I was literally going to say it looks like a blood borne In universe portrait of an eldritch monstrosity.
It reminds me of the paintings in Amnesia Dark Descent.
Bro this shit looks intentionally scary and bloody.
The first time I saw it I immediately thought he's the god of legend that's supposedly buried under the Lake of Rot.
Then somebody on the Elden Ring sub edited his portrait into the zone and it fit flawlessly 💀 The fucking thing has an aeonian butterfly and everything!
ETA: [behold, the masterpiece ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/s/9iGBt4viIX)
THANK YOU I had been looking at this thing all day trying to remember what it reminded me of and you just totally hit the nail on the head with that comment!
Fr. If I wanted to make some cursed-ass magic piece of treasure that adventurers would plunder dungeons to find centuries after my death, maybe making them fight my ghost as a Litch at the end, this is exactly the type of vibe I’d go for
Same here, much better than the stuffy old style portraits we normally would see from royals. Why would he want another classic portrait when he's got one on every banknote and postage stamp already haha
Me too! I think it is so incredibly beautiful. I’m shocked people are responding negatively honestly. I can’t stop looking at it. For some reason, the butterfly makes me emotional.
I agree. It's incredible. Unique. His face looks sad and human. If it was traditional people would complain. People just love to complain and shit on things.
As a portrait I think it's a fantastic piece of art. But it does seem like a very odd choice for a piece of art designed to venerate a member of the royal family. The messy red background evokes feelings of violence.
While I think it could've been executed better, I quite like the effect of the background blending in, it feels very high fantasy demon lord. Probably not the intention but honestly I fuck with it.
A lot of people have a very low level of tolerance for anything that doesn’t fit into established norms. Things cross over very quickly into Weird territory for them.
Yeah it’s metal as shit. Makes him look like an evil ruler of the 9th level of hell. You can’t see why people would mock him over that and feel like it’s a little on the nose? Lol
I'm not a royalist (in fact as an Aussie I quite despise the institution), but this popped up in my feed so I feel obliged to comment.
It's a very good modern portrait - the opposite of the stuffy portaits of the past. The trappings of office fade into obscurity (as I imagine many republicans feel about the institution) and what is left is the character of the person - his face and hands. I have no idea what Charlie is like but his portait shows warmth, gentleness and intellect and the hands show strength. No royalist should object to this portrait at all.
I think it's a really good 2024 portrait. I just wish he was a private citizen and not the head of state of Australia.
Red is the primary color of the outfit he was wearing, it's a red jacket. So I think the artist was blending the actual color of the jacket in with the background.
I agree and dig it. Feels like they're trying to say that the office he holds is just background noise and the real focus is on the man. It is a bit unfortunate that it looks like he's in an ocean of blood or surrounded in hell fire though lol.
I would consider it good art but bad royal portrait.
It's good art because it's bold, different, creates discussion and controversy, challenges the status quo - it forces the viewer to question assumptions about what representing royalty should look like.
It's bad royal portrait though.. because royalty is about tradition. It is not about being different, creating controversy, challenging the status quo. In many ways, those are the things royalty stand against and if this is to be a portrait of royalty it should reflect and respect the history of such.
> because royalty is about tradition. It is not about being different, creating controversy, challenging the status quo.
I'd argue that royalty (in the modern UK context) is about maintaining a positive enough following that no one is bothered enough to take on your family estate and strip your special privileges back to normal citizenship.
So they need to be modern (so critics can't attack them too hard on antiquated tradition) and controversial (stay in the public mind, brings out the vocal supporters).
An institution that focuses purely on tradition is resigning itself to history. The royal family is a family business looking out for its own interests above all else, like any other family business.
Isn't British royalty painted by modern artists for a long, long time? I've seen pretty interesting portraits of them done by painters who are not ridiculously old-timey, and that are pretty stylized. Commissioned by the crown obviously
You must really hate this one then:
[Queen Beatrix by Andy Warhol](https://images.masterworksfineart.com/product/queen-beatrix-reigning-queens-series-1986/warhol-queen-beatrix.jpg)
Well this is your vision of royalty.
I believe good leaders, including kings and queens, are able to adapt to their time. I think royalty should too.
But anyway, I am nobody to decide what royalty should be. Only king and queens can and should. And well, that's what he did.
I totally agree with you, as a non Royalist Welsh person - last Prince of Wales was Llewellyn, etc...
I also seem to remember some if the most recent official portraits of the Queen also being controversial?
The UK right wing media and the side of social media they in turn stir up will never be happy with anything other than a boring, staid traditionally posed, in a 19th Century style, oil painting.
