Talk:Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant

Cirque Du Freak game

Do you think that they'll make a Cirque Du Freak game in addition to the movie? Bruntie2 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that they will. There isn't any word as to whether or not there is one in production or not. 24.26.211.223 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the only game based on the film is an app for the iPod Touch or iPhone. --Irish Sylar (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

14 year old??

How do you know that darren is 14 year old? It's not mentioned in the books! --?.  The great Darren shan fan  11:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically say how old he is, but in one of the books, he was 36, but was blooded 25 years ago. So 36-25=11 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubixmike14 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rain Girl?

IMDB listed a character called "Rain Girl", played by Erika Jensen. Is this a random person, or a new freak that only exists in the movie? I believe it may be a new freak, who has "Rain Man" powers, can make it rain, can turn into rain, or control water in some way. Rubixmike14 5 April 2008

Rebecca?

What happen to the Hemlock Girl? why change that? There changing a lot of things that I used to like about this book.

Rebecca is debbie, they changed it for some reason. Rubixmike14 18 April 2008

Sam?

What about Sam! Are they going to show any of the books?

Yes, they will include him in the 2nd book. The movie is about the first 3, they just haven't cast sam yet. Rubixmike14 18 April 2008

200 truce?

What about the crap with this war between Vampires and the other vampires? That doesn't happen til further into the series.

Citations?

The line which says that Ray Stevenson is to play Murlough lists 3 citations. None of which confirm the character's name and only one of those links actually lists him as a player in the film. Shouldn't that be fixed? Or at the very least, two should be removed and the citation should refer to Ray Stevenson and not the character name. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) it starts in book 6 the vampire prince —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.2.96 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Racism

I don't know about you, but i'm getting sick and tired of everybody calling the makers of this film racist because they cast a white girl as Debbie/Rebecca. There's something you guys need to embrace, if dark-skinned girls tried out for the part of Debbie and SUCKED, they wouldn't cast one of them just because they're black. They would choose the best actress who auditioned for the part. It doesn't matter if she's white as long as she's a good actress. I'd rather have the movie be awesome with a good actress playing Debbie/Rebecca, than have it suck with an actress that looks like Debbie/Rebecca. So to be perfectly frank THE FILMMAKERS ARE NOT RACIST and if you have a problem with the fact that Debbie is Rebecca in the movie and she's white TOUGH CRAP. If you think that a white girl isn't good enough to play Debbie/Rebecca, then YOU'RE racist. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T SEE THE MOVIE.Rubixmike14 16 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

The one thing all people of all races can come together on is how awful this movie looks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.213.225 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if Debbie was black, but I just thought it meant tanned skin, but still white...cud just be me though. Lord loss210 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this story. But if Rebecca is African American (Black) in the book but Caucasian (White) in the film, I would not completely dismiss racism having had something to do with that. Surely, they could have found a good actress of the same ethnicity Rebecca is in the book. But right now in this article, Rebecca's listing has "(Not to be confused with 'Debbie Hemlock', Darren's love interest in the novels)" beside it...So maybe people were confusing something on this "race" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that it's got something to do with the story of the film, as the film is not out yet and I have not been to any of the special screenings. I do not know for certain, but I believe that in the film they do not go to Mr. Crepsley's old home and run into Murlough a different way, this means that the way to meet Debbie had to be different. Her "replacement" is an assistant at the Cirque du Freak, and is special in her own way and gives the film writers an alternative way to keep Darren's love interest. --Irish Sylar (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't see how it could be racist is a moron. And no one is saying she isnt' good enough but to tell a lie saying there are nooooo good black actresses out their is racist. If they changed Harry potter to a black kid, and said oh well we found this black boy whod play him better, im sure no one would complain right??? Not. If Cho Chang became Rebecca the monkey girl no one would complain right? NO. There was no reason to change Debbies race or Cormac limbs sex. Or Mr. Crepsleys personality. Open your eyes and realize racism does exist, you must be white being so apathetic to other races —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.88.13 (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What cracks me up is the fact that you are pissed off because the character in the book was black but white on screen and perfectly ok that she was the "monkey girl". Odds are that less than 20% of the people who watched the movie also read the books. How many of those who only saw the movie would scream RACISM the moment they saw a black monkey girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coradon (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they wanted to avoid fall out (from people that hadn’t read the books) that could’ve happen if they had cast a African American to play monkey girl!!! -Shinri 99.53.230.43 (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2009‎ (UTC)

differences from the book

I think there should be a section of this, because most book-to-movie has this section, and there is some obvious bits like in the trailer Darren asks Mr. Creepsley that he wants to be a vampire and they knock out all existence about the spider and Steve. Could someone create this section please? I can't do it by myself as I know only small differences which will just end up being removed from the article. Jonni_Boi (Talk) 13:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's only a teaser trailer, and obviously heavily edited, it's too presumptuous to make any claims of what has and hasn't changed. Once the movie is released, there will most likely be a section added to the article. En.Loss —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

