It's funny how some people don't have a problem with crosstagging until the post is about racism. Then all of a sudden it's, "Why are you crosstagging?", "This has nothing to do with my ship." When serious issues like racism are being discussed, crosstagging shouldn't be a problem because the ENTIRE fandom needs to see it. If that's where you draw the line, then that says a lot about you.
I know this has been discussed plenty, but I saw these comments earlier, so it's still a topic, but how exactly did Sam treat Walker like shit?
Sure Bucky was very upfront with his dislike of Walker, and even recently still doesn't like him, but what did Sam do besides decline to work with Walker? What exactly did Sam do or say that equals treating Walker like shit? As I recall, Sam tried multiple times to de-escalate, and we saw Walker escalate situations. In their first sit down talk, we found out that Walker and Lemar hacked Redwing, and that's how they found Sam and Bucky. Despite that, and despite the fact that they had no new information to add, Sam still shared what he knew so far. Walker, at the end of their conversation, hits Sam with that "wingman" bit which folks like to ignore for what it is. Sam even says, "it's always that last line." During the rest of the show, Sam is as cordial as possible even though Walker isn't. He tries to pick a fight with Sam after his role in messing up the talk with Karli. Even after Walker wrongfully killed Nico, Sam tries to reason with him, but Walker escalates that situation too. At no point during that fight were Sam or Bucky trying to kill him, but Walker does attempt to kill Sam. Again, what did Sam do or say that equals treating Walker like shit?
Let me also add that Sam tried to stop Walker from getting into it with the Dora, but Walker didn't listen, and he got what he got. In the warehouse, Sam says "this isn't you, John," and "you made a mistake." Sam tried to prevent situations from escalating, and even suggested that maybe Walker could savage some part of his reputation if he would stand down, but that doesn't happen. Although, he does get a light punishment overall. Again, where did Sam treat Walker like shit?
Adding these new ones. These are from a thread talking about Reed holding Sam back. The other replies are just as annoying, but these Walker ones still make no sense. What exactly did Sam do to Walker? All Sam did was not want to work with Walker. I think he feels indifferent to Walker even though he has every reason to dislike Walker in how Walker choose to approach Sam from the start.
These are from the same person who said Sam disliked him before he had a good reason. Walker's actions are his own. If he didn't interrupt Sam and Karli's talk then everything ends there, and Lemar doesn't die. He didn't try to reach them any other way. He hacked Redwing. He had no new information to add, but he still wanted to be in charge. It's interesting that Sam isn't allowed any feelings about Walker's behavior towards him, not even just being annoyed, but Walker stans believe that is justified in everything he does.
Another round of Sam should take the serum discourse happening. šI'm beyond tired of this. It's so wild how this is held against Sam to the degree that it is. It's been established that he doesn't need it. Now, I do think he should get some powers since he does have powers in the comics. Ya know, they should just give him powers. They should just do a mix of super soldier powers and his comic telepathy powers. I know the goalpost will just move to something else because we all that he gets held to higher standards, and what this is really about.
The release of the Doomsday trailer reiterating, yet again, that this fandom, especially a lot of people claiming to be Sam Wilsonās fans, do not give one single solitary damn about the character outside of his connection to Bucky.
For months, Iāve repeatedly talked about how as long as Sam stands next to Bucky in the movie, yāall wonāt care what happens with the character, or how the Avengers name sl is resolved, or if he continues to be sidelined and disrespected by other characters (and fans), and it didnāt take 15 minutes after the trailer dropped to prove I was right. Smhā¦ a blind man couldāve seen it coming.
It's always "support people of color from other countries, not everything is about the US!" right up until you actually hold discussions about antiblackness found worldwide
Now it's, "keep your US imperialist thoughts to yourself, we do things differently here, the US is far from perfect" like I'm aware, hence why we keep on talking about it. But apparently, if we talk about the antiblackness in our own country, we disregard everyone else. So we still have to give everyone else attention, and help spread the word from Black people of other nations, but that's also apparently wrong
And it's amazing how this happens every few months with various countries
ok this is the only thing I will say on the matter but it is peculiar to see fans of the vampire lestat tv series very smugly characterise people who didn't like the show (or simply have criticisms of it) as "lacking media literacy" when the entire thing struck me as the televisual equivalent of jangling keys in front of a baby
Shout out to Black Americans for not, in fact, dying out by 2000 the way it was anticipated we would since we weren't slaves anymore and "couldn't survive" šš¾
I get in theory why people complain about het ships or whatever, I get wanting to watch queer media I really do, but I guess where yāall lose me is like. I saw some asshole on a post about Sinners complaining it was āhetslopāāthis person was specifically doing so while also claiming Remmick was a queer character and thus they were justified in caring more about him than the Black protagonists. which is a whole other disgusting can of worms that has been well addressed by others at this point. but even in the absence of that part of the argument, like, no, i actually donāt think that a hunger for queer stories is an especially good excuse to deride and dismiss a piece of landmark Black filmmaking, especially as a non-Black person. I have a post thatās been going around encouraging folks to engage with more Native stories and characters, and I had someone come onto that post saying in the tags that theyād need these stories to be queer in order to care. and I just think that, you know, sucks! like obviously as a queer Native I also want to see more of those stories too. but idk how else to put it other than to say that Black people and people of color shouldnāt have to be like you in order for you to care about our narratives and experiences. and I think some of yāall are using this disdain for heterosexuality as a cover for your unexamined racial biases. itās not okay to be racist to people just because those people happen to be straight, and you continue to be white before you are queer.
I see people arguing that the slave remarks in Episode 6 of The Vampire Lestat were a callback to the slave remarks in Episode 6 of Season 1 of Interview with the Vampire. If that's true, then it is the perfect example of why black writers were needed in the room. And I mean black writers specifically, not just "people of color." The contrast between how the two episodes handled the subject shows that.
Before I get into that comparison, I want to make something clear. I didn't like the introduction of a slave-master narrative into the unholy family dynamic. The racial implications made me uncomfortable. However, discomfort and offense are not the same thing. While I found it unsettling, I did not find it racist or anti-Black, and that's the key distinction.
In Episode 6 of Season 1, there are two instances where Claudia uses the word "slave". The first time, she is referring to both herself and Louis. She is essentially saying that they are under Lestat's control, trapped in Rue Royale, prisoners of Lestat, his slaves. In that context, "slave" is being used to describe their lack of freedom and autonomy. The second time, she refers not only to herself and Louis, but also to Lestat. She draws a parallel between their situation and Lestat's situation with Magnus. Just as Claudia and Louis are trapped under Lestat's control, Lestat was once under Magnus's control. He was Magnus's slave, and he ultimately killed him rather than continue living that way (we know that's not what happened but that's what Claudia believed). In both instances, the word "slave" is tied to a circumstance, not an identity. It is being used to describe a power dynamic: control, imprisonment, coercion, and domination. You could replace the word "slave" with "prisoner" and the point would remain intact. More importantly, the narrative makes a deliberate effort not to tie slavery to Louis and Claudia's race. Applying the same language to Lestat is what makes that distinction clear. The point is not, "Louis and Claudia are slaves because they are black." The point is, "Louis and Claudia are slaves because they are trapped under Lestat's control," just as Lestat was trapped under Magnus's. Now, viewers can absolutely be uncomfortable with the racial implications of using that metaphor in the first place. I certainly was. But I don't think anyone can honestly argue that the use of the word slave in this scenario was racist.
The writers managed to create discomfort, arguably one of their goals without resorting to anti-Black rhetoric. That's exactly the kind of nuance the black creatives involved in season 1 brought to the story.
Now compare that to Episode 6 of The Vampire Lestat. Claudia calls Louis a slave and then goes further, suggesting that slavery is part of who he is. She implies it is in his DNA as demonstrated by her saying that "slave" is etched into his ribs. Add the "nappy-headed" remark on top of it, and the conversation is no longer about a power dynamic. It becomes an attack on Louis's identity as a black person.
That is the fundamental difference. In Season 1, slavery was used as a metaphor for control. In The Vampire Lestat, slavery is framed as something intrinsic to Louis himself. The word is no longer describing his circumstances; it is describing who he supposedly is. The narrative shifts from "you are being treated like a slave" to "being a slave is part of your nature."
Those are not remotely the same thing. You cannot write a scene in which a Black character tells another Black character that slavery is essentially woven into his DNA, pair it with a racialized insult like "nappy-headed," and then act surprised when viewers, particularly black viewers find it offensive. So if those remarks were intended to be a callback to Season 1 Episode 6, then the callback was an utter failure.
What made the Season 1 dialogue worked was that it treated slavery as a condition imposed on people. What makes the Vampire Lestat dialogue offensive is that it treats slavery as something inherent to Louis. One is about oppression; the other flirts with the idea that oppression is an innate trait. That is not a minor difference. It is the entire issue. And if you genuinely cannot see the difference between using slavery as a metaphor for imprisonment and using slavery as a marker of a black character's identity, then I really don't know what to tell you.
The contrast between the two episodes is precisely why having black writers in the room matter. Season 1 showed that you can explore themes of domination, control, and power between black and white characters, while navigating the racial implications with nuance. The Vampire Lestat Episode 6 shows what happens when that nuance is absent.
There is also just that, as many of us have discussed and unless they walk it back which it doesnāt look they are going to do, they did this to suggest that Lestat was not what Claudia called him - he was not comparable to a slave master (she was lying when she called him that, actually) and in fact, he was not racist, and he was a better parent and he had a better bond with her than Louis. Literally obliterated the characterization, love, bond, and solidarity of two Black characters for this goal. Erased two seasons of incredible television for this goal. Suggested that Claudia hated being Black for this goal. Called Louis intrinsically a slave for this goal. To feed their pit of insecurity and fear of Lestat being seen as a villain - and because, of course, it is worse for a white character to be called a racist than for Black characters to receive racial abuse or be depicted as hating their own race. And yet they can never actually eliminate the context they wrote Lestat, Louis, Claudia and their family dynamic in - The Jim Crow South. Ever.
To erase accusations of racism against Lestat was also the point of Lestat and Fareed having an inane bit of cultural sensitivity training. These writers probably think that Dee Pharmaās role shows how Lestat is kinder to Black people than Louis said he was. There is also the reversal of Louis and Claudiaās position on the bus in season 1 to their position at the front of the trailer in season 3, to visually represent that they actually had more power than they were portrayed as having (then they portrayed themselves as having) in season 1.
There is also Merrickās line about Louisā money coming āfrom fleshā for us to remember that Louisā money descended from slaves. It appears that Rolinās grand plan was this: to make a show telling us that black people can also be (almost) slavemasters (which is how they justify the violence inflicted in Louis). And what the next episode will likely portray is that Indian people can also be Nazis. The only Good Person is the unfairly maligned white man. Isnāt it brilliant? Isnāt that a great way to position him as the hero among all the characters of color who need to be civilized and are attacking each other? They cut the threads of Lestatās ties to white supremacy just to end up right back where they started on a meta level.
Having Black writers was always an impossibility in order for them to achieve their cynical and racist aims.
Beyond their desire to present repackaged white saviorism and abuse apologia as groundbreaking television (when in fact, what was depicted in season 1 was far more refreshing, interesting, and provocative), they strip away the complex characterization these characters had and replace it with nothing, because we ultimately revisit nothing. We just have to imagine the alternative scenarios that they didnāt depict onscreen. I have no idea why that would be satisfying for fans of Claudia and Lestatās relationship. But I suppose, if the goal is just to make the white man right all along, they technically achieved it (in the eyes of their white audience).
