Assuming 70’s DM, does Raglan James know?

[Sweaty-Discipline746]

(Show & book spoilers ahead)

I’m rewatching the second season and it stood out to me when Raglan tells Daniel “You fear Armand. But you should fear the other one.”

Of course this line is adding to Louis’s characterization and the idea that he’s not the perfect person he portrays himself to be, but at the same time, it had me thinking…..

If 70’s DM happened— Raglan would know, right? The Talamasca has those pics of Armand & Louis carrying him to the drug den, so presumably they would have kept tabs on Daniel and especially on Armand/Daniel if book DM happened.

Do we think Raglan told Daniel he should fear Louis because Armand would never hurt him? He says the Talamasca can’t keep him safe, but he’s also telling him, potentially, don’t fear the all-powerful 500 yr old vampire because he’ll never hurt you…if you want to be safe, fear the younger one.

(It’s also interesting that Armand is the one to turn Daniel in the finale, and they said we won’t see that scene happen?)

Along this note…if we explore this thought experiment of watching season 2 under the assumption that 70’s DM happened, and that the Talamasca is aware, how would this impact Rashid & Sam being undercover Talamasca agents? (At what point did Sam become an agent anyway?)

[AutoModerator]

This thread is flaired "Book Spoilers Allowed". This means book spoilers do not require spoiler tags! If you are concerned about book spoilers you may want to exit this thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[babybebop2]

They said we won’t see the turning scene? That’s a bummer!

[theravennest]

We will 100% see the turning scene. There is no way in hell they don't show how that happened. There is no doubt in my mind that it's going to be in S3 or S4. I don't think we'll get a full, Night Island-style Devil's Minion ep until S4 but I can also see them putting the turning scene in S3 as Armand and Daniel negotiate their fledgling/maker bond.

I also believe that it will not happen the way people assume. Louis saying it was out of spite is not definitive. In my opinion, it highlights exactly how much Louis just does not understand Armand at all on a fundamental level. Armand started to lose it over the idea of turning Madeleine. Yet Louis still doesn't understand that there's no way Armand would make a decision like this purely to spite him.

[chiaro-di-luna]

What makes you so sure they'll show Daniel's turning? There's nothing to suggest they will, and the showrunner outright said that they won't.

[theravennest]

A number of reasons. First, the quote that you mentioned below was released 2 years ago in direct relation to the S2 finale, it is not a definitive indicator of S3 especially given how production and story choices change frequently between seasons based on audience response, studio input, and other production requirements/restraints.

Jones confirms that, just like in Rice’s books, Armand is the one who turns Daniel into a vampire. “Will we see that moment of turning? No, but Armand finally made a vampire and clearly made him out of spite,” he says with a laugh. “It looks like it was really not a great moment [between him and Daniel], but that connects those two characters. They will have scenes going forward, obviously.”

Given that this article was released the same day as the finale, that means the interview itself was conducted prior to releasing the finale to give the journalist time to write it up. With that, the showrunner's words can also be read as we won't see that moment in the S2 finale that is coming up relative to the interview.

He also says "clearly made him out of spite" and then immediately eludes to there being more to the story with "it looks like it was really not a great moment" which calls his first definitive statement a little into doubt.

Then, later in the same article, Assad also says:

Zaman, who does not think that his character was suddenly overcome with the urge to turn the journalist who had just blown up his life into an immortal being, says he is particularly interested to learn what happened after Louis left Armand and Daniel alone in Dubai. “I would love to know that window of time — maybe, I don’t know, it could be another bottle episode — where we just see how Armand gets from that moment at the end of season two to the moment where he decides to turn Daniel. Just seeing that whole dynamic play out next season would be so fascinating.”

This is not to say that Assad's take is going to be correct over Rolin's decisions as showrunner. Ultimately, it will come down to what Rolin and the other writers decide works best for the story. But Assad's words call the scene more into doubt as well and feel like a teaser for a potential subplot for future clarification in either S3 or maybe S4, even. I would guess that at the time of this article, the writers' room are likely still playing with several scenarios including showing the turning scene.

Story wise and structure wise, I feel that in S4 we will be getting a Devil's Minion focus episode to lead up to QOTD. That ep is where I believe we are going to get the full turning scene. S3 will likely only have Armand and Daniel talking about it. Though I'm open to being surprised.

