Thankyou for saying this. Because it's 100%, and while he does get "better" or should I say more tolerable in some ways. It still is all the way to the Prince Lestat Trilogy at the end of the books, the way he was STILL on his b*llshit, after over 100yrs at that point made me hate certain parts of those books. I genuinely wanted him to just die, or be written out, like Anne did some other characters. Sam Reid literally said, that Lestat would be okay if Armand just kind of went away, and he's honestly so right for saying it.

It's a crossover that I wouldn't necessarily expect to work.... But honestly it kind of does really work!

​@@AnxietyRatWhat if Marcus and Frankie hang at the same bar as Louis and Daniel? What if Skippy's bf Arthur is Armand? Daniel and Marcus crossing journalism paths. It's endless!

I agree. I don't really think the discussion of "who's worse" or it being some sort of weird competition between the characters even makes sense here. With these characters, in regards to this whole story/world I mean. But just for the sake of the fact that it almost always seems to be brought up... Armand is "worse" than them all, and is definitely worse than Lestat. For me, it comes down to the level of 'violation' that Armands actions towards Louis has reached. Violation of his mind, his body, his autonomy and free-will, all of it... far surpasses anything Lestat has done. And then you have to take into account, intent and reason. And even just simply the sheer amount of time he's being doing it for, vs Lestat & Louis. Specifically. Which also holds true to/for Claudia. His treatment of Claudia (clearly) far surpasses Lestats, in many ways. So for me, Armand in general when it comes to "wrong" or anything remotely in the realm, is so far above/passed the rest of them, including Lestat. That it's arguably just simply not comparable... But I still think that it is wholly unnecessary to compare them at all, especially because all the circumstances are different. And it's still at the end of the day a matter of perception.

Lestat, fav war criminal 🖤😆

Naw, you're definitely wrong here. If the circumstances were different and this was just simply Louis being a little shit (which we all know he can be), then I'd agree with you. But you're dead wrong here, and here's why: First add in the entire circumstance of what Armand did (no spoilers for these reactors), and the fact that the reason why Louis is in this state, and this s*icidal to begin with, is directly because of that. Then it changes the entire dynamic of this whole situation and this whole fight. You don't do something so horrifically damaging to someone, and then turn around and think you have any grounds to stand on, in complaining. That the consequences of the damage YOU CAUSED, is now affecting you directly... Taking everything into consideration, what Louis says here is virtually nothing, to what Armand actually deserves... Now another point, without having to get close to any spoilers, is; If you chose to get with someone, while they were still completely in love with and hung up on their ex. The reality that they then will continue to be hung up on that ex, while in a relationship with you, is on you. For choosing that to begin with. You don't actively choose to get with someone, who is madly in love with someone else, and then turn around and b*tch and scream, that they're still in love with that other person. You CHOSE that. And, you don't do things like sit at home, picking lint of the sofa, then think you have any right to call foul when you're then called boring. You don't want to be called boring, don't be boring. You don't want to deal with someone who is in love with another person, then don't get with someone who is actively in love with another person. And definitely don't stay with them, for years. If you don't want their ex's voice in your head, don't call their ex up yourself. If you KNOW you're a "rebound" for a person, then DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE A REBOUND. They're both adults, Vampire or human, they're adults. You don't make adult choices, and then try to penalize the other person FOR YOUR CHOICES.

i see where you’re coming from and you’re definitely right, but i don’t think it’s that black and white, it’s a very complex situation with a lot of nuances. we know that louis has always been a shit boyfriend, and not to spoil but we also have confirmation that, after everything that has happened, he actively chose to be with armand to spite someone else (and he’s been pretty toxic since the beginning, i mean if i’d been dating a person for more than a year and he still was like “i mean we’re not companions we can be whatever we want to be we don’t have to label it”, oh i’m gonna throw HANDS.) we also know that armand is a very damaged person who is so hungry for love that he’s willing to accept any crumb of affection that louis will give him. and we know that armand did something absolutely horrible, that louis still doesn’t know the half of it, and that still he is still punishing him by being a passive aggressive little bitch. i’m not justifying the horrible things armand did, what i’m saying is everyone here sees themselves as the victim, and at the same time everyone here has hurt each other and has done horrible things. just, in this particular instance, in this particular fight, i tend to empathize more with armand, i see where he’s coming from.

@@saraandreoli3684 First of all "we know that Louis has always been a shit boyfriend" is a matter of your personal opinion, and nothing more. We've seen (been told about) a snapshot of both of his romantic relationships, and half of both have been influenced by Armand, as well as various other factors. So you generalizing that Louis is a "shit boyfriend" is based on virtually nothing and cannot be proven, given what very little we actually know to be true. But again, it's simply your personal opinion, and literally nothing more. So moving right along with your next point... You said that if you were dating someone, meaning if YOU CHOSE to continue dating someone after an entire year of him refusing to label you as his companion, THEN you would "throw hands". The toxic person wouldn't be him, it would be you. For making the choice to continue to date a person that does not view you the same way you view them, for that long, and then choosing to become violent towards them. Simply because their perception of their relationship with you, does not match yours. That makes you toxic and you the abuser. Because you had the choice, not to date them. You chose to. You had the choice not to stay with them, after years of them not matching your values, etc. You chose to continue dating. You now have the choice to simply end the relationship and just leave, as you're not getting what YOU WANT out of it, instead you choose to hurt them. So thankyou, for literally proving my point and telling me what kind of mind-set you operate with. What is actually "toxic" since the beginning, is backing Louis into a corner under threat of death, just to be "invited" inside. Making it clear that their livelihoods and safety, depend entirely on Armand getting what he wants. What's toxic is threatening the life of a Fathers daughter, to that father... What's toxic is lording a "secret" that can cost both of them their actual lives, over Louis' head, just to force him into doing things, he does not want to do. While also abusing and psychologically torturing, and threatening... his daughter. What's toxic is knowing full well that he's still fully in love with Lestat and mourning Lestat; that he's been left broken and mentally unstable, from it. And using that vulnerability as a way to get closer and to manipulate what would be considered a trauma-bond with Louis, over Lestat. What's toxic is creating a very pretend dynamic of power equality, while consistently making big shows of just how unequal the power balance is. I can genuinely keep going. But the point is someone trying everything they can to set boundaries with a person who they do not feel safe with, and do not want to get closer to. While being in the unfortunate situation where they don't have a real choice, is not being toxic. But someone consistently crossing, disrespecting and forcing through boundaries, with someone that they have very real advantage, control and autonomy over. Not letting them move at their own pace, not respecting the distance they've chose, etc. Is. Using manipulative and threatening tactics, to get things from someone who is not choosing to give them freely. Is. Armand is a very damaged person, hungry for love... so is Louis, so is Lestat, so is Claudia. It does not excuse or absolve them of anything. You literally admit that Louis is punishing Armand for doing something "absolutely horrible", something that Louis still doesn't even know the half of. By being a "passive aggressive b*tch" like somehow that's a bad thing. When Armand is lucky that Louis is so passive. Anyone ANYONE in Louis' position facing what ALL Armand has done, to them ALL, would be very ACTIVE AGGRESSIVE. And would be right, in every conceivable way, to do so. And no one is telling you not to "empathize" with Armand, you can empathize to the best of your compacity, and still be wrong. You can empathize with Armand, you can love Armand, hell you can even hate Louis... and still be realistic about this specific situation. Empathizing with a character doesn't make that character right. And it definitely doesn't make their side of the situation right. Nor does it just negate judgment and/or criticism and fair analysis of their character.

first of all, when i said that i would be throwing hands OF COURSE i didn’t mean that i would be phisically violent. i was half-joking and exaggerating to make my point, and what i was trying to express is that, even if i perfectly understand that armand is a toxic manipulative person, louis is no saint either so i perfectly understand where armand’s frustration is coming from, and i also understand that a 500 year old vampire with centuries of trauma on his back will not let out his frustration in the healthiest of ways. again, i’m not justifying his actions, he did horrible things, i’m just stating that i can see where he’s coming from and acknowledging that in this show no one is a saint. that, in this particular situation, in this particular fight, i empathize with him. as i said before they’re all mosters and they’re all victims and they all hurt each other and they all have been through unimaginable pain and trauma. that’s the beauty of those characters and of this story, it’s complex and nuanced. as for your next point, of course armand could have chosen to leave his relationship with louis, but does he seem like the kind of emotionally stable and mature person that loves himself enough to make that kind of choice? again, you’re making a lot of good points and i mostly agree with you, i just think that you have a very “black and white, good and evil” way of seeing a very complicated situation, that’s all.

I mean if you watch the show, this season and last season closely. There's actually a pattern that crops up, all having to do with Armands "rest". Louis starts uncovering memories, buried or suppressed emotions surface, suddenly he's "resting" or has to "rest". Then he comes back literally like he's been re-set. Like re-booting a computer or a phone. Louis asks Armand for the removed pages from Claudias diaries, Armand clearly doesn't want to give them up. Then, they're full on their 'honeymoon phase' play pretend, practically sitting on eachothers laps, and finishing eachothers sentences, the very next day (night). But Louis never does get those pages, and never asks again, why is that... In ep 2, Louis has that moment remembering the letter from Lestat, which clearly jogs up intense emotions from him, then come the next episode he's "resting" for the exact amount of time it takes Armand to tell his self insert fanfic, and wakes up just in time to say the line "Lestat was, is and will always be, for Lestat". In my opinion, it's another of those implanted lines... Louis and Armand have a crazy loud screaming match fight, over the photos put in with Louis'. Then the very next time you see him, he's back to being all anime star eyes at Armand, overly besotted and in love, with Armand, the entire fight seemingly completely forgotten. I mean even go back to Ep 1, when Louis is telling of him and Claudia traveling Europe, and Louis starts actively correcting the story and remembering things he didn't previously remember. Armand tries to intervene, and what does he advise Louis go do... "rest". And it's so out of place, that even Louis looks at him like 'wtf why'. He's not an invalid, he's not a patient in a psyche ward, with Armand being the orderly or nurse. So why whenever Louis starts uncovering things, and getting close to the truth, do we either see him resting, or does Armand step in and try to get him to?? I would bet legitimate money, that he has to do that, have Louis in that "rest" state (something that is directly from the book), in order for it to "stick". Especially with Louis having Lestats blood, age adding to his growing power, and periodically drinking Armands blood. I would love to be able to see how many SanFranciscos Armand had to erase and re-write over the years. Just to keep Louis with him all these years.

All Vampires are serial killers, as they all tend to develop essentially eating patterns. Lestat becomes pretty much Dexter for a long time, Louis turns into sort of an 'angel of mercy' serial killer, etc. But I hate so much when people compare him to Jeffery Dahmer, as it's just not accurate. Dahmer drugged his victims drinks, without consent or knowledge of his victims, then SA'd them, sometimes over a period of days, before killing them. Sometimes after killing them. Then he mutilated and cannibalized most of them... Louis "invited" drug addicts back to his place (full consent) then offered them drugs, again consent. Had consensual sex with them, as that was part of the consent in going home with him. And THEN he ate them. The only part of that that even remotely resembles Dahmer is that drugs were present at all, and the killing. There was no SA, there was no mutilation or psychological/physical, mental or emotional torture. They were not "underage" or non consenting (to everything but the killing of course). Drugs were offered, not slipped into their drinks or forced on them. A more accurate description, would just be that Louis himself became a Vampire drug addict, for a time.

@-Arkin33 I know what Dahmer did and how he did it. I was not saying that they were exactly the same. Just that Louis had a pattern of behavior that included killing young gay men. They were both predators that preyed on the gay male population of the city. I wouldn't exactly split hairs about whether or not Louis got their consent to being drugged or having sex, since he was way more powerful than they were being a vampire, and they had no power of their own or chance of survival once they were with him. Like I said, all vampires kill to survive. Some kill randomly, or might look for people that meet certain criteria. Louis had a certain pattern or ritual of taking young men back to the apartment, getting them high, having sex with them, and draining them. That is an M.O. It's serial killer behavior. Louis killed for decades before developing this pattern. He developed this pattern at a certain time of his life.

@cullenarthur8879 Right, but the comparison cannot be made to Jeffrey Dahmer specifically, a serial killer yes as we can all agree all Vampires are serial killers. But specifically Dahmer, especially being that he is not the only serial killer in history that targeted primarily gay men, or men I general. And hairs can definitely be "split" about consent, because like I said, everything up until the actual killing part was with consent. Another reason why it's not comparative to Dahmer. Him being a Vampire vs their human, does not automatically take away their ability to consent to going home with him, under the agreement of drugs and sex. He invited them, they consented, he offered them drugs, they consented, he offered or accepted sex, they consented. He did not torture or mutilate them... Dahmer often drugs his victims before even bringing them home, sometimes getting them to his place under false pretenses, then drugging them. Going home with him was not always consensual, drug use was not consensual, sex was not consensual, torture, mutilation, etc was not consensual. My point is that the serial killer part is comparable, as again they're all serial killers. But to specifically Dahmer is not comparable. A coffee mug is not the same thing as a wine glass, simply because they're both cups 🤷🏽‍♀️