Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
You couldn't make this up. Rolin Jones 'hates writing about identity' and yet has was so desperate to adapt a book that's very introspective and all about identity. This actually explains a lot about this season fixating on the rockstar part and ignoring Lestat's backstory and most of the psychological and interpersonal dimension that make up the majority of the book. Rolin saying stuff like he didn't want to include much of Nicki stuff because they already kind of hit those beats with Louis. All the character focused scenes being presented as an exposition dump. It's all about plot mechanics and entertaintment for him. Rolin literally didn't care about the actual core of the story and was resentful for having to write about it at all
edit: there is something wrong with the captcha of the contact form. I have linked another site that "Contact Us" will open into an email contact form. I'll also put this link below.
Any TV show deserves criticism; it's how writers grow and improve, but TVL deserves real fucking criticism for a lot of things. It can be really easy, however, to dip into hate mail - which will not be treated seriously by the company or show runners - so here are some tips on how to write a critical review that will be taken seriously. I recommend, even if you enjoyed this season and the finale, you write your own critical review - it doesn't need to match the examples I list below.
An email address will need to be provided for the form, so if you have/have had an AMC account, be sure to use that one. I also am unsure if there is a character limit, so try to keep the review concise and 2000 words or less.
Your goal is constructive criticism
I know, this feels like playing nice, or giving them flowers they may not deserve, but the people receiving the review will not know you participated in good faith unless you show your work. This is basic communication 101; you need to communicate that you see TVL as a work of art, and show that you did engage with the material with intent to understand. Lie, if you have to, but pure vitriol will not be taken seriously.
Before you start writing the review, identify:
1 or 2 CREATIVE decisions you liked. This could be actors, costume, set design, original content, dialogue, music, ect. These are things that make the work artistic. Map them out, and treat them seriously: for example, I really liked that the gift to walk in sunlight is a skill that can be taught, and doesn't come from age.
1 or 2 ADAPTIVE decisions you liked. This could be how they condensed something satisfyingly, an ambitious change that you think was compelling, character choices that surprised you, ambiguous details that have you thinking, or things you thought were interesting and were disappointed they did not explore more. Adaption is an art, so let them know how the art impacted you. For example: I really liked the choice to have Magnus be depicted in a music video first, and return as an aggressive and haunting muse. I think it was extremely effective, and I would have liked to see more music-video style narration.
1-2 points of strong criticism. It is easy to dogpile on a whole bunch of flaws, especially when you are irritated, upset, disappointed, or disgusted. Take a deep breath, and make sure your criticisms are substantial. I think everyone who reads this post should make one of these points reference the offensive and poorly framed racialized dialogue, and the striking and hurtful orientation of Louis as a character punished by the narrative.
The conclusion should include actions you wish to see taken to prove the creative team has considered and respected our critique. One or two requests are enough, and I will share my example at the end.
Once you have clearly identified your points, you can move onto the next step
Organize your points
Part of what makes a successful critical review is how it summarizes and analyzes a text's strengths and weaknesses, which means you won't just be writing bullet points. In academia, this would be an introduction and paragraphs based around topics abc, but we don't have to do that. These will be organized into "sections," but that's more to prevent rambling than to grade you. I'll include examples of what I would say, but don't be afraid to use your own voice and just use my words as inspiration.
I'll give you guys 3 methods you can choose between:
Concerned Viewer
If strong criticism scares you, this is a good option.
Start with a short introduction using casual language: "Hi, I am a fan of AMC's Immortal Universe, and I wanted to reach out to share some concerns I had watching the latest season of 'The Vampire Lestat.'"
Next, mention one of your negative points, and follow up with a positive point: "When watching the adaption, I was struck by the realization that ___. This disappointed me so much, because the story and themes could have added so much more to the world and characters, but I don't feel ___. I was happy that some elements made it through, such as ____. I would have loved more moments like this."
