Makeshift Vampire Lestat (photo heavy)

For a later upgrade, see HERE.

After getting and photographing Figure Masters' Vamp Lou (Vampire Louis) (HERE), even though I still have no particular fondness for or investment in the vampire genre, I decided to look into the prospect of putting together a Vampire Lestat. The biggest hurdle is finding suitable garments. Louis' were not exactly the same, and difficult to find, not to mention exceedingly expensive. For less than the price of his frock alone, I was able to get a used Sideshow Liam/Angelus, who wears approximately appropriate clothing. For the time being, I'm using that for Lestat. I put it on another body, by CooModel (since that was used for Louis), making sure it is shorter. I also got and modified a Tom Cruise head sculpt, giving it real hair and repainting it. That last part was the most challenging, as I don't seem to be able to find the right balance. I didn't like it too white and pale (although that might have been appropriate for some of the powdered period scenes), nor did I want it as tanned as the head originally came. In between, I ended up with too many brush strokes texturing the face, although the last repaint seems like a reasonable compromise. But my Lestat does suffer from some identity problems, since the character's appearance changed a number of times in the film; since I can't get the right waviness to the hair, I prefer to keep it loosely tied at the back, as in some of the scenes. Anyway, here is the current state of him; he will be getting some tighter pants and stockings, as well as a cravat, from a parted out Louis set. Technically, the figure is just a little too tall for Tom Cruise, but it is dwarfed by the overly-tall Figure Masters rendition of Brad Pitt.











































For a later upgrade, see HERE.

Looks good to me. There were a lot of complaints when Cruise was cast to play this character but I think he did a good job.

shazzdan wrote:Looks good to me. There were a lot of complaints when Cruise was cast to play this character but I think he did a good job.

Thank you very much. Even if I'm not very invested in this one, it's nice to hear. While looking up photos, I chanced upon an article which discussed how the author on whose books he is based, Anne Rice, was originally very disappointed in their casting choice, but ended up liking his performance a lot. I don't remember the film well, but I don't remember being disappointed in Tom Cruise's acting -- in fact, ever, for all that he can be a divisive character as a person.

Very nice photos! I like the mood of the photos, those lamps and props are pretty cool.

I don't remember too much of the film either, just the footnote that Kirsten Dunst was the little kid heh.

You put rooted hair on a painted hair head? That's impressive, and looks excellent!

Love those blazing braziers! Do they have a built-in light source?

I think he turned out great. The loose “stockings” are the only distracting thing to me — but you already said you have new ones coming. I barely remember the movie, aside from the horrible demise of Kirsten Dunst’s character. Never cared for these romanticized vampires myself — they’re monsters, not tragic heroes. Anne Rice forever ruined vampires for books and movies with that nonsense. Give me Christopher Lee-style vampires any day. But, as figures, these guys look pretty cool.

csyeung wrote:Very nice photos! I like the mood of the photos, those lamps and props are pretty cool. I don't remember too much of the film either, just the footnote that Kirsten Dunst was the little kid heh.

Thank you very much, I'm glad you liked them. Yep, I did remember that too. Wish there were young (and adult) Kirsten Dunst heads out there... which there ought to be, given she was Mary Jane. I guess companies aren't paying attention? Or maybe I'm not...

davidd wrote:You put rooted hair on a painted hair head? That's impressive, and looks excellent! Love those blazing braziers! Do they have a built-in light source?

Yes. Actually, I should have painted the face to my satisfaction before adding the hair. I was too lazy to whittle away at the short hair he already had. It was relatively dark brown, so I went over the raised parts with light brown acrylic marker that more or less matched the hair I added on top (the marker-colored bits are not very visible at the edges, though). Ideally, that should have been fuller, but then I should have removed the sculpted hair to avoid making it too bulky. Anyway, yes, there is a LED light (or whatever it is) powered by tiny batteries under the translucent sculpted flames. The light is not bright enough to serve as the only light source for photos -- which benefited from more light and were subjected to digital change of temperature, decreased brightness, and increased contrast. It is all written up in the Vamp Louis / Chez Louis thread linked at the beginning.

