Holy crap - I stumbled upon this by accident whilst looking for a favorite quote/clip from Interview with the Vampire (which was released in theatre's in Nov. 1994), who do I see but Stan Winston, Michael Jackson's producer for Ghosts (came out in 1996). No wonder the effects didn't look that new to me (in Ghosts) and reminded me of Interview with the Vampire! I wonder if Michael even KNEW about that movie and how these effects Stan sold to him as new had been done 2 years prior (many of them, the dancing on the ceiling, the dissolving of the body to sand/dust, all done in both films). Michael states in The Making of Ghosts that he wanted all new state of the art stuff. He also states that Stan was a long time friend of his as he worked with him on The Wiz, when Michael was a late teen and that's when he feel in love w/theatre and make-up and movie-making. For MJ fans, this is really telling.
If this were done today, all these scenes would be done with CGI and they would look a little or very fake. Practical effects are not perfect but nowadays movies abuse using digital effects and they forget how great look both disciplines working together.
Yeah, I commend directors like George Miller who still lean more toward practical effects, but are open to blending them with digital effects. Doing so really allows the film to age well.
I saw this movie eons ago and I had NO idea they used these types of effects. I believe this movie pre-dated CGI, so I am amazed how they created the ash shell. Would they still use this technique today or is CGI much cheaper and easier? CGI still misses elements of texture and reality that the “artistic approach” preserves.
It didn't predate CGI, but in those days CGI was either used to somewhat cartoonish effect (Jurassic Park being an exception that holds up), or used very subtly, like here. With the robot here, they basically changed the head and hands of the robot, and had it move exactly the same way while filming it exactly the same way each time they changed them. Then they morphed the separate takes together into one seamless shot seen in the film. A much better use of CGI that I wish we saw more of today.
I'm still trying to figure out was it Louis that realized that that image/Ideal of whatever he was holding onto in the film was no more, or was it the other Vampires who decided that that particular axiom should be burned. Interesting, the trauma doesn't happen until Louis and Claudia reach Europe. What a great film!
The book and movie are quite wonderful. The few differences between the two I actually consider improvements upon the book in some ways. Such as the way they were burned by the sun. Originally the clothes as well as the hair remained perfect, and there was nothing left of Claudia at all, just dust and hair, which seemed kind of silly to me. Like ash with a wig on top. Not as aesthetically pleasing as the film to me. That's just my opinion though.
They should have kept that Lestat puppet and put it in a Museum. They need to make the vampire Lestat movie with Tom and CGI his face to look young or maybe get "Eric" from true blood.
Yaaaassssssss... That's the bad part... 😩😩 And another bad part is, only Tom cruise who fit perfectly for Lestat.. I can't imagine someone else play that part..
In Vampire Lestat book, Lestat tells that he was tricked by Armand into making the accusation and he couldn't have guessed the consequences of his action. He didn't come to Paris to seek revenge. Armand starved him and Lestat was half delirious at that point. It was just too horrible and ultimately, whether Lestat showed up or not, it wouldn't have changed Claudia's fate, Armand was set on destroying her.
Key words "we never go to the technology before we take care of the art" damn i miss how movies were made
Seriously THE best vampire movie out there.
Agree
@@shelibeau1990 nope
@@carlosluismendez7392 yes
That ash sculpture is so unsettling to look at. They did a fantastic job.
I hadn't even noticed that it was a robot...
This film is such an incredible masterpiece.
Holy crap - I stumbled upon this by accident whilst looking for a favorite quote/clip from Interview with the Vampire (which was released in theatre's in Nov. 1994), who do I see but Stan Winston, Michael Jackson's producer for Ghosts (came out in 1996). No wonder the effects didn't look that new to me (in Ghosts) and reminded me of Interview with the Vampire! I wonder if Michael even KNEW about that movie and how these effects Stan sold to him as new had been done 2 years prior (many of them, the dancing on the ceiling, the dissolving of the body to sand/dust, all done in both films). Michael states in The Making of Ghosts that he wanted all new state of the art stuff. He also states that Stan was a long time friend of his as he worked with him on The Wiz, when Michael was a late teen and that's when he feel in love w/theatre and make-up and movie-making. For MJ fans, this is really telling.
who cares bitch
Thank you for letting us.. the MJ fans know about this ..
3:17 you will not hear that said today with film. Now their just Movies with a bottom line
I wish movies still did it this way
If this were done today, all these scenes would be done with CGI and they would look a little or very fake. Practical effects are not perfect but nowadays movies abuse using digital effects and they forget how great look both disciplines working together.
Luis Pimentel I absolutely agree with you
Tom Cruise wouldn't have allowed that to happen.
very true
Yeah, I commend directors like George Miller who still lean more toward practical effects, but are open to blending them with digital effects. Doing so really allows the film to age well.
No fucking shit. I would never have ever known that was a robot. Just wow wow wow
This movie is amazing.
The Lestat bleeding out scene remains one of the most impressive effects ever
I saw this movie eons ago and I had NO idea they used these types of effects. I believe this movie pre-dated CGI, so I am amazed how they created the ash shell. Would they still use this technique today or is CGI much cheaper and easier? CGI still misses elements of texture and reality that the “artistic approach” preserves.
It didn't predate CGI, but in those days CGI was either used to somewhat cartoonish effect (Jurassic Park being an exception that holds up), or used very subtly, like here. With the robot here, they basically changed the head and hands of the robot, and had it move exactly the same way while filming it exactly the same way each time they changed them. Then they morphed the separate takes together into one seamless shot seen in the film. A much better use of CGI that I wish we saw more of today.
Where's part 2
Thats queen of the damned.
ua-cam.com/video/cKxYa9S5Guk/v-deo.html
ANNE RICE ,,,YOU ARE GREAT,,TOM YOU ARE "THE ACTOR"
I'm still trying to figure out was it Louis that realized that that image/Ideal of whatever he was holding onto in the film was no more, or was it the other Vampires who decided that that particular axiom should be burned. Interesting, the trauma doesn't happen until Louis and Claudia reach Europe. What a great film!
Oh wow... I just realized why Christoph Waltz always looked familar to me.... he looks just like the guy who plays Santiago in here! Uncanny! :)
PrEditor237 exactly... thank u
Hollywood loves to pick familiar faces....shame really.
O. G. The fuck are you talking about? Hollywood is not a person
Thanx so much for posting this! It's too bad part 2 got taken down, but I'm glad they left what they did.
The book and movie are quite wonderful. The few differences between the two I actually consider improvements upon the book in some ways. Such as the way they were burned by the sun. Originally the clothes as well as the hair remained perfect, and there was nothing left of Claudia at all, just dust and hair, which seemed kind of silly to me. Like ash with a wig on top. Not as aesthetically pleasing as the film to me. That's just my opinion though.
Such an Amazing
Absolutely fabulous
Please upload part 2 of this series
Tnx for posting!
They should have kept that Lestat puppet and put it in a Museum. They need to make the vampire Lestat movie with Tom and CGI his face to look young or maybe get "Eric" from true blood.
this was a great movie only bad part i wanted to see more!
Yaaaassssssss... That's the bad part... 😩😩 And another bad part is, only Tom cruise who fit perfectly for Lestat.. I can't imagine someone else play that part..
Where is Part 2?
I love that movie!!!!!!!!
ok a good film
Where part 2?
Part 2 is not available on UA-cam anymore, I had to come straight to part 3. Could you, please, upload it again?
Pity they didn't follow the book and have Lestat confront Louis at the Theatre
In Vampire Lestat book, Lestat tells that he was tricked by Armand into making the accusation and he couldn't have guessed the consequences of his action. He didn't come to Paris to seek revenge. Armand starved him and Lestat was half delirious at that point. It was just too horrible and ultimately, whether Lestat showed up or not, it wouldn't have changed Claudia's fate, Armand was set on destroying her.
Why was part 2 deleted?
favorite
Ótimo vídeo
can anyone please tell me where I can find part 2?
If you find it, let me know.
ua-cam.com/video/cKxYa9S5Guk/v-deo.html
perfect job!
Where is part 2? :'(
Where the hell is part 2????
Well, guys... where can I find the whole thing???
I think Rome is gone for good :/
The best move orinal 🔥🔥🔥🔥1 Place the Vampire move
Where's part 2?