The next section should be this, but reversed. Start with a positive point, end with a negative point: "____ really stood out in their performances this season. ___ and ____ stuck with me for days after I watched. I was, however, distracted from complete enjoyment because of _____."
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with: "I would love to continue to watching The Immortal Universe franchise, however I do not feel comfortable returning to the franchise unless these criticisms are taken seriously. Thank you."
Analyst
This is a good structure if you have very precise critiques that extend beyond surface-level impact that you want to convey.
Start with a strong overview of your impressions of the season. Briefly address one good point and one bad point. You will return to these later: "Dear writers and producers of 'The Vampire Lestat,' as I have tuned into this season weekly, I found myself increasingly dismayed at ____ which damaged my enjoyment of ____ and I wanted to convey my impressions to all concerned parties, to avoid a repetition of this experience."
First section should include your weakest points. You're leading them into the criticism. It is good, also, to describe what story-telling elements you were paying attention to: "I was most excited to see the portrayal of ___ to explore the themes of ___. I was, however, distracted by ___, and found my attention torn between enjoyment and confusion."
Next section should hit your most appreciated moments, but why the flaw you chose made this feel lacking, despite your appreciation: "I was most impressed by ____ which landed with me in ways I didn't expect [fill in details]. However, the ____ were not only distracting, they completely circumvented my deep appreciation for ____ [fill in with details].
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with: "I am disappointed in the result of this project, despite how interested I was in the story being told. Unless these points are seriously addressed, please do not consider me to be a returning viewer."
Offended Viewer
If you cannot find it in yourself to be polite or logical, you are not a problem. There are ways to structure your argument to convey that emotion without having to "play nice." This will be if you can't seriously commit to the positives from above, but you should still mark things you COULD have enjoyed if the other things didn't ruin your experience.
Start with a direct address (don't name names - yet.), and then give a summary of your issues: "For those at AMC who take criticism for 'The Vampire Lestat,' I have some things that need to be said. ___ and ___ were flaws of the project that ruined my enjoyment, and taxed by emotional and intellectual well-being because I tried so hard to give this adaption a fair chance."
Next section, start with the creative/adaptive things you were looking forward to, and then transition into the moments/episode when you realized that they disappointed you. If you can name the scene, do so. Precision will get you everywhere.
Next section is when you really beat the drum. Name head writers of the episode that pissed you off, detail 2 or 3 moments that you cannot in-good-conscience accept as art, and then provide the summary of what the show seemed to tell you while depicting these things. Tell them what the story impressed on you, because a message delivered ignorantly is still as painful as a message delivered intentionally. Make sure they KNOW what you took from the story.
-- I will address the conclusion under a different header --
End with your earnest disappointment and frustration, and what guided you to this show in the first place: "I expected to enjoy this season. I wanted to respect the changes and experimental approach. I wanted to see ___ and ___, but I did not enjoy it, and my opinion of the project is forever changed because of it."
Conclusion and Action
I put this under its own header because any activist will tell you that you get the most reward out of being united, and if our demands are the same, or are similar, we are more likely to see the results we want. Giving them actions to prove they have listened will also tell the audience if it's worth it to tune into the next season.
You can shift this to be in your own words, with your own criticism. You can even choose different actions. This is just my example, to help you see exactly what I mean.
I do not expect to find myself returning to 'The Vampire Lestat,' unless I have proof that the criticisms I outlined here have been heard and understood.
First, because of the failure of the narrative framework to build a substantial critique of racism -- that included racially offensive dialogue and insults directed at Black characters -- I will not return to The Immortal Universe unless two or more Black writers are hired to share their voices in the creative space. I do not trust the creative team to further address the topic of anti-blackness without them. Second, I request a public and published acknowledgment of the creative missteps, and the insult they have given, so that I have evidence that the creative team is interested in audience feedback.
I know some people are probably not interested in returning and I get you, but I encourage you to lie anyway. Executives speak in numbers, much to my absolute disdain, so if they know they could do something to get you BACK, they will have more incentive to actually do it.