Stryker2011 wrote:I think he turned out great. The loose “stockings” are the only distracting thing to me — but you already said you have new ones coming. I barely remember the movie, aside from the horrible demise of Kirsten Dunst’s character. Never cared for these romanticized vampires myself — they’re monsters, not tragic heroes. Anne Rice forever ruined vampires for books and movies with that nonsense. Give me Christopher Lee-style vampires any day. But, as figures, these guys look pretty cool.

Thank you very much, Mark, glad you liked it. Yes, the stockings are driving me nuts -- even tried to keep them in place with double-sided tape, but of course that doesn't work well with the articulation pulling on them this way and that. The bulky and long breeches are also less than ideal, but not as much of a problem. Anyway, they will be getting changed, too. Yes, Vampires were somewhat tolerable as monsters, but the romantic stuff, which appeals for apparent and not so apparent reasons to various audiences, is beyond me. I did like Blade a bit.

GubernatorFan wrote:

Nice one, Gfan!    Had a good laugh seeing that. You need a bigger chair/couch!

rollotomasi wrote:Nice one, Gfan!    Had a good laugh seeing that. You need a bigger chair/couch!

I am totally delighted you caught the reference! Yep, but I didn't have any period furniture... this one kinda made do in the dark.

Nice makeshift Lestat, definitely works. Love all the poses and especially the mood lighting, what filter/app did you use for these anyway? It's quite effective. In some shots he appears shorter than in others, maybe it's just the looser clothing/angles - kinda reminds me of a hobbit in that last photo standing on the chair. I also think there should be a cross-over with Eddie Murphy's character from Vampire in Brooklyn, which I guess is no coincidence that movie released a year after Interview.

Great job, GF. It's impressive you managed to put this together so relatively quickly. I think the hair is the stand out aspect, despite the struggles to get it 'right'. It looks really good. And the photography is excellent, as with the original Louis pics.

And regarding the topic of 'romantic' vampires, I get what Stryker is saying about vampires being monsters and that they should at least be somewhat scary, but I don't think there's actually such a fine line (if any line at all!) between 'romantic figures' and 'monsters'. Many people (myself included) find fictional monsters to be 'romantic' *because* they are monsters, not in spite of that fact. The whole concept of monstrosity has to with 'Otherness' and creatures who live on the margins, so there's often already some inherent pathos there. (There's that famous anecdote about Marlene Deitrich going to see Jean Cocteau's La Belle et La Bete, and when the Beast transformed into the Prince, Deitrich cried out in disappointed dismay, 'Where is my beautiful beast!') And while I'm not actually a fan of Anne Rice (as either a person or a writer), I don't think she is solely responsible for the romanticisation of vampires. The novel Dracula already contained a blend of gothic horror and romance that would influence many later depictions. It's also not impossible to depict (or interpret) vampires as romantic figures (or Romantic figures with a capital 'R') *and* still make them 'scary' in some manner. I can only speak for myself, but even if a vampire is played as a straight up villain/monster, that doesn't prevent audience members from finding them to be attractive, romantic, or alluring in some way. Sir Christopher Lee might not be portraying a heroic or outwardly sympathetic character as Dracula, but being the tall, handsome fellow that he was, he still has an undeniable romantic appeal.  'Monsters' are multi-faceted creatures and can be approached from various different angles, and it's impossible to stop people from finding them appealing and from romanticising that appeal in some way. Hell, there are people who are in love with the alien monster thingie from Venom, for instance.  Writers or filmmakers who depict a more 'romantic' side of monsters aren't creating the phenomenon out of nowhere -- rather, they are tapping into something that is already there. The fear of monsters, and the fascination with monsters, goes hand-in-hand.

