"i hope for season 4 they —" not to be rude i don't wanna step on people's copium but there's no going back from this. there is no improving a writers' room infested by actual real life white supremacists. they pushed it this far because they don't want to go back to how it was. that production is no longer safe for anyone who isn't willing to be complicit and that complicity comes at a huge mental strain and doesn't feel very safe just look at the actors during those after dark interviews. imo the best that can be done is make the people who made iwtv what it was feel heard and appreciated and focus on supporting their individual careers and maintain a community that keeps the first two seasons up as a cult classic of queer/black/intersectional storytelling while putting the rest on blast until the whole thing is over and done and until the white supremacists in charge are never taken seriously in creative circles again. that's just what i think
I find this response to a question about audience backlash really interesting (derogatory). The TV industry is seeing countless cancellations; at times shows will be cancelled even if audience engagement is really high. It's not enough to have a dedicated fandom, you have to fully convince executives that your show is profitable. It sounds bizarre for a showrunner to include in a pitch that he believes their next season is going to cause 33% of their audience to "fucking hate it". With only 10% of the audience favouring it. How exactly is that profitable?
It's possible that Rolin is lying about this in retrospect to look smarter than he is - "I actually planned this". But let's take his word for it and believe he really did pitch S3 this way. AMC's higher ups and executives are majority rich, white, conservative Americans. In the early 2020s, they could be convinced that a queer black show was profitable when the culture was rife with performative activism / liberalism. In 2025, after the cultural pendulum had swung, executives were way less tolerant of minority-led shows (and it seems to be staying that way). It is believable to me that Rolin pitched the season as potentially controversial with a large part of the existing fanbase but assured that the season would target another demographic. To executives, it is more profitable to alienate a majority black and queer audience than it is to please that niche fanbase.
I can believe this because TVL does exactly that: it alienates their non-white, queer audience in favour of a white, non-queer one. It alienates their "less profitable" niche and seeks out a "more profitable" majority. Race commentary and intersectionality is swapped out for the brutalisation and "humbling" of black characters. This makes a racist white audience more comfortable. Queer romance is faded into the background in favour of Gabriella and Lestat's explicit scenes and wlw kisses for the male gaze. This makes a homophobic straight audience more comfortable. IWTV's more left-leaning political positioning is dropped in favour of a more centrist stance with conservative dog whistling (e.g. Elon Musk bobble head). This makes a more centrist / conservative audience more comfortable.
Rolin acts like TVL is so incredibly radical and risky when it is nothing but cowardly. This season will only be revisited in 10 years to be looked at for what it really is: cheap, conservative pandering, racist drivel.
The horror-hilarity of Armand who said “they went mad and ended themselves” hunting his defected coven members down and shoving them into a fire with a wooden plank? Nah. Armand chopping Nicki’s hands off and then giving them back and then assisting his suicide? Pfftt. Armand punting Lestat off a tower and shattering every bone in his body because he had the audacity to come around begging for his blood after rejecting his companionship? Yawn. Armand slaughtering fledgling vampires left and right because he thinks they’re vermin? Meh.
Why would we include any of this book-canon and perfectly in character “gremlin” behavior when we could instead do racist torture porn and abuse apologia, character assassinate Armand, and narratively punish Louis because he “needs to be humbled” for some incomprehensible reason and “got off too easy” the last times he was abused and lynched? Three birds one stone, this is the gothic vampire horror show and they’re all monsters who do bad things, you just don’t get it you media illiterate dumbass! Lestat never did anything that was actually his fault btw, in fact he never really did anything at all. This is peak TV.
Something I always really appreciated about IWTV (S1&2) was its use of commentary within the narrative. There was this beautifully complex story being told of Louis' past but the narrative would often pause and characters would comment on what was just shown on screen through the interview. This commentary would help audiences process the story but it also gave us an insight into who Louis, Armand and Daniel were as characters affected by the passage of time.
In general, commentary on art cannot exist without culture. If there is a disproportionate amount of commentary, that commentary can often be mistaken for culture itself. IWTV works so well because the meat of the story is culture (the flashbacks) and the commentary is secondary to that (the interview). TVL falls flat because they have centralised their commentary at the expense of what should have been the culture.
Going into episode one, Lestat narrates "The Failures" where he retrospectively chronicles the events of 2025. It is set out that Lestat's voiceover is going to be the commentary for the season which subsequently positions the events of 2025 as the culture he is commenting on. When these events play out though, we see that Lestat is doing a documentary with Daniel where they both discuss Lestat's new musical pursuit and his past. This also acts as commentary for both the modern day story and Lestat's backstory. Lestat on "The Failures" is now commenting on commentary. What exactly is the culture?
In episodes two and three, Lestat's past is quickly sped through and the scenes do not hold as much emotional weight as IWTV's flashbacks did. A lot of the story is delivered to audiences through Lestat's voiceover coming from The Failures or Daniel's interview rather than it being shown on screen. The commentary is not an added layer that provides more depth to the flashback scenes, it is the meat of the story. Flashbacks are also used as a backdrop to enhance both Gabistat's modern day story in episode two and the Molloy interview in episode three. The commentary is treated as more important than the culture.
But perhaps that is fine. "The Failures" have positioned the 2025 story as what it is really commenting on anyway. The modern day narrative is supposed to be the creation of culture, the flashbacks were just context. However, from episode four and onwards, the modern day story mostly serves as a commentary as well. The story depicts Lestat writing, recording or singing songs that are about his past. At times, these songs play over flashbacks that have no dialogue at all. At other times, they are played at concerts to tell you about Lestat's feelings instead of showing them. Yet another framing device for commentary.
So, "The Failures" acts as a commentary for the 2025 story. The 2025 story depicts Daniel's interview which is a commentary on Lestat's musical journey. Lestat's musical journey is a commentary on the past. However, scenes that are actually set in the past are treated like footnotes. There is so much commentary that there is no room for culture. It has suffocated itself.
But what about the other parts of the story?
While the modern day story houses most of the action, it actually spends most of its time rehashing and commenting on the past. Armand's apology scenes are comments on his wrongdoings towards Lestat and Daniel. Louis' arc with grief (that had a lot of potential in the beginning) concluded with Claudia's monologue that was pure commentary on their shared past. Daniel's arc with Armand is held up by expository dialogue which, of course, only comments on their past. These scenes do not have the purpose of creating something new, of creating culture, it only seeks to steer audience opinion. It is telling you the nature of Armand's relationships, it is telling you what Claudia "really" believed about Louis. It only comments.
After all of this, with something as big as a beheading occurring, surely the season finale depicts events that aren't solely used as commentary?
In episode seven, Lestat is put on "trial" where important characters in his life detail his failings... Another commentary on his past... There is a lengthy clip montage of Lestat's life flashing before his eyes and the majority of the content clipped is from seasons one and two, when the show actually created something outside of commentary. For Louis, he is unjustifiably tortured by Armand to make amends for their shared past. Armand reads a letter to Louis which only comments on their past. Louis has to write his apologies focusing on their past. That entire sequence between Louis and Armand is solely about the events of season two.
The story hasn't emotionally progressed past where we left it in 2022, the meaning of it has only been recontextualised. Armand and Louis end up parting ways again, this time with Armand abusing Louis instead of Louis' emancipation. Louis apparently gets "closure" for his grief similar to the ending of S2, but this time the intention was to "humble" him instead of uplift him. Lestat provides a weak apology in the context of a trial, like 2x07, but fails to apologise to Louis' face and ends up being on the receiving end of reconciliation, like the ending of season 2. Audiences are still left wondering about the nature of Armand and Daniel's relationship and specifically what happened during Daniel's turning. We are right back where we started... Was this season just a convoluted way to change the meaning of the S2 finale?
TVL writers were so concerned with audience opinion that they forgot to create anything new. The layers upon layers of commentary pushes audiences to mistake that for culture, when we can feel the fact that hardly anything of substance occurred on screen. When flashbacks are discarded, when events are told instead of shown, you end up in the same place you originally started. These characters haven't been developed in any capacity, they've only been commented on.
If this is what we were supposed to take away from a character like Louis why would anyone love/like him? It begs the question what are Louis’ redeeming qualities? Why do these men continue to stay with him and obsess over him?
Original post
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this. Ultimately, I think this is all a response.
I still think Season 1 was fine. I think they knew the story they wanted to tell and approached it with open minds and excitement to adapt it. But then AMC gave them the green light to expand Louis’ arc across two seasons. Surprising but okay! And so, at least in my opinion, they did create S1 out of genuine creativity and love for the material.
But then it released and seeing how popular Loustat was, seeing people actually really like, some even love Jacob’s Louis, it made them approach S2 differently. Nobody behind the scenes was expecting for Loucob to be as loved as he is, whether people like him for himself or like him as an extension of Loustat. Even Jacob seemed to be surprised, having initially viewed his arc as a stepping stone before they’d dive into Lestat later. His shock & confusion in interviews after S2 but before they started shooting S3 was clear. He was surprised to still be brought on for in-depth interviews at all.
I wouldn’t call it lightning in a bottle. That would mean intent. It’s more like they were drinking beers in the backyard just shooting the shit before lightning freaked everybody out by zapping past the lid. While of course they didn’t plan to tell a lackluster story, I think the richness of Louis’ character was a complete accident. I think they all thought it could be perceived as good, not as fucking great.
And this is why Season 2 started us down the path of being controversial among the fanbase. And by “controversial” I genuinely mean “debated”, because people have very different opinions of it. The S2 reunion scene is heavily debated (primarily in Louis spaces) with half saying they hated it and the other half enjoying it. You have half the fanbase happy with Lestat’s apology during the trial, and half saying Santiago was right and that Lestat was too hard on himself.
Season 1 was clearer on how things were to be interpreted. While there’s definitely argument for how fans/crowds/mobs take ideas and run with them regardless of intent, nothing in Season 1 garnered as many different interpretations as the content in Season 2. I think this is because this is when the team behind the show started, seemingly, disagreeing with each other.
This is how you get “wait what was Louis’ apology to Lestat in the finale about? Was that Louis coming to terms with himself, or was that the show engaging in victim blaming?” And everyone has different POVs on it. It’s clear now, that the ambiguity behind the scene, behind quite a few scenes in S2, is because the writers themselves couldn’t agree on what they wanted them to mean.
But with all the people they’ve let go for Season 3, and the new ones they hired on, it’s obvious which side remained on-staff and the kinds of likeminded people they got to take the others’ place.
So now, in Season 3, there is no debate. There is no “hm I can see this interpretation but I can also see this interpretation….” There’s no ambiguity. This side of the team, the side that viewed Louis’ apology in S2 as Louis apologizing for ‘abusing’ Lestat, that seemed to view Louis’ charred, crumbling body apologizing to Armand as deserved punishment instead of horrific abuse, are the ones that have stayed and taken over the show.
And we KNOW debates started happening in the Season 2 writer’s room given the recent interview where Rolin briefly mentioned it, such as whether Louis asked Armand to erase his memories or if he never did. Certain things in Season 2 are controversial among fans, because the writers themselves started disagreeing on characterizations and important story beats.
So with this portion of the team let go vs the ones that were called back + those newly hired to replace the former, this is how we got Season 3. A season that is not as ambiguous as Season 2 where the writers were fist fighting when they put pen to paper. We are back to the single vision of Season 1.
Except this vision wasn’t born from heartfelt creativity and love for the material. It’s out of agreed upon resentment and shared biases. You even have the production designers of all crew members throwing in “I always liked Lestat more” unprompted when their job has NOTHING to do with character preference. Season 3 is the way it is, because these are the people who originally wanted Louis’ arc to only be compiled into a single season, and were irritated when fans kept wanting more. Whether they wanted more of Loucob or simply wanted more of Loustat as a duo.
And Rolin’s “we wrote from the gut” or “the id” and all of his sayings that they wrote instinctively lays it out that this whole mess is emotional retaliation. The writing behind Season 3 is a temper tantrum.
Not just as retaliation to Louis, but to everyone. Assad’s Armand shot through the ROOF and instantly became one of the most popular characters in S2. I’d even argue is Thee second most popular after Lestat (I’d say Daniel is the second most popular among casual viewers whereas among non-casual viewers, it’s Armand.) With DM shooting to the stars as the most popular ship among non-casual viewers. (And DM does beat out Loustat in terms of popularity when looking at the dedicated fanbase.)
But once again, this seems to have pissed That Side™️ of the creative team off after Season 2’s release. With none of them expecting Assad’s Armand to be as beloved or for DM to be as highly desired as they are. And you can see this frustration in all of Armand & DM’s “development” in Season 3.
Why Armand had less than 15 minutes total of screentime across episodes 1-6 before reducing into a maniacal villain in 3x07. Why DM’s eagerly anticipated relationship happened completely off screen, and both characters butchered so it would be intentionally unsatisfying once revealed. (And the excuse that they’re a minor / secondary relationship so they were never going to be as focused on doesn’t make sense when looking at Claudeleine. Who was still emotionally moving and well paced even in the midst of the Loumand-Dreamstat-Loustat triangle.)
The “meta” that they kept talking about in pre-S3 interviews isn’t that the writers just kept the fanbase in mind while making it, it’s that the entirety of Season 3 is a response to the fans themselves. It’s less about the actual characters that were written in Seasons 1 & 2, and comes off more as one long Twitter thread titled “My IWTV Hot Takes”
Because you also can’t say any of this was for Lestat. It’s very reminiscent to Season 2, when Lestat point blank says “I hurt Louis because I wanted to hurt him” and a portion of the fanbase shoved a pacifier in his mouth to shut him up and for years afterwards kept saying “No he didn’t mean it.” Even Samstat was reduced from a character into a figurehead.
Loucob became a punching bag, Claudlainey and Assad’s Armand were weaponized against Loucob while simultaneously reduced to punching bags too, and the writers put Samstat on the same idealized pedestal that the characters Magnus, Marius, and Gabriella are supposed to be condemned for, treating him as a concept rather than a person.
Sorry, my response turned into something else lol. But “Why would the writers write Louis this way? Why would anyone like him?” My personal opinion after really trying to understand what on earth has happened, is that no, they likely were not writing like this since S1. The season just doesn’t make sense from that POV. Everything we’re seeing right now is reactionary.
Season 1 was a story created out of actual interest, Season 2 was when the boat started to rock, and Season 3 isn’t a season at all. It’s a cokerant thread on Twitter. It’s a callout post on Tumblr. A 72-part TikTok story. It’s little more than the writers’ tantrum because fans weren’t playing with their dolls the way they wanted us to.
It has been said that Rolin apparently built the entire season around this final episode. Hannah said that this was written as a possible series finale. The season has watered down every character for the apparent purpose of redeeming Lestat but many people have stated they dislike him even more. There is no closure for fans of any character. The writers said they have backed themselves into a corner and they don't have a solid plan to get out of it. Who could all of this possibly serve? Well, it serves Rolin Jones.
Rolin has built this entire season around the concept of "failure" and instead of exploring Lestat's past failures in detail, he has centred Lestat's arc around being a failed artist. Lestat was a successful rockstar in the books and he was shown to be a successful theatre actor in S2. If anything, Lestat was consistently presented as a prideful artist - how he separated man from food. I truly believe S1 Lestat, who murdered the tenor for an offending note, would never perform cheap and meaningless music that the culture despises. Lestat's failings have always stemmed from his terrible actions. He never once failed at the arts. Where has this come from?
The decisions with Lestat's character in TVL only make sense to me if I view him as Rolin's self insert. They skipped over Lestat's past like it was a contractual obligation and made Lestat a complete shell of himself to the point he is almost never seen doing anything autonomously. He is no longer a complex character with interesting motivations for flawed action, he is a mouthpiece for Rolin's feelings around creating this show. TVL is not a continuation of the story but it is Rolin's response to IWTV.
We see this through the constant revisiting of events from previous seasons and the changing of their meaning. Louis "lied" about Lestat's scars. Claudia lied about the train. Justice for Antoinette. Lestat never loved Armand. Armand questions if he ever loved Louis. Akasha's blood made Lestat drop Louis. Tom Anderson is a fan favourite. Armand planted the Steins. Claudia actually preferred Lestat. There is hardly any story that serves as character development. It is constantly going back over every crevice of the story and dictating what exactly the audience should feel. Most of this commentary has no purpose other than to undermine what was once the beating heart of the story: it's cast of colour and commentary on race.
In TVL, Louis has been subjected to constant, often anti-black, humiliation both by the narrative and the characters around him. For a character who ended season 2 self assured and happy in himself, this arc for Louis has done nothing but regress his character to a worse place than he started. Armand has been poorly written to violently torture Louis into apologising to him for no reason at all other than to warrant positioning Lestat as the "right kind of love". Claudia has been poorly written to always have despised Louis for no reason at all other than to position Lestat as morally superior. All of this for audiences to end up not being sold on Lestat's supposed redemption. I have to assume that all of this wasn't really for Lestat's benefit. It was always about trampling on what Interview With The Vampire meant to it's audience - the majority of whom are marginalised people.
From this season, it is evident that Rolin prefers disjointed storytelling with snarky and sarcastic humour over linear, detailed storytelling with an empathetic outlook. What if the piece of writing you'll always be known for isn't the style of storytelling you want to pursue? What if your writing never made it into cultural conversation until you wrote something that is the opposite of your usual style, your personality and your politics? Would you see yourself as a failed artist?
Watching the writers contort and warp the characters I once adored into nothing but vessels for anti-black rhetoric and abuse apologia has been so frustrating and heartbreaking. But I am sure that Rolin got what he wanted by using this season as a way to work out his insecure relationship to his own art. The ending sequence of his self-insert version of Lestat looking out on a destroyed world is quite the metaphor.
After watching TVL, I believe that the philosophy of the first two seasons were supposed to be taken as a character quirk - thoughtful commentary only made it in because it’s Louis’ perspective. I have to assume that audiences were never supposed to align themselves with the moral coding of those seasons. Was the concept of the vampire cycle of abuse intended to be received as negatively as book readers received Louis' outlook on vampirism? Was Lestat's relentless irony, snark and general unseriousness supposed to be what the audience would align themselves with?
In hindsight it was my mistake for thinking the social commentary that was once the driving force of the story was genuinely the political ethos of the show as opposed to a temporary veil they would eventually remove. Taking grief so seriously and examining the moral implications of your monstrous actions was perhaps always intended to be thwarted. Maybe they didn't expect a huge chunk of the audience to sincerely connect to Louis' tone of storytelling and overall outlook on vampirism. The way tvl writers are trampling on Louis as a character and the ethics of iwtv constantly reinforces this for me.
The overall snark, cynicism and lack of emotion in this season is a symptom of the apathetic, majority white, liberal writers room. The continuation of Louis' arc with grief this season is not about uplifting him, it is about bringing him down. Louis owning the night and being companion enough for himself is apparently too "cookie cutter" and he needed to be told he has the word "slave" etched on his ribs by the one he grieves. How exactly is this closure for Louis? It is a decision that only makes sense if I believe the writers were angry with how the audience took the "I own the night" sentiment. You took grief too seriously. You examined the implications of these characters' monstrous actions. You aligned yourself with Louis' ethics and that was never supposed to happen.
Lestat's perspective is never challenged or called into question because they so desperately want you to align with him. They are so concerned with steering their audience away from caring about the cycles of abuse and towards Lestat's trivial outlook on vampirism. Lestat isn't actually an abuser, the blood of Akasha made him do it...It's a vampire thing. His incestuous relationship with his Mother is presented as abusive when Lestat was human but in the modern day it is trivialised because "it's different for vampires". Claudia apparently likes Lestat more than Louis because "he knows who he is" - Louis' attachment to "human morality" is now presented as a character flaw. This is now the show's outlook on vampirism. One that is arguably similar to what Santiago says in the trial: "I ask you to set aside your mortal biases and remember that we are monsters."