So lie: lie for the fans who want to return, for the actors who want to return, for AMC to treat us seriously, and because it's fun to give a little lie to people who won't be harmed for it. Does AMC really deserve our total truth?
You can screenshot this post, share it on other social media platforms, discord groups, group chats, whatever you need. You can do it without crediting me. Just get the word out there, so AMC's creative team is aware of the impact of their massive fumble of the season.
This isn't about personal taste, it's about solidarity and refusing to accept anti-black writing without calling it out.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
So was the additional gratuitous Louis torture meant to be a cute little callbk to this? Bc if so, the writers should maybe die. Idk. Probably didn't need to show something like that when you have already shown that you know the exact context of racialized violence behind it and why it's fucked up, but okay. And for why? (I know why. The answer is racism. It's almost always racism).
That line in S1 is a reference to the 1811 German Coast Uprising. Americaâs largest slave revolt, which was in Louisiana along the river road known as the âGerman Coastâ because of the number of Germans who settled there. 100s of enslaved people participated in this revolt.
It just so happened that this was the location of the Pointe du Lac plantation in the books, and that Anne Rice based the story of Louisâ slaves revolting against the vampires on that historical event (she used a lot of real-world historical events as inspiration for analogous events in her novels).
Anne had Louis murder his overseer and appoint one of his slaves (Daniel) as the new overseer. Daniel (not Molloy) turned out to be very clever and good at the job, but he figures out that Louis and Lestat are vampires and leads a rebellion they end up having to flee from. The real German Coast uprising was led by Charles Deslondes, an enslaved man who was the overseer of a plantation.
Unlike many of the other leaders, Charles did not get decapitated. Instead, he was dismembered, shot, and burned. Many of the other leaders had their heads put on pikes and displayed along the Mississippi River as a warning to future would-be rebels. There is a memorial to them at the Whitney Plantation - a closed garden in which silence must be observed.
people focusing on the writers feeding them with âtransfem lestatâ while ignoring the vehement antiblackness they're putting the black gay man through kinda perfectly encapsulates the priorities of white queer fandom
also this is a secondary concern compared to the pervasive and gleeful antiblackness on the show, but lestat's line in s3ep7 that feeds into transfem readings feels like another example of this season going for "tell, don't show" and expecting fanon and fannish interpretation to carry the weight of what they aren't depicting onscreen. the s1ep7 marie antoinette drag scene is one of my fave in the whole show- and i mentioned before s3 aired that after rolin cited rocky horror and hedwig and the angry inch as s3 influences back in 2024, the lack of rockstat drag onstage felt like a glaring omission and was possibly tied to amc's corporate queerphobia given the obvious double standards in how they depict m/m and f/f v m/f intimacy. if the show wanted to make the idea of lestat being genderqueer or some form of transfeminine firmly canon, we could've seen a whole arc play out in s3 especially with gabriella coming back into lestat's life. imagine if drag was a consistent part of rockstat's look and stage performance, and esp around gabriella he insisted it was all for show, meaningless, he was just clowning, and as her control over lestat's music career and lestat himself increased we saw her steering him toward more conventionally cismasc presentation...and then we got hit with the quiet honesty of the line where lestat admits he does wish he was a woman sometimes as a resolution to a season-wide narrative that's primed for further exploration in s4. (this would also be in the hypothetically well-written s3 where lestat faces what he did to louis and claudia more firmly too, instead of 6-7 eps of wheel-spinning and darvo, and safe to say he would not be saying this to the apparition of louis' brother come to comfort him while louis is being tortured). they could've pulled on late 18th century ideas of gender that would've been formative to lestat (male performers performed fem roles then too- show him playing a woman when he was human and having a euphoric experience, show him interested as a child in the markers of femininity and womanhood that gabriella possesses and she rejects etc) being gnc/genderqueer/nonbinary/transfem/gnc (whatever your interpretation of lestat is) in 18th century france and then the early 20th century new orleans and then north america in 2025 are extremely different- your lead is an immortal vampire who's lived through all those eras, explore that.
but instead of doing any of that, instead of engaging with lestat's gender in any kind of arc, the show adds a throwaway line (in a season of throwaway lines) that can be interpreted depending on viewer bias as 1) lestat genuinely expressing some yearning for womanhood and being trans canonically or 2) still-cis lestat just saying he wishes he and louis had a heterosexual relationship to begin with bc it would've made their lives easier- like even though their relationship would've still been illegal if they were a m/f couple, they at least would've had paul and maybe the rest of the de pointe du lacs' acceptance- and plenty of casual viewers are gonna walk away with the 2nd impression. (and speaking of the de pointe du lacs, louis mentioning he was molested is another one of the throwaway lines with paradigm-shifting impact that the show doesn't care to explore in any depth- why bother developing things onscreen when fans will do the work for them and praise the writers as genius for hinting at depth instead of portraying depth onscreen??)
so many choices this season feel like the writers checking off boxes to confirm fan theories bc they seem cynically aware that a lot of people are watching the show less out of care for good storytelling but more to "win" whatever stan or ship war they're personally invested in. they're lines and moments meant to be screenshotted and shared on socmed for the fandom to talk about, pithy quips that can fit into 1-2 screenshots in subtitles and reposted with more pithy quips. the show doesn't care to explore lestat's gender in any deeper form but it does want fans losing their minds over some form of trans lestat being confirmed (with plausible deniability bc amc is the queerphobia network now)- the show doesn't care to explore devil's minion in any deeper form or show how armand and daniel started plotting together but it does want fans losing their minds over past devil's minion being confirmed, etc.
and this is only if you try looking at the arc (and lack thereof) of lestat's relationship to gender in isolation- when you put it back in the wider context of this episode and this season's antiblackness and the nonblack writers' choice to have paul's spirit (even if he isn't meant to be "real" or at least not represent paul's real thoughts) praise and comfort lestat while louis gets graphically tortured by his lynching director in the same episode. (and the white showrunner has already admitted he felt more for armand than louis in that scene and claimed the "apology" louis was coerced into via torture to be some kinda real moment of understanding, rather than louis doing what we saw him do in s2 and try to appease armand when he's helpless and armand holds his life in his hands.) like with the merrick scene in s3ep6, it doesn't matter what in-universe rationale for these choices are, it doesn't matter whether any of this gets revisited or recontextualized with "oh ghost claudia was lying just to hurt louis' "oh paul's spirit wasn't even real" "oh we were totally tryna critique armand's violent antiblackness" bc the problem here comes down to the nonblack writers' decisions and the choices they made in the real world when crafting this story. this show has had a persistent problem since s1 of depicting the onscreen brutalization of black bodies with far more vividness than it does nonblack bodies, and if a nonblack main character is doing the brutalization (lestat, armand) you aren't supposed to hold it against them or expect these choices to have longterm narrative consequences- the camera lingers on claudia and charlie's charred and "melting" faces as they burn but when daciana, nicki, magnus, bruce, antoinette or madeleine are burning, the camera's far quicker to cut away. and this is a deliberate choice- they weren't just pointing the camera at people spontaneously combusting, they had to allocate an effects budget and invest time and energy into showing black bodies burning with graphic detail. they had both delainey and roxane in the vfx makeup chair for their characters' murder scene, but only claudia's death was shown vividly while madeleine burning was a few brief seconds of ash scattering away.
and i simply can't enjoy any form of this "jangling keys in front of the fandom to validate popular interpretations/ships/theories" writing bc it's such a cynical bid from writers who want and expect their viewers to be satisfied with crumbs that we build elaborate headcanons around instead of expecting any form of depthful storytelling or care from them, especially when it comes to their black characters. fans being content with the show just going down a checklist to validate or debunk specific theories and fans not demanding anything more of the writers than perfunctory expository dialogue is exactly what this writing team is counting on.
also theo is right bc if your only reaction to people criticizing the nonblack writers' choices is to be like "neener neener femstat canon" (black folks critiquing the antiblackness and sharing their reactions to the show depicting this level of gratuitous racialized violence toward black bodies have already received comments along those lines) when that has nothing to do with the antiblackness being discussed here, that's ghoulish. like read the room
crossposting this here- life got in the way for both @reticentvampyr and me so we had to delay our plans for this but it'd still be a cool idea to do a louis and claudia/jacob and delainey appreciation week to fundraise for a charity supporting black dv survivors. channel this energy into some material good yk
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
the other problem with lestat's hateful backlash to louis in tvl and the lack of any kind of proper contrition arc for what he's done to louis and claudia is that even if the show does have him regretting what he's done and apologizing to louis again in s4 or later, after s3 it's just gonna feel like another phase in the cycle of abuse- "lestat the vulnerable becomes lestat the irritable becomes lestat the controlling". lestat was seemingly contrite in s2ep7 when he apologized to louis for dropping him, lestat was seemingly torn up in s2ep8 when he expressed heartbreak at louis hurting himself, but all of those moments are rendered meaningless (or at least only reflecting a kind of fleeting self-pity more than any real change or confrontation with his actions) since we've seen in tvl that lestat is perfectly willing to embark on a planned, multi-month darvo tour where he insults louis repeatedly and makes fun of his suicide attempt in his lyrics (bye any ounce of sincerity in the reunion scene) and bitterly nitpicks minutiae like his hair length while refusing to accept what he's done to his family...and then he and louis are on good terms again without any substantial change or growth on lestat's part. and no "he didn't really mean it, he was just lashing out bc he felt hurt and thought louis didn't love him" doesn't rationalize a multi-month darvo tour when "he felt slighted and was acting emotionally" is the crux of so many abusers' behavior. even if lestat was acting impulsively, that's not an excuse, but writing music, organizing a tour and performing those songs where he mocks his own abuse victim for speaking out requires a kind of planning and intent that makes it clear he wasn't being impulsive. it's a calculated move when you're doing it for that long and that consistently. if there had been some real emotional payoff in s3ep7 i could've said the execution was off but i could respect their commitment to exploring the psychology of an abuser in denial, but there's no payoff- it's clear they thought lestat's behavior on tour was just lestat being bitter and zany and cunty and didn't intend or expect the audience to see any weight behind it.
and with these same anti-survivor writers at the helm, even if they did attempt to show lestat apologizing to louis in s4 or beyond, the audience will have no reason to believe or trust that this apology is more sincere or reflects a more permanent change than the apology in s1ep6 or s2ep7 or his tears for claudia in s2ep8 given all of that fell by the wayside as soon as lestat felt "wronged". (and no, he wasn't wronged by louis when it came to the book, as louis isn't responsible for something that was published against his consent and it's not wrong for abuse survivors to talk about their experiences in a biography. the idea that the book is something louis had to apologize for or that the book justifies lestat mocking his own victims publicly, for months- they can't "oh lestat is a creature of impulse" their way outta that one- in itself exposes a kind of anti-survivor thinking, and we have no reason to believe this team of writers, with their unserious attempts at "comic relief" about incestuous abuse, complete disregard for louis and claudia as victims and voyeuristic, gratuitous framing of racialized black suffering think otherwise.)
claudia (back when there were some black writers with input on her writing and back when she could express herself in her own voice- not the way they depicted her in s3 as a mouthpiece for ooc antiblackness filtered exclusively though her white father's pov and written by nonblack writers) was 100% right and remains validated 80 years after her murder. the unintentional message of s3 is that louis and lestat haven't changed and lestat will always be a mercurial abuser who swings between hurting louis and performative self-serving apologies that lead to no real change, and louis will always take him back despite his cruelty. except even in s1-s2 when lestat was fully a narrative antagonist i believed he loved louis, that we were seeing the nuanced portrait of how love and abuse can exist within the same relationships and love doesn't "cancel out" abuse, but now lestat's love feels like an informed attribute that they have to bring a hallucination of paul onscreen to tell us about since it sure as hell isn't demonstrated in lestat's behavior for the vast majority of s3- the way lestat acts in the front half of the season, followed by complete lack of contrition for either what he did in nola/paris or what he did on tour, makes their reunion feel unearned, rushed and insincere. and beyond the antiblackness and anti-survivor rhetoric, the writers have just gotten lazy- loustat is scripted this season as if the writers thought could take for granted that the entire audience is already invested in them, that everyone already wants them back together, and they don't need to put in the work to get viewers onboard with their relationship and get people invested again. and to be fair, this isn't a problem unique to loustat this season- all romantic relationships in tvl get the "tell, not show" treatment and all their important development beats take place offscreen, which makes me think the s1-s2 writers they fired were pulling the weight of most of the romance writing (just like the black writers they fired were clearly pulling the weight of louis and claudia being framed with any compassion whatsoever).
the only thing remotely compelling thing left about loustat's romance is sam and jacob's chemistry, and it's telling that all moments of genuine intimacy and desire between them this season were unscripted and added by the actors (the comforting hug on the sidewalk, louis savoring lestat's blood in the beer etc). the problem isn't that loustat is a bad or "toxic" romance, the problem is that loustat is a badly-written and unearned romance. and as of the end of tvl the actors are its only saving grace.
Call to Action - Reporting Anti-Blackness in The Vampire Lestat (2026)
I'm not tagging this as "tvlcritical" because this issue goes beyond audience or critic opinions of AMC's The Vampire Lestat (TVL) also known as Season 3 of Interview with the Vampire. This isnât a difference of character perspective, tone, âimmoral charactersâ, âgothic fictionââthe writing in the "Montreal" episode is blatant hatred for Black people.
What happened?
The episode titled "Montreal" aired on Sunday, July 12, 2026 with Kevin Hanna and Ryan Kattner credited as writers; the rest of the writer's room consists of Rolin Jones, Hannah Moscovitch, Jonathan Ceniceroz, Anusree Roy, and Daniel Hart. There are zero Black writers on TVL.
3x06 is violently and proudly anti-Black, full stop. The language written and greenlit by AMC was racist, full stop. The Black actorsâJacob Anderson, Delainey Hayles, and Sarah Affulâare not responsible for the script written by a non-Black writer's room. These actors work in a deeply anti-Black industry and have to navigate the ever-present threat of being fired and/or blacklisted for any "flaw" in their performance and conduct on set/in promotional materials or events.
There is zero excuse or justification for the anti-Black language used in TVL to date. We cannot allow this hatred to be met with silence.
What can I do?
Report this episode to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Hollywood Bureau which specializes in anti-Blackness in television and film. Important details to include is the writers, episode release date, and the racist material in question. All of this information is available under the cut.
Emails to the NAACP should be addressed as "ATTENTION: Report, Hollywood Bureau" and sent to [email protected]
Emails to AMC can be sent to three TVL-specific Public Relations contacts:
The choice is yours, but I will personally be copying the AMC contacts on my email to the NAACP. This is a serious matter and it needs to be treated as such.
Many thanks to another concerned fan for pulling contact info together for the NAACP and AMC <3
AMC Networkâs âThe Vampire Lestatâ (2026) episode titled âMontrealâ aired on Sunday, July 12, 2026.
Credited writers are Kevin Hanna and Ryan Kattner. There are zero Black writers on staff for "The Vampire Lestat".
The "Montreal" episode included the following language:
00:44:24 - "'Cause there's a little etching on your ribcage says you're a 'slave'."
00:45:10 - "Get this into your nappy little head."