Great work and choice of character! Read all her books and saw both movies, the soundtrack to 'Queen Of The Dammed' is excellent IMO. I remember Lestat being quite pale with blue eyes and golden blond hair (which is why fans and the author were a bit taken aback by Cruise being cast as him but he pulled it of brilliantly IMO) so you might want to make the skin paler, not because of powder but because he's undead so his skin is a bit translucent showing blue veins too unless he has just feasted which might be nice with a bit of blood here and there to show he's a vampire. That's the reason I didn't pick up the Louis figure, he looks like a normal guy with no hint that he is a vampire, the new preorder Bela Legosi deluxe Dracula figure by Kaustic Plastic and some other company has disappointed me in this way too as he's $400 with 2 heads but no fangs! Just one serious and one smiling.. maybe it's just me but I want my 'monsters' to show they are not human..sorry bit of a rant as I saw the Legosi figure yesterday . Anyway I digress as usual, I was going to say keep a look out for the DR WHO Clockwork Man loose clothing and any Pirates Of The Caribbean loose stuff too which could be very helpful if you plan to expand on this build which it sounds like you do.

Good point about the lack of fangs on the Lugosi figure, shovelchop. It looks like a nicely made figure, but you're right, they could have at least provided one of the sculpts with fangs.

And good tips on what figures to look out for for kitbashing purposes!

Interestingly, Lugosi never wore fangs as Dracula — never showed his teeth in that regard, ever. If you want to see the best interpretation of the book Dracula, try to find the BBC production from the 70s with Louis Jordan as Dracula. The special effects are fairly weak, of course, but it’s the only version that actually followed the book damn near to the letter. Frank Finley played Van Helsing and Judi Bowker (Clash of the Titans) played Mina Harker.

Thanks for the rec, I haven't seen that version of Dracula. Will check it out!

Yes cheers! And I did not know that about Lugosi, did he have an issue with prosthetics then?

shovelchop81 wrote:Yes cheers! And I did not know that about Lugosi, did he have an issue with prosthetics then?

Aside from Max Schrek (Nosferatu), it really wasn’t until the 50s and Christopher Lee when vampires had fangs. I’m guessing in Lugosi’s case, it had more to do with his stage work. He played the role of Dracula on stage in 1927, then the “play” was adapted for the 1931 film. Fangs weren’t used on stage because they distort speech, and his accent was already enough of a hindrance for most audiences. Stage microphones weren’t a thing then, so he had to be clearly understood in the back of the theatre — I assume they just didn’t see the need to add them for the film. You’ll notice in Lee’s movies, he never talks when showing his fangs. Now, with CGI, all sorts of liberties can be taken — I’ll bet not one “vampire” over the last 20 years has worn actual fangs in a movie.

Beautiful, really love the "Next Gubernation" style of lighting and filters you use these days! The torches create great mood, combined with the golden details.

What's weird, it reads like you made this figure as some kind of comission by yourself. Like you were forced a bit even though you don't like vampires haha. Just let him be your own regular 18th century character, no one is forcing you to make some Hollywood vampire.

To be honest, I never read or watched any of that vampire stuff. Never understood the appeal of it, maybe having a biting fetish helps.
The only vampire I ever found interesting was the kinda satirical (like some parts of this post) vampire Regis from the Witcher books, who basically was a passionate serial killer/ mass murder out of necessity and hunger- basically, his addiction to blood is kind of a metaphor to alcoholism. He drank too much one night and ended up being cut to pieces, staked and buried by some villagers. Took him many years to regenerate. After that he went into blood withdrawal. He spreads myth that vampires are allergic to garlic and have to be staked in the heart, even though that is nonsense.
But that was hundreds of years ago, now he is very nice! And has himself under control. They hope.

AlKelAstra91 wrote:Nice makeshift Lestat, definitely works. Love all the poses and especially the mood lighting, what filter/app did you use for these anyway? It's quite effective. In some shots he appears shorter than in others, maybe it's just the looser clothing/angles - kinda reminds me of a hobbit in that last photo standing on the chair. I also think there should be a cross-over with Eddie Murphy's character from Vampire in Brooklyn, which I guess is no coincidence that movie released a year after Interview.

Thank you very much! There was no actual filter I took the photos at night, with just the braziers, a side computer screen, and lowest-level spot light for illumination. Then I modified the image settings in Corel PhotoPaint -- setting temperature to 3500, brightness to -25, and contrast to 25 (compared to the original image) -- much like I did for the original Chez Louis post (except those were taken during the day and I set brightness to -30 and contrast to 30). He looks shorter than he is, because of the design of the pants (this will improve once I get the parted out Louis pants and stockings). The figure stands just about 30 cm tall (in sixth scale, Tom Cruise himself would be 28.3 cm -- admittedly without heeled loafers). Louis is overly tall for Brad Pitt (should be 30.5 cm in sixth scale, but the figure is 33 cm tall). I tried to avoid the glaring discrepancy in the images. Funny, neither one's feet reach the ground when sitting in this chair. Maybe if I remove the cushion.

skywalkersaga wrote:Great job, GF. It's impressive you managed to put this together so relatively quickly. I think the hair is the stand out aspect, despite the struggles to get it 'right'. It looks really good. And the photography is excellent, as with the original Louis pics.

And regarding the topic of 'romantic' vampires, I get what Stryker is saying about vampires being monsters and that they should at least be somewhat scary, but I don't think there's actually such a fine line (if any line at all!) between 'romantic figures' and 'monsters'. Many people (myself included) find fictional monsters to be 'romantic' *because* they are monsters, not in spite of that fact. The whole concept of monstrosity has to with 'Otherness' and creatures who live on the margins, so there's often already some inherent pathos there. (There's that famous anecdote about Marlene Deitrich going to see Jean Cocteau's La Belle et La Bete, and when the Beast transformed into the Prince, Deitrich cried out in disappointed dismay, 'Where is my beautiful beast!') And while I'm not actually a fan of Anne Rice (as either a person or a writer), I don't think she is solely responsible for the romanticisation of vampires. The novel Dracula already contained a blend of gothic horror and romance that would influence many later depictions. It's also not impossible to depict (or interpret) vampires as romantic figures (or Romantic figures with a capital 'R') *and* still make them 'scary' in some manner. I can only speak for myself, but even if a vampire is played as a straight up villain/monster, that doesn't prevent audience members from finding them to be attractive, romantic, or alluring in some way. Sir Christopher Lee might not be portraying a heroic or outwardly sympathetic character as Dracula, but being the tall, handsome fellow that he was, he still has an undeniable romantic appeal.  'Monsters' are multi-faceted creatures and can be approached from various different angles, and it's impossible to stop people from finding them appealing and from romanticising that appeal in some way. Hell, there are people who are in love with the alien monster thingie from Venom, for instance.  Writers or filmmakers who depict a more 'romantic' side of monsters aren't creating the phenomenon out of nowhere -- rather, they are tapping into something that is already there. The fear of monsters, and the fascination with monsters, goes hand-in-hand.

Thank you very much, Sky, I'm very glad you liked it. I think Stryker and I may be driven by slightly different considerations. Being an ancient/medieval snob, I have little appreciation for a relatively modern sort of monster set outside of the more typically futuristic science fiction environment -- even if the vampire (as we know it now, I'm not talking about bloodthirsty Late Medieval/Early Modern aristocrats) is not quite as recent an invention as the zombie; but if we want old, there's the werewolf, etc. It is not that I dislike every vampire-related work (I haven't read any books on the topic, just seen movies), in fact I kinda liked some of them for what they were (like I said, Blade, also Warm Bodies (if that was the name of the movie), and I even watched all of True Blood), but I'm just not drawn to it. Some of it bounds on the ridiculous for me (Twilight was insufferable in my opinion), and I also find some of the potential or intentional modern psychological/behavioral implications troubling, but this is not something to get into. Anyway.

shovelchop81 wrote:Great work and choice of character! Read all her books and saw both movies, the soundtrack to 'Queen Of The Dammed' is excellent IMO. I remember Lestat being quite pale with blue eyes and golden blond hair (which is why fans and the author were a bit taken aback by Cruise being cast as him but he pulled it of brilliantly IMO) so you might want to make the skin paler, not because of powder but because he's undead so his skin is a bit translucent showing blue veins too unless he has just feasted which might be nice with a bit of blood here and there to show he's a vampire. That's the reason I didn't pick up the Louis figure, he looks like a normal guy with no hint that he is a vampire, the new preorder Bela Legosi deluxe Dracula figure by Kaustic Plastic and some other company has disappointed me in this way too as he's $400 with 2 heads but no fangs! Just one serious and one smiling.. maybe it's just me but I want my 'monsters' to show they are not human..sorry bit of a rant as I saw the Legosi figure yesterday . Anyway I digress as usual, I was going to say keep a look out for the DR WHO Clockwork Man loose clothing and any Pirates Of The Caribbean loose stuff too which could be very helpful if you plan to expand on this build which it sounds like you do.

Thank you very much, Alex, I'm glad you liked it. I'm only familiar with Lestat from this movie (Interview) -- and some others (Queen of the Damned). My first attempt was a lot pastier, perhaps outright white. I didn't like it, in part because it reminded me of the painted face of a clown. My second attempt accidentally had some nice veins (thanks to interference by the hair), but the brush strokes were far too noticeable. So on to the third attempt. If you look hard enough, there is still a bit of a clown face effect going on, due to the contrast with the neck -- but he is getting a cravat to cover that up. I suppose I am also motivated by interest in being able to use him as a random 18th century character, so I don't want to overemphasize the deathly paleness. Louis (check out the link in the first post, Part II is the review in real color) came with two head sculpts, one whiter (and with fine veins), the other less so (unpowdered? worn?), and I wanted Lestat's head to work reasonably well with either, so it ended up being in the middle. Even as a vampire, I imagine him illuminated usually by the yellowish glow of fire and other artificial light (but not super bright LEDs), so I'm ok with him looking a little more flesh colored than he should -- note that he is not nearly as warm colored as he looks in these color-adjusted images. But, like I admitted, he suffers from an identity problem, since I'm trying to make him reflect more than one thing passably well. I will look out for those. The Sideshow clothing is not bad at all, but I would have preferred it to be a little more slim fitting, like Louis'. Yes, neither of the Louis sculpts came with fangs either. Not a huge problem for me, but I can totally see it being very annoying for anyone interested in the vampire aspect of the character, so I totally get your disappointment.

Ovy wrote:Beautiful, really love the "Next Gubernation" style of lighting and filters you use these days! The torches create great mood, combined with the golden details.

What's weird, it reads like you made this figure as some kind of comission by yourself. Like you were forced a bit even though you don't like vampires haha. Just let him be your own regular 18th century character, no one is forcing you to make some Hollywood vampire.

To be honest, I never read or watched any of that vampire stuff. Never understood the appeal of it, maybe having a biting fetish helps.
The only vampire I ever found interesting was the kinda satirical (like some parts of this post) vampire Regis from the Witcher books, who basically was a passionate serial killer/ mass murder out of necessity and hunger- basically, his addiction to blood is kind of a metaphor to alcoholism. He drank too much one night and ended up being cut to pieces, staked and buried by some villagers. Took him many years to regenerate. After that he went into blood withdrawal. He spreads myth that vampires are allergic to garlic and have to be staked in the heart, even though that is nonsense. But that was hundreds of years ago, now he is very nice! And has himself under control. They hope.

Sometimes we wind ourselves up. Or I do. I might get interested in an item, check out photos and reviews, then decide I want the whole set (even though I don't have very much vested in it and still realize it)... That is what happened with Vamp Lou. And since I thoroughly liked that set, adding a Lestat made sense, despite the admittedly limited true intrinsic interest in the original character of the characters on my part. If it were any more difficult, I would not have tried. But ultimately, it came down to sourcing some clothes, transferring them to a new body, and modifying a head. Not nearly as ambitious as your or shovelchop's builds. Hmm, you might enjoy some of the Blade movies? Satire sometimes makes things (even) better -- we all have different tastes, so it might bring us more enjoyment out of things for which we normally have a (more) limited appreciation. My favorite Star Trek movie? Galaxy Quest. My favorite Avengers movie? Ragnarock. My favorite teen movie? Not Another Teen Movie. My favorite Superhero series? The Boys. My favorite 300 movie? Meet the Spartans. (Yes, I realize not all of these are truly comparable in quality, and not all of the originals actually deserve being mocked.)

Thank you very much, Alex, I'm glad you liked it. I'm only familiar with Lestat from this movie (Interview) -- and some others (Queen of the Damned). My first attempt was a lot pastier, perhaps outright white. I didn't like it, in part because it reminded me of the painted face of a clown. My second attempt accidentally had some nice veins (thanks to interference by the hair), but the brush strokes were far too noticeable. So on to the third attempt. If you look hard enough, there is still a bit of a clown face effect going on, due to the contrast with the neck -- but he is getting a cravat to cover that up. I suppose I am also motivated by interest in being able to use him as a random 18th century character, so I don't want to overemphasize the deathly paleness. Louis (check out the link in the first post, Part II is the review in real color) came with two head sculpts, one whiter (and with fine veins), the other less so (unpowdered? worn?), and I wanted Lestat's head to work reasonably well with either, so it ended up being in the middle. Even as a vampire, I imagine him illuminated usually by the yellowish glow of fire and other artificial light (but not super bright LEDs), so I'm ok with him looking a little more flesh colored than he should -- note that he is not nearly as warm colored as he looks in these color-adjusted images. But, like I admitted, he suffers from an identity problem, since I'm trying to make him reflect more than one thing passably well. I will look out for those. The Sideshow clothing is not bad at all, but I would have preferred it to be a little more slim fitting, like Louis'. Yes, neither of the Louis sculpts came with fangs either. Not a huge problem for me, but I can totally see it being very annoying for anyone interested in the vampire aspect of the character, so I totally get your disappointment. wrote:

All very understandable reasons as I'm sure you will be using him in various photographic stories that you do so well (I don't even have the patience for taking proper finished pics of half my builds , I just want to build lol). As I've read all the books (I think) I'm used to Lestat being the lead character in many of them with his lust for blood and power whilst toying with humans like a psychopathic kid with poor animals, so my take on him is probably very different from yours. If you were to go for a more deathly look I'd recommend multiple layers of clear coat over very subtle veins on a pale skin but that would be very character specific and part of a horror collection like I have.

Stryker2011 wrote:Interestingly, Lugosi never wore fangs as Dracula — never showed his teeth in that regard, ever. If you want to see the best interpretation of the book Dracula, try to find the BBC production from the 70s with Louis Jordan as Dracula. The special effects are fairly weak, of course, but it’s the only version that actually followed the book damn near to the letter. Frank Finley played Van Helsing and Judi Bowker (Clash of the Titans) played Mina Harker.

Thanks for the info. I just found it on Youtube.

shovelchop81 wrote:All very understandable reasons as I'm sure you will be using him in various photographic stories that you do so well (I don't even have the patience for taking proper finished pics of half my builds , I just want to build lol). As I've read all the books (I think) I'm used to Lestat being the lead character in many of them with his lust for blood and power whilst toying with humans like a psychopathic kid with poor animals, so my take on him is probably very different from yours. If you were to go for a more deathly look I'd recommend multiple layers of clear coat over very subtle veins on a pale skin but that would be very character specific and part of a horror collection like I have.

Given how many photos you shoot and post to document your builds, it is understandable you a bit tired to bother photographing them thoroughly when finished sometimes. Have you watched True Blood? That got pretty graphic at times. Thanks for the vein painting recommendation.

he looks absolutely fantastic!!! The head is particularily impressive!!! Awesome duo of vampires bro!

blackpool wrote:he looks absolutely fantastic!!! The head is particularily impressive!!! Awesome duo of vampires bro!

Thank you very much, Alex, I'm very glad you liked him. Especially as I'm still divided on what choices I made/should have made, but your seal of approval makes me feel better about them.

You created a very nice Lestate. I can hardly remember when I last watched "Interview with the Vampire" (more than 10 years ago?), but I immediately recognized the character. The lighting in your pictures is also great, creating the right atmosphere and rendering Lestate very life-like.
Thanks for sharing.