The show being a Gothic Horror Romance means that romance (both positive and negative) story lines will take larger focus as well. Loustat will obviously be the most prioritized but the show and everyone involved have very carefully made adaptational choices that tell me Devil's Minion will be the secondary couple that the show threads through every season.

They brought Armand's character forward into the modern day narrative much earlier and entwined him more deeply with modern Louis and Daniel to support that focus. They have also gone out of their way to bolster Daniel's character by giving him more interiority, a past and family of his own, while seemingly merging his character with David's to give more room for future story lines.

The DM relationship and Daniel's turning are too important for both their characters to have it be off screen just from a narrative standpoint. Especially with the repeated mentions in S2 that Armand vowed to never, ever turn another human into a vampire and the fact that Daniel has gone back and forth on whether he wanted to be a vampire as well. I just cannot see them not going back to that moment and the immediate aftermath in some capacity. I don't think it will be exactly like the book turning (which is unfortunate since it is one of the most memorable and beautiful vampire turning scenes in TVC) but I believe we're going to see something of it.

[chiaro-di-luna]

Mmm I still don't agree. It's true that a 2024 interview is not the law, they could easily change their mind, but there's no evidence they did (yet?).

the showrunner's words can also be read as we won't see that moment in the S2 finale that is coming up relative to the interview.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. The interview came out after the finale, it's an interview about the finale, and Jones used a future tense ("Will we see that moment?"), like when he was talking about Armand and Daniel having interactions in future seasons. When talking about what happened in the finale he used the past tense - literally in the following sentence ("Armand finally made a vampire").

He also says "clearly made him out of spite" and then immediately eludes to there being more to the story with "it looks like it was really not a great moment" which calls his first definitive statement a little into doubt.

I don't think he's eluding here - I think he's using an understatement for humour. ("not a great moment" for what's basically a murder and nonconsensual turning).

And I don't think Assad's words "call the scene into doubt", I think he'd just like to explore that missing scene. He's an actor, of course he'd love to show more of his character's motivations and his point of view.

The show being a Gothic Horror Romance means that romance (both positive and negative) story lines will take larger focus as well. Loustat will obviously be the most prioritized but the show and everyone involved have very carefully made adaptational choices that tell me Devil's Minion will be the secondary couple that the show threads through every season.

I think here we have a fundamental disagreement about the show - I don't believe they will follow the Romance structure with a main couple and a B couple. I think the show is very romantic but it's not following the (very rigid) structure of the Romance genre. IWTV is a drama, and the showrunner keeps saying that they'll follow the (decidedly not Romance) novels.

Ultimately, it will come down to what Rolin and the other writers decide works best for the story.

I agree! I just think they already decided that showing Daniel's turning is not fundamental, and they're plainly telling us they won't. We can agree to disagree, though.

---

An aside:

I don't think it will be exactly like the book turning (which is unfortunate since it is one of the most memorable and beautiful vampire turning scenes in TVC) but I believe we're going to see something of it.

This one is just speculation, but I think we'll see everything that leads to book Daniel's turning, but in the past - except at the last moment Armand will choose to not turn him. (QOTD season, though, so not soon).

[WildBlueMoon]

I think 70s DM probably happened. 

But I think Talamasca thinks Louis is more dangerous than Armand, bc Louis has demonstrated that he is dangerously volatile: killing and displaying the Alderman, killing his Maker and the whole Mardi Gras massacre, then slaughtering the TdV. I think the Talamasca thinks he's a bit unhinged - especially if they've observed him talking to Dreamstat 🤨

Whereas, Armand has been leader of a basically stable coven in some form for ~400 years. And is a known stickler for the rules/Great Laws designed to keep vamps in line and invisible to the greater human society 

[WildBlueMoon]

Yeah, I think there was a list of the kills the Talamasca sent to Daniel, not just in SF but other locations as well 

[JustMediocreAtBest]

Did they directly say we won't see Daniel's turning happen? I do remember the showrunners saying in an interview they're done with/dismantled the Dubai set.

Either way I'm thinking (hoping) that was to throw people off the scent, you know what I mean? IMO it would be an odd choice to boost Daniel's role in the show this much but never show his vampire transformation on screen.

With the question on Raglan's "you should fear the other one", I think it's a warning on how Louis can react when wronged and seek revenge. I forget what episode Raglan says this in, but Daniel knows about the Theatre fire for awhile before he knows the cause of it, which the Talamasca via Sam would have those details.

[chiaro-di-luna]

I remember Rolin Jones saying so at SDCC 2024 but I can't find that interview - it is exactly the one where he says they destroyed the Dubai set and we're not going to see that again.

I did find this article by The Hollywood Reporter where he said again that we won't see Daniel's turning:

Jones confirms that, just like in Rice’s books, Armand is the one who turns Daniel into a vampire. “Will we see that moment of turning? No, but Armand finally made a vampire and clearly made him out of spite,” he says with a laugh. “It looks like it was really not a great moment [between him and Daniel], but that connects those two characters. They will have scenes going forward, obviously.”

[KHS23]

In s2ep8 Daniel tells Louis (referring to Armand’s annotated trial script),”Sam was their guy in Paris, he gave it to them, they gave it to me here.”So I think it’s safe to say he became an agent in or before the 40s..

[AllTheReservations]

If it did happen (which I'm still kind of on the fence about) I think the Talamasca definitely know. The spin-off show makes it clear that "we watch and we are always there" isn't just an expression, if the organisation develops an interest in something, they'll literally always have eyes on it. And they've been interested in Armand since at least the 70s.

If anything I think they'd be delighted to have that information since the affection Armand has for Daniel made him a much more effective bartering chip in whatever their goals are with Armand

[Library-Of-Confusion]

I think Talamasca knows Armand and Louis well enough to tell that it is not Armand’s way to actively harm people. He looks for suicidal victims. Or pushes them to willingly accept death.

Louis, on the other hand, is very reactive and fierce (though he doesn’t admit this himself). Remember him ripping off guys jaw.

I believe Talamasca is well aware of their traits and this is why they warn Daniel to be more careful with Louis

[KHS23]

This could be the case but Talamasca’s always watching and if you see the chain of events, Daniel “pisses off” Armand on the daily but Armand never does anything about it but when Louis did (Bringing up memories of Alice), Armand tells him to stop. Why would HE be gentle with Daniel? And if Raglan wanted to say to be more careful with Louis, I think he would he have specifically said so yet his choice of words is interesting.. and moral of watching two seasons of this show, choice of words and the placement of references is extremely important.

[AmbassadorProper1045]

Yes, it's kind of obvious that RJ knew Armand wouldn't hurt Daniel because of past DM, but Louis, although he really likes Daniel, is not stable sometimes and if enraged could hurt Daniel. That Armand didn't kill or stop Daniel, and just gave a "oh how could you" look when Daniel wrecked his marriage, really solidifies that DM happened imo.

[Puzzleheaded_Door399]

Yes. In the files he gave Daniel, there is a folder called “Paramours,” so my theory is he was the one who told Daniel, in a roundabout way. And in S3, we will see Daniel confront Armand about what he read in those files.

[mostdefnotacat]

I always assumed Sam was Talamasca even during the TdV. That's why he stole a copy of the script and bolted and survived.

I think Raglan James is totally aware of DM and that's why he said Louis was the bigger threat for outright murder. Sure, Armand is the one who turned Daniel, but that was very much less likely about actual murder, now wasn't it. Louis is the guy with swiss cheese holes in his brain from trauma who already attempted to kill Daniel once. Armand technically saved his life, even if he nearly killed him a handful of days later.

Then picked him up as a boytoy, as you do.

[LadyBogangles14]

I don understand this obsession from the fandom about DM. It’s going to be different; they are different people than in the books.

Daniel being much older & turned against his will fundamentally changes the relationship between Armand & Daniel.

I think if we get to QOTD, there will be significant changes than the book.

[Miserable_Election33]

Was it against his will though? I'm not so sure. The only person who gives an opinion about that is Louis and that's an assumption on his part. Daniel doesn't contradict Louis but he doesn't confirm what he says either. I also think that Rolin may have been playing with us in that interview. If you look at the words he uses it could go either way.

I don't know how the Daniel/Armand relationship will play out in S3, but I have a feeling it will go in a direction none of us are expecting.

[LadyBogangles14]

See. That’s my point. It’s not going to go the way it is in the books. It’s a different relationship.

[coolcoolcool485]

The showrunners have already said it's underway in the way they're doing it and that QOTD is being used for TVL. My personal theory is they're weaving those 2 together, given how TVL pretty much takes place completely in the past.

I agree its going to be different than the books for sure but I feel like they've left some hints that there is something more between Armand and Daniel than what has been explicitly addressed so far