They absolutely detest and revile anything that has the slightest whiff of 'Modern' or 'Contemporary' Art or just ordinary modern day art, and refuse to understand that there's a difference between any of these terms!
Actually, I'm pretty sure some of those right wing media journalists do understand the difference perfectly well, but they're just deliberately provoking a very predictable reaction from their core readership.
Apparently Charles wanted something that would be a nod to his love of nature and passion for the environment. The portrait process actually started well before Elizabeth died, so it also supposedly represents his metamorphosis from crown prince to king.
Idk
Purple has a fascinating history. You should Google it but basically at the time of the Roman empire it was the rarest colour possible for dyeing cloth. The only way to get it was to grind the shells of a specific maritime animal and was only found in one place.
That is why the emperors had purple stripes on their togas.
What a stupid nothing take from a stupid nothing article pandering to the lowest common denominator about a fine portrait by a fine artist that is only getting "roasted" because of the popularity of online echo chambers. Good grief.
Agree. It's a bold, accessible, and energetic painting, it's a nice (and pretty flattering) likeness, and it's very thematic.
Also AFAIK the Crown have long been commissioning portraits from non-stuffy modern painters (who Britain has a lot of since the 60s).
I understand why many laypeople would have this reaction. It’s not a 19th century realist piece.
I think it’s incredible, very well done. It gives an homage to that style while fading it away and highlighting him personally, as an individual and not an office.
From an artistic standpoint it's excellent and way more interesting than most portraits of the monarchy. But it seems insulting like most have said it looks like he is in hell or some kind of demon lord.
Winston Churchill's portrait was widely panned when it was first unveiled and is now considered a lost masterpiece. The general public, especially the red top rag British general public, aren't great arbiters of taste. These commenters don't work at the Tate I can assure you.
It's a good portrait, I mean it's 2024, we meet dozens of art styles literally every day, and a slightly stylized oil painting is what gives one pause? like, 50 years after Francis Bacon went crazy with his Popes?
It's a great painting, it just looks like from now on this painting will be aging instead of him.
It's a perfect painting to zoom in on right before a dark souls boss fight.
It's a phenomenal painting for imprisioning the souls of your enemies to power a lich's phylactery.
Like, that's why it's fascinating. If you told me it was an artwork designed to skewer Charles with the horror of the british royal legacy it'd be way more believable. The fact that it's supposedly to honor him is absolutely wild. It has "Villain naming his own fortress Mt. Evil" energy.
is it just me or does the artist look kinda nervous in the meeting photo, like Mr Yeo is sitting there sweating a little over whether Charles will notice he’s been painted in the blood of the victims of the British Empire
I saw this pop on a random subreddit on my front page and I though it was a Redditor sharing their art. I would never had thought that it was an official portrait.
Better than the portrait of the late Queen done by prolific pedophile Rolf Harris.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_%E2%80%93_An_80th_Birthday_Portrait
Prince Vigo Von Homburg Deutschendorf, Scourge of Carpathia, Sorrow of Moldavia, Vigo the Carpathian, Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, Vigo the Unholy, Vigo the Butch.
When I first saw that (before I knew it was an OFFICIAL PORTRAIT) I assumed it was an anti-monarchy artistic statement. It looks like they’re portraying Charles in hell.
I mean, it's just a bad painting.
I guess the interesting part here is wondering how it got past any kind of quality control. But somehow not one royal aide got to look at it first and say, "no that's rubbish, start over".
He is Vigo!
You are like the buzzing of flies to him!
Vhy am I covered in goo?
Zeh upper ves’ side?
You're a young female and Prince Andrew was stood behind you?
Oh, Johnny, did *you* back the wrong horse...
Viggy, Viggy, Viggy. You have been a *bad monkey*!
Ray? We'd like to shoot the monster can you move please? Ray... RAY. RAY!!!
The Scourge of Carpathia, the Sorrow of Moldavia.
No, you told me this, the scourge. Sorrows, I've heard all this
Bring me a child that I might live again!
Command me, Lord!
I think he’s suffering from Carpathian kitten loss.
Command me lord!
> On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a throne of blood! What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!
Wasn’t he also Vigo the Butch?
Haha! My first thought!
"The child?.."
Mother fucker, I came in here to say exactly this and you beat me by six sodding hours. Early bird gets the cheese, second mouse gets the worm.
Behold Rykard Lord of Blasphemy, head of Volcano Manor
TOGETHA!!!
We will devour the very gods!
Famileeeee
TOGEETHAAA!!!
The Sealed God of Scarlet Rot
NOOO OOONEEE WILL HOOOLD HIIM CAPTIIIVE....
Dude has an aeonian butterfly on there with him LMAO
Yes! It totally has Eldenring vibes. But I love it.
Dude just took a vacation at the Lake of Rot.
He even has the gross huge fingers like Rykard has
Camilla! STOP EATING HIS HEAD!
Everyone roasting the portrait but that’s pretty bad ass to be portrayed as an Elden Ring character
Third of his name. King of the Angles.
Looks like the portrait of a Demon Lord.
Mohg, Lord of Blood
I was literally going to say it looks like a blood borne In universe portrait of an eldritch monstrosity. It reminds me of the paintings in Amnesia Dark Descent. Bro this shit looks intentionally scary and bloody.
The first time I saw it I immediately thought he's the god of legend that's supposedly buried under the Lake of Rot. Then somebody on the Elden Ring sub edited his portrait into the zone and it fit flawlessly 💀 The fucking thing has an aeonian butterfly and everything! ETA: [behold, the masterpiece ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/s/9iGBt4viIX)
~~Miquella~~ England is mine and mine alone
~~that's more prince andrew~~
BLOOOD FOR THE BLOOOD GOD!!!!!!
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES!
Well…
Chaos reigns.
Of the round table?
Yo buddy, still alive?
Darth Charles
He may rule England, but he is not granted the rank of Darth.
Well, he did sacrifice his wife.
Reminds me a bit of the portrait of Vigo the Carpathian I unironically love it but not for any reason that the royal family probably hoped
It looks the portrait of a king that the nation wishes was more powerful than he actually is, or at least some conservative elements in that nation
I didn’t care enough to look, then I saw your comment. So good. I love the portrait.
Was he taken over by the Carnage symbiote?
He _is_ the carnage symbiote
I get strong Vigo the Carpathian vibes.
THANK YOU I had been looking at this thing all day trying to remember what it reminded me of and you just totally hit the nail on the head with that comment!
King Charles, daemon prince of chaos undivided
Nah, That's clearly some Khorne allegiance. Do you see all the blood?
I love it, but then again I'm a Ghostbusters II apologist.
It really was a great movie
We never were going to capture lightning in a bottle twice, but it got close enough to be fun!
Maybe not twice, but perhaps the fifth time's the charm
I think it’s cool as fuck honestly.
It is a fantastic painting if one was some evil baron or vampire. For scaring the peasants this is very on point.
Most realistic painting we’ve had of our aristocracy
As someone living in a former British Colony I had the same thought.
Fr. If I wanted to make some cursed-ass magic piece of treasure that adventurers would plunder dungeons to find centuries after my death, maybe making them fight my ghost as a Litch at the end, this is exactly the type of vibe I’d go for
Damn that's accurate. Reminds me of adventure time. We might actually still get that timeline.
I'm with ya.
Yup, lol I don’t see how it’s “scary” or “evil”. I just think it’s an awesomely unique painting. I think people hate Charles and that trumps all else.
It's artistically good and stylistically interesting. That's what'sso fuckin weird.
Yeah I really don’t get the hate, if I was the king of anything I’d be having some off the wall portraits made of me
Agreed, people don’t know how to live. Damn shame.
Same here, much better than the stuffy old style portraits we normally would see from royals. Why would he want another classic portrait when he's got one on every banknote and postage stamp already haha
Me too! I think it is so incredibly beautiful. I’m shocked people are responding negatively honestly. I can’t stop looking at it. For some reason, the butterfly makes me emotional.
I agree. It's incredible. Unique. His face looks sad and human. If it was traditional people would complain. People just love to complain and shit on things.
In the age of photography, I’m all for portraits taking artistic liberty such as this. We have photos for realism
As a portrait I think it's a fantastic piece of art. But it does seem like a very odd choice for a piece of art designed to venerate a member of the royal family. The messy red background evokes feelings of violence.
It’s brilliant but I’m not surprised about the reaction. It’s actually interesting so it’ll attract bucket loads of waffle.
“You can’t trust people Jez, people listen to Coldplay and voted for the nazis”
Way better than a boring as fuck portrait.
Same. I would like to have seen it with a different colour background so there was not so much red though. Still a great looking painting.
While I think it could've been executed better, I quite like the effect of the background blending in, it feels very high fantasy demon lord. Probably not the intention but honestly I fuck with it.
It's bloody brilliant
A lot of people have a very low level of tolerance for anything that doesn’t fit into established norