outside her tomb as she emerged. However, not everything we shot will be in the film. I hope that what isn't will appear not only in the DVD, but also on this site.
In the novel, the third chapter describes Pandora going to the Himalayan temple retreat of the vampire Azim from the crowded streets of Old Delhi. So, even though her origins were Greco-Roman, Pandora quite plausibly could be depicted as wearing Eastern attire, based on some of her latest travels.
Claudia's accent is very... ancient. But please, please remember that you'll hear most of it on the DVD and maybe on this site, not too far down the road.
Michael Rymer suggested she audition for the Pandora role, not me. Claudia would be perfect in any part that doesn't call for blond hair, including bald ones.
Paul McGann & Vincent Perez
Paul McGann makes the most of his screen time, and I will try to get his mug up on the site. The line you are referring to in the trailer, however, belongs to Marius. Since Vincent Perez has a noticeable French accent, however, it is safe to assume that the marketing folks had someone else loop that line for the trailer. It isn't the only one that's looped, by the way.
Will the cast reprise their roles?
I have personally heard nothing about any of the actors wanting to work in another Anne Rice adaptation, but would imagine that most would indeed be interested.
THE LOOK OF THE CHARACTERS AND THEIR COSTUMES
Characters don't often look as they did in the books because this is a movie that hopes to stand on its own feet as an original creation, based on Anne Rice's amazing work. For example, we thought that Stuart Townsend's darkly sexy persona would translate into a terrific Lestat, and it did. However, Stuart looks better with dark hair than light. Because it's Stuart-as-Lestat, rather than the Lestat-as-on-the-page, he doesn't have blond hair. I know that some Anne Rice fans are already pleased. I hope that all of them will be engaged and stimulated, even when they don't agree with some of our changes.
Having already made Lestat a non-blond and Akasha non-Caucasian, we weren't that concerned about making the more minor characters match their written descriptions. We chose our Ancients with a focus for distinctive features, since they weren't going to be onscreen that much, and we wanted to differentiate them from the newbies. We felt very fortunate to gain Paul McGann's interest in the role of Talbot, and went with a younger approach to the role. I understand why these changes may be tough to accept for fans who have visualized the characters in their own minds for years, and again ask for you to consider our perspective, which is that the movie, while an adaptation, is its own creation, and entitled to many of the same creative liberties that other film adaptations have taken.
I was very surprised that so many people cared about things like a character's hair color, mainly because I never think about these things. My own focus tends to be more internal; I never visualize actors when reading a script, for instance. That said, I immediately understood that these characters are indelibly alive in your minds, and that (surprise) they look to you just like Anne Rice described them. I learned something from it, and will take care to remember it in the future. Vincent Perez had a long white wig and we all agreed he looked better with his own hair (short and dark). I would say that this type of case-by-case thing occurred with most of the actors. We never decided to deliberately change things as an artistic choice, or anything of the sort. The exception might be Jesse, whom we felt should be younger than Lestat, to better suit some of the themes that were important to us.
In every case, we started with the novel's description of how a character dressed. Some survived, like Marius; others were altered to look as if they were from their geographical origin, like Khayman; others are dressed according to what our story dictates — Armand rises in Pere Lachaise cemetery, promptly drinks the blood of some Jim Morrison worshippers, and absconds with their duds! (PLEASE NOTE: this last is backstory — we don't see it happen.) Now why does Claudia look like she's from Nepal or somewhere like that? Honestly? We all thought she was associated with such a locale from the novels. Not that she was born there, but that she spent time there, went to sleep there... I forget precisely what it was. Maybe it was a collective gaffe on all our parts.
I doubt that Lestat's blond hair is a basic element that attracted anyone to the story. More likely, it's an image that you have become comfortable with over the years, and are having a hard time shaking for the two hours you may spend in a movie theater. Our Lestat isn't blond because the actor playing him looks better with darker hair. As to who our audience will be: it is our hope that all Anne Rice fans come, and that this number is exceeded by those unfamiliar with her work.
My feeling is that the people who don't like the casting of Aaliyah because she's black have the same motivation as the people who don't like Stuart Townsend not being blond. They want everything just as it was in the novel. I've already explained how I feel about this elsewhere, and obviously I sided with those who prefer the most talented available candidate to someone who looks more like the role was described in the novel. That happened to be Aaliyah. I do think it's important that people remember that while bitching about Stuart not being blond comes off as merely fanatical and redundant, bitching about Akasha not being white could seem racist to some, and thusly offensive. Many people have indeed taken this into account, and gone to some pains to stress that their opinion is not racially motivated. If they say so, then I'm happy to leave it at that.
I agree that the color of these characters' hair is integral to their appearance in the novels. But they are not integral to their personalities. Personality — not hair color — is what a character is all about. So when we made our movie, we tried to remain faithful to the characters' personalities; their looks were secondary. Just as they are in life. To some people. For people who can't see Lestat beyond the color of his hair — meaning every single poster who has questioned his hair color, but not asked about his character — I say, don't be so shallow, or so rigid. Your perceptions may expand a little as a result.
Marbleized Vampires?
We discussed this quite a bit. Marbleized vampires with natural hair and clothes may also have looked weird. It was a close call, and we went the way we went.
We weighed the illogic of having clothes turn to marble along with the vampires, versus the potential cheesiness of having a marble statue with colorful clothes on. It was a close call, believe me.
Costumes
Angus Strathie of MOULIN ROUGE renown did the costumes. The inspiration for Akasha, Khayman and Pandora was the period in which they went to sleep; Armand stole his from some hippies outside his tomb. The other characters are dressed in somewhat outlandish but contemporary garb. I had a say in the design of the costumes, but the director and the studio had the absolute final ones.
ON THE CHARACTERS
About the Relationships between Vampires
We had a scene that alluded to Marius and Pandora's relationship, but it has unfortunately been cut. I hope to post it on this site, and it will be on the DVD.
Marius made Armand and lived with Pandora. Mael lives with Maharet, and as a result is protective toward Jesse. They all come together when summoned by Maharet because of the threat that Akasha poses. Only Khayman, Maharet and Marius know Akasha. It is not definite at this point, however, how much of this will be stated explicitly in the movie.
About Peter Olsen Playing Enkil
Breaking my own rule about giving away the plot... no, you don't ever see the actor in the flesh. (Nor did you in any of the drafts.) Marius explains it to Lestat.
Akasha's Past
As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to be too specific about what is in and out of the movie, as it may spoil it for some. That said, I can safely say that there will be some references to Akasha's past that go back more than 100 years.
Akasha's history and condition as of 1788 are explained in the film, although I'm sure this explanation will be too concise for those who (understandably) want it all.
It doesn't matter so much which version of Akasha is more evil, rather which one makes more sense. The movie version wants to go back to the good old days, when she lived in the open and made life miserable for all. From a human perspective, I would call this "hell on earth." But I can see where the queen vampire is coming from — why shouldn't she do what she always did? Who's going to stop her? The Akasha from the novel, however, says she wants to kill 90% or 99% (unsurprisingly, there is some confusion about the exact number) of the male population, to make the world a more peaceful place. As vicious and wrongheaded as this is — anyone who engages in genocide is butchering their soul — at least it makes sense from an extremely radical feminist perspective. But the Akasha of the novel is anything but a feminist. In fact, she seems to spend most of her time finding ways to make the lives of two women (the Twins) miserable. In the end, very little of Akasha's original plan made sense to us. So we made it just as evil... but more consistent with what her character seemed to be the first time she made life on earth hell.
ON THE PRODUCTION
The first "scenes" we filmed were the videos. The first proper scene, on day one of the shoot, was Marius visiting Lestat in L.A. — a scene that was reshot later. The first scene that was shot that's still in the movie is when Jesse visits Lestat's house in L.A. And the last scene to be shot was... the reshoot of Marius visiting Lestat! The people in charge of this site will most likely add samples.
I enjoyed the filming of the concert the most, because... it was a concert! I also had a lot of fun in the filming of two scenes in a London vampire bar — visited first by Jesse, then by Akasha. Why? A lot of cool-looking vampires were in attendance! It's too hard for me to say what my favorite part of the finished movie is, and it's too soon to talk about what could have worked better.
The fighting at the concert turned out very well. So did Akasha's denouement (as you already know in part). I also like how Lestat impresses some groupies. On the simple end of things, there are three now-you-see-him-now-you-don't and vice-versa moments that work seamlessly, and were achieved with nothing other than agile camera and actor work. Most of the effects are effective, actually, without being splashy.
I guess the most difficult scene to shoot was the concert sequence, given the logistics, the cold, the sheer numbers involved, and the vfx. In fact, we were so worried about how difficult it would be that we prepped it more thoroughly than anything else in the movie, and it all went more smoothly than just about anything else.
On Michael Rymer's Direction
I would describe Michael Rymer's direction as intense, and the look of the film as ravishing... but of course, I'm biased.
On the Steamy Scenes between Aaliyah and Stuart
They seemed to have a good time doing both, although the other one was a bit more uncomfortable! The second scene was more uncomfortable because Aaliyah was in a harness. Aaliyah was as cooperative in the shooting of these scenes as she was with any other, and quickly overcame the natural embarrassment most people would feel. Aaliyah loved how the movie looked, and her role in it. One of my favorite memories of her was how much she was Akasha while the camera was rolling — deep voice, commanding presence — but then, the second the director yelled "cut," she would make a funny face, or stick out her tongue, or do something to let you know that she was Aaliyah, not Akasha.
The Film's Running Time
Do not carve this in stone, since the movie is not absolutely finished, and I don't have editor Dany Cooper around to ask right now, but I would say just over 100 minutes. It's not longer because, in our opinion, that's the best length for the material that we shot of the story we decided to tell. Akasha obviously has a crucial role in our movie, but doesn't really step in until the second half of the story.
On the Visual Effects
How Akasha "comes to life" in the trailer doesn't match what happens in the movie... and I'll say no more here, for fear of spoiling the moment.
The most difficult vfx to do right: the blood tears rolling down Maharet's cheek.
Akasha's eyes aren't brown, but red. In our movie, the irises of the vampires turn red when they are inflamed by bloodlust.
First, consider how many Lestat scenes in the novel of QUEEN would require cgi, versus what you saw in INTERVIEW. I think it's night and day. Given that, we were quite sparing with the use of cgi. I don't think it overwhelms the movie any more than it did the novel.
Do Vampires Walk in Daylight?
Speaking of pale images, Debbie, some of those posted on your site are over-exposed (or something), so that they look as if they are shot in broad daylight. In the movie, each of those images appear as dusk or out-and-out nighttime. I hope this answers all but one of the "their vampires walk in the light" questions.
Marius is painting in the early evening. And yes, it is a gorgeous image.
Those outdoor scenes are poor quality images. In the movie, those scenes are all clearly after sunset.
Vampires and Music Videos
We made three Lestat music videos. MTV may not play them, because the movie has an "R" rating, but VH1 could. In addition, we intend to release them on the net.
The videos are seen in part in the movie. They will almost certainly be on the DVD. They will probably be shown at some point on the TV music channels. However, we hope to release them in other formats soon.
The videos are of Lestat and his band, so no one else from the cast, including Aaliyah, is in them. In other words, they aren't QUEEN OF THE DAMNED videos (which could include Aaliyah); they are videos from the band "The Vampire Lestat" (aka "Satan's Night Out"). For those who care, they each have a classic horror-movie theme: THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, Murnau's NOSFERATU, and Browning's DRACULA.
The "Death Valley" Concert in Werribee, Australia
Let me thank you for coming out to Werribee that very long, cold and windy night. The same goes for Vampvan and the 1200 other Goths who cheered with such conviction that Stuart Townsend describes it as the best night of his acting career. There is quite a bit of the concert and the crowd in the film, but it's unlikely that, because of their very number, all 1200 will be identifiable... although I expect a lot of freeze-framing searches through the QUEEN DVD next year!
I hate even thinking about how we chose the concert site — I can't imagine more boring location scouts. Basically, we needed a wide-open place that wasn't too far from Melbourne. The openness was meant to reflect Death Valley, which in turn was an idea of Michael Rymer's after hearing of the Burning Man concerts. There was a racetrack also considered, as well as an airport. But all had more disadvantages than Werribee, when you factor in "look." As I suspected at the time, since we were shooting at night, it wouldn't have mattered all that much where we shot. You didn't ask why we bussed everyone in. The answer is, so no one would get cold and decide to slip away and drive home while we were shooting. Twelve hours is longer than you imagine when it's cold, right?
ON PROMOTION AND MARKETING FOR QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I look forward to further correspondence, Vampvan. You and Debra should know that the "secrecy" or lack of interest that you seemingly encountered with Warner Bros. regarding QUEEN was neither, but rather the absolutely typical studio attitude to early promotion, or most promotion for that matter that is not being steered by them. This is usually not a problem, because there is rarely that much early interest in film projects. QUEEN is obviously an exception; I'm sure the same is true of LORD OF THE RINGS. All studios have something to learn from sites like yours, which is that they are already of great help in promoting interest in a film, and could do so much more with some official cooperation. They are learning, but it's a slow education.
QUEEN is being promoted at roughly the same rate and pace as most movies. However, I can definitely see why it would seem late to CHRONICLES fans! I hope we make up for it.
I had a conversation with Don Buckley, the WB executive in charge of all their sites, and he agreed that the effect of fans who post is exponential — in effect, they represent more than one movie ticket each (and not just because they're more likely to be repeat customers). It stands to reason that — as you suggest — the sooner and more often you reach them, the greater that exponential number will be.
Aaliyah's death obviously affects our marketing, but we are confident that we will make its existence clear to her present and future fans. The other actors, for example, will still be able to promote the movie. Is it the same? No, it's not. On a lot of levels.
We don't want to give away everything that is planned in terms of promotion, between now, the movie's opening, or (hint) afterward. I hope you understand. We'll look into the possibility of getting some of the actors to join in (on the official website), but it's unlikely, given their schedules and/or lack of net-connectedness!
Rated "R" for Vampire Violence
You are right in saying that WB would make a lot more money if this movie were rated PG-13. That in itself is the best answer to those who think the movie is a sell-out. We left it as an R because that was the only way for us to capture what we felt was critical: the extreme passions and atmosphere of the novels.
Is QUEEN OF THE DAMNED a Teen Movie?
Have we made a "teeny-oriented" movie with QUEEN, as opposed to INTERVIEW? While there have been many opinions posted about this, no one has ever asked me that question, until now. According to WB Marketing, the core audience for INTERVIEW was young women, and they were largely drawn to the movie by the hunks it featured. Does that make INTERVIEW a teen movie? Your call. QUEEN is rated R, which makes it hard to gain a teen audience, especially now that advertising for R-rated movies is restricted on MTV. Our story is sexy, but not in a graphic way. Like INTERVIEW, it is not campy. It is much more dense and complicated than INTERVIEW. It features precisely one person who was an existing teen draw: Aaliyah. So while it contains the rock music and vampire violence of the novel, there is not a lot here that could be seen as aimed at a younger audience than INTERVIEW. The exception might be the star-crossed romance between Lestat and Jesse, which is not in the novel. Jesse and Lestat are both in their twenties in our story. Does this romance make QUEEN a teen movie? I would ask, is ROMEO & JULIET a teen story? So, in conclusion, I would say that QUEEN is a demanding movie with a large amount of elements that appeal to women, a reasonable amount of action that appeals to men, and enough Anne Rice detail to (I pray) not drive her loyal fans bonkers.
As I have written elsewhere, this movie is rated R, which bans anyone under the age of 17 without a parent. That doesn't sound like very good marketing for a teen movie to me. You also say that the movie is going to be "very sexually driven" — which it's not — but then complain that it doesn't have more of a homosexual element. That seems inconsistent to me. You presume that we have shortshrifted the homosexuality in this movie because of ratings, ignoring the fact that our R rating could handle all the homosexuality someone who doesn't want a very sexually driven movie would want. The reason why there's not much homosexual feelings is because there's precious little homosexual activity in the novel. If there's one being who Lestat lusts for in the novel, it's Akasha. Again, what you seem to want is a movie that will give you everything you like about the CHRONICLES. I don't think that's ever going to happen.
ON SNEAKS, SCREENINGS AND OPENING DATES
There has been no sneak preview in Australia, although friends of director Michael Rymer saw early versions of it at the start of this year. There is no date yet for the Australian release. Whether Stuart attends an Australian premiere will be based on his schedule at the time. If there is a premiere in Australia, it should definitely be in Melbourne. This leads to what Evilteddy brought up: that the 200+ extras who continued after Werribee were promised their own preview. I'll look into this early in the new year, and will post an update on this site.
Test Screenings in California
If I had to summarize the audience reaction in one sentence, it would be that, like it or not, most of the viewers were unusually engaged.
Domestic Opening and International Release Dates
There are no guarantees in life, he says glibly. But it's very unlikely that we'll change the date. If we did, it would be for a better date, and not because we weren't ready.
Spain is one of the world's top five or six film-going nations. There will definitely be a Spanish release of QUEEN. I just don't know when. I'll research the international release dates when I return to work in the new year.
I have the release dates for all around the U.S. I will post what Warner Bros. has planned so far for around the world — an incomplete list, no doubt — as soon as I am settled in my office.
The Premiere
I'm not sure where in Los Angeles the premiere will be held, although it'll be common knowledge in time for anyone who wants to show up. Unfortunately, premieres are "industry" events, and all of the guests are invited.
We don't know how we're going to handle the premiere yet. You can be sure that consideration for Aaliyah's passing will be foremost on our minds in the planning.
I don't think a cast of hundreds (or thousands) can all be invited to the premiere, but your names should all be in the credits. And if I haven't already said it here, believe me that I often talk about the terrific attitude of our Australian cast and crew. I wish I could make even more movies there.
ABOUT THE DVD
The accurate answer would be that I have no clue as to what will be on the DVD, as it hasn't been discussed yet. Now what is likely to be on it, apart from interviews with the cast and filmmakers, that isn't in the finished film? More of the concert, the Ancients, and the band, as well as the three excellent music videos we filmed in Melbourne just before the start of production. These will be released very soon elsewhere, by the way, but should be nicely packaged on the DVD. That is, if I have anything to do with it, which is likely to be the case, as long as one of the more indignant among you doesn't hunt me down and kill me first.
On Outtakes
This is the sort of thing that may appear on a DVD, or "The Making of..." feature, if Aaliyah's family feels it's appropriate. I don't think we'll do anything like it right now, though.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments almost as much as I do your seconding of our choices so far. I agree that almost everyone in the cast turned out as well as we could have hoped, and my only regret is that the final edit, by necessity, shortchanges many of them. One solution is to structure the DVD just as you said. I'll do my best to make sure this happens, and want to add that the posts on this site have made all the difference in how I will approach the composition of the DVD. Its buyers have definitely spoken.
ON FAN SITES
Regarding debs qotd site: I was indeed aware of this fine site, and have long appreciated its existence, regardless of what was written in it! Warner Bros. launched the official site at this time, and not earlier, because experience has taught them that interest in a site tends to peak, and then wane. They wanted it to peak shortly before the movie opens (22 February), so here we are. In the meantime, fan sites carried the ball for us... so thanks again!
Vampvan's site was the first that I encountered, and I've been following it fitfully since, oh, the start of the new millenium or so. I wrote in at least once, to confirm the rumor that Stuart Townsend would play Lestat. My pseudonym and altogether low profile were a result of the rather militant negativity toward the movie that I encountered... so I was relieved to see a gradual lightening of the general mood, capped by your euphoric account of our all-nighter in Werribee! Unfortunately, I can't answer your question right now, because the page with the prop photos isn't loading the images. (I'm currently plugged into a fast broadband line.) I'll keep trying, though, and will let you know what was used, and what wasn't, when and if the images load. In closing, I want you to know how much respect I had and have for your passionate efforts, regardless of whether we were getting bashed or not.
Vampvan, all of your prop photos were used in the film. However, not every scene that they were in survived the final edit, and not every prop that did survive is necessarily identifiable. I guess the point is that there are no "bum steers" on your page.
Vampvan, there is no question that sites such as yours and Debs' kept interest in the movie alive. At the time I often felt that the overall "vibe" was negative, but have come to realize that this is an inevitable by-product to not getting answers to questions of great importance to the hardcore fan, like "why are they changing so much of the story?" A response of silence implies (however inaccurately) a lack of consideration not just for you but for the novels, which only serves to confirm your worst suspicions. WB is doing a good job promoting this movie. They aren't treating it like HARRY POTTER or LOTR because they are, understandably enough, a profit-oriented corporation. Their investment in those two movies is much larger than the one in QUEEN, and so it makes sense that they would put much more marketing emphasis on them. That said, more could have been done with — or any other movie, for that matter. But you have to remember that corporations aren't light on their feet; to mix my metaphors, it takes a long time to turn those ocean liners around. This is one place where I could have done a better job, by having taken it upon myself to have contacted you all much earlier. I think a lot of anxiety on all sides would have been lessened if I had. I have visited your "Australian locations" page, as it's fun for me to engage in occasional forays of nostalgia. The Anubis statues are featured prominently in the film. They are in storage in Melbourne at this time. Eventually, WB will decide whether to keep them for their very impressive museum, or unofficially give them away.
FAN INTEREST IN QUEEN OF THE DAMNED
I have two other movies that will be released within five weeks of QUEEN, and there hasn't been anywhere near the same level of fan interest in either. The films that I notice attract the strongest early interest — particularly on the net — are book adaptations, comic-book adaptations, and fantasy/science-fiction. These are the areas that seem to positively breed cults. (I was the studio executive on ALIEN RESURRECTION, for example, and was blown away by the number of people who found fault with our plot, starting with the return of Ripley).
ON USING MESSAGE BOARDS TO TALK TO THE FANS
It was my idea to answer questions here, and WB was happy to arrange it. As you might have guessed, the notion occurred to me based on the sort of questions that you (Debs) and Vampvan posted on your sites.
Our movie is not perfect, but I believe in it, and want to stand up for it. I also enjoy feeling the heat from the passion that most posters exhibit. Real life should be more like this. (Not 24/7, mind you.) I've learned something from all these posts, as well as from Debbie and Van's sites, and will be much more of an advocate of my projects in the future. Most projects don't call for the level of grass-roots involvement that QUEEN does, by the way. I have a much bigger movie called SHOWTIME opening in three months, but nobody takes it really personally, know what I mean? It's funny and smart, but it's not about... vampires.