00:46:08 - "How I ginned up the train for the slave, here."Â Â
00:47:27 - "The one good thing in my bleak, Black life."Â
EDIT - reposted because I had reblogged the wrong version previously with the other concerned fan still tagged. The rest of the post is a copy of the earlier reblog.
The NAACP contact is for their Hollywood Bureau which focuses on advocacy for Black representation in film, television, etc. and for employment in front of and behind the camera. The contact instructions shared to report the antiblack language in 3x06 is for the appropriate experts within the NAACP.
If a renewal is in the works for TVL, and it appears that one will be announced due to the SDCC 2026 panel, AMC needs to see that staffing an entire writerâs room with non-Black writers again is not acceptable. The next season will likely focus on Akasha and itâs critical that AMC hires Black writers; the bare minimum they can do is hire sensitivity readers.
Investigating racist filmmaking practices and advocating for racial equity is the kind of work that the Hollywood Bureau specializes in. The last thing I want is for any of the Black actors or Black crew members to lose their jobs. What I do hope for is that Black actors and Black crew members are in an environment that respects their identity and doesnât write material that theyâre obligated to answer for because theyâre under contract.
Also, I donât take any issue with Claudia being angry at Louisâshe has every reason to be and deserves to have a voice in a story that speaks for her. Thereâs a concern when a non-Black writerâs room includes Louisâ race but excludes Lestatâs when she expresses anger at both in a scene.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Qualityâ Free Actions
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Call to Action - Reporting Anti-Blackness in The Vampire Lestat (2026)
I'm not tagging this as "tvlcritical" because this issue goes beyond audience or critic opinions of AMC's The Vampire Lestat (TVL) also known as Season 3 of Interview with the Vampire. This isnât a difference of character perspective, tone, âimmoral charactersâ, âgothic fictionââthe writing in the "Montreal" episode is blatant hatred for Black people.
What happened?
The episode titled "Montreal" aired on Sunday, July 12, 2026 with Kevin Hanna and Ryan Kattner credited as writers; the rest of the writer's room consists of Rolin Jones, Hannah Moscovitch, Jonathan Ceniceroz, Anusree Roy, and Daniel Hart. There are zero Black writers on TVL.
3x06 is violently and proudly anti-Black, full stop. The language written and greenlit by AMC was racist, full stop. The Black actorsâJacob Anderson, Delainey Hayles, and Sarah Affulâare not responsible for the script written by a non-Black writer's room. These actors work in a deeply anti-Black industry and have to navigate the ever-present threat of being fired and/or blacklisted for any "flaw" in their performance and conduct on set/in promotional materials or events.
There is zero excuse or justification for the anti-Black language used in TVL to date. We cannot allow this hatred to be met with silence.
What can I do?
Report this episode to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Hollywood Bureau which specializes in anti-Blackness in television and film. Important details to include is the writers, episode release date, and the racist material in question. All of this information is available under the cut.
Emails to the NAACP should be addressed as "ATTENTION: Report, Hollywood Bureau" and sent to [email protected]
Emails to AMC can be sent to three TVL-specific Public Relations contacts:
The choice is yours, but I will personally be copying the AMC contacts on my email to the NAACP. This is a serious matter and it needs to be treated as such.
Many thanks to another concerned fan for pulling contact info together for the NAACP and AMC <3
AMC Networkâs âThe Vampire Lestatâ (2026) episode titled âMontrealâ aired on Sunday, July 12, 2026.
Credited writers are Kevin Hanna and Ryan Kattner. There are zero Black writers on staff for "The Vampire Lestat".
The "Montreal" episode included the following language:
00:44:24 - "'Cause there's a little etching on your ribcage says you're a 'slave'."
00:45:10 - "Get this into your nappy little head."
00:46:08 - "How I ginned up the train for the slave, here."Â Â
00:47:27 - "The one good thing in my bleak, Black life."Â
germansingergirl
gummygunk
jacobvanloon
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
theartofmadeline
origamiaround
snowghoul