It may be worth reading MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. It is possible to find secondary sources that discuss how the source material was adapted into a film. Adaptations have endless changes, so listing them without attached importance is too trivial. Also, I agree with not using the teaser trailer to back such differences. When it gets closer to the film's release date, there will be interviews with the cast and crew, where we can learn real-world context for the adaptation process. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you all now, but have you seen how long we have got left? It's september already and no one's made this, or should we wait another month's time? Jonni_Boi (Talk) 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone going to make one now? Jonni_Boi (Talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's better to wait for the film to actually come out so we know what the differences are, the stuff mentioned above about Darren asking Crepsley to make him a vampire and removing Steve and the spider are completely falsh. --Irish Sylar (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cast

Mr. Afraid of the ground man.... real or some idiot trying to be funny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord loss210 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is...

... a horribly written article. Full of errors and not up to standard at all. Can someone do some cleanup? Perhaps add an actual plot to the plot section as opposed to a premise that's written in a VERY corny way? RyanGFilm (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference to the film

The creators of the film are idiots. They ruined the books. The film doesn't have sam, debbie or Rv. It includes steve in the film, when steve doesn't enter the film until book 7 !!!!!!! Murlough wasn't fat and purple! WTF. He also came in, in the fist segment of the film. Instead of debbie there was a monkey girl. Darren sees his parents after 'dying', when actually he doesn't see them at all in none of the books! Rv is a significant character throughout the books, its total rubbish that they have excluded him from the film. They added, instead of debbie, a monkey girl. Lol that is quite ridiculous to be honest! They basically skipped the 3rd book. However the film was good. If i had never read the books then i would find the film completely adequate and would have enjoyed it greatly. I just think they disregarded the plot of the books to much, so therefor could not enjoy the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.201.14 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) i know i actually saw the movie THEN read the books even though i knew about it before i never took the chance to read it i think it is unfair that the only series that hollywood ever follows is harry potter and the twilight series which i think is CRAP! they always make the good books completely out of line of the movie so girls...er people like me would get angry!! it seems as if they are trying to make crap things a huge thing! the only reason people watch twilight is for robert pattinson and taylor lautner! i think they are good actors but the fan i mean creeps drool over guys that they are never gonna meet! i hate hoollywood because of making people wanna wanna scream in their face!! and yes i do agree they are complete idiots lunatics and murlough was purple because he drank to much blood but he was tall not fat RV is a mangy creep which means he HAS to be in the movie and sam what about him he is just a cute sparky kid you cant miss hollywood thinks small characters like sam ssince he is a kid with no important part it is actually a main thing sam is supposed to be there because he is supposed to be dead but how can he die when he is NOT THERE AT ALL and monke y girl is the lamest character EVER!

thank you for reading my letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.196.11 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

not exactly the book

ok, sorry, but I need to say this, and this was stated before the movie came out by D.S himself. The film isn't exactly the book, and nor is it ment to be. The film makers got the plot, most the characters, and made it their own movie. It's not at all like the Harry Potter movies, for example, where it is based on the books, with JKR making changes. This movie was always ment to be differant. So please can people stop getting angry about this saying the film is bad or wrong becuase it wasn't what you were expecting. I know I sound a bit annoying and snobbish here, but its not ment to at all, I'm not good at formal righting, so don't think im having a go, i just wanted to point this stuff out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord loss210 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Box Office possible error.

Hey guys I know this may seem trivial but it may have significance to the article. I was just looking at the reception section of this article, which said that the film opened in 2754 theaters across the USA, and accordind to Box Office Mojo this number did not increase (see the link [1]), however, the IMDB disagrees with the information on this article and Box Office Mojo by saying that the film opened in 3074 screens across the USA, which obviously is a larger number that 2754 (see the link http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/business). Did one of these sites make an error? If they did can someone please clarify it and make any necessary changes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor 155 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

this article leaves out important plot details

well anytime I edit somebody else undoes my edit. But the plot synopsis needs more details all throughout. For example,in the last paragraphs it says mr tiny turns the bad vampire into a little person, but it should say something detailed like "he RESURRECTS him into another little MONSTER." (as it is now revealed that all those other little monsters were created by him.) Thats just an example of the vagueness and poor word choices in the article, the whole article needs to use more descriptive and specific terms. also it should be noted that the movie doesnt really have a solid"ending", it just ends after a vampire battle, but with no real closure, really it just opens up a new tangeant. It totally eludes to their being a definate,and necesarry sequel coming.(just like the lord of the rings trilogy movies did.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080327230432/http://www.oscars.org:80/76academyawards/nomswins.html to http://www.oscars.org/76academyawards/nomswins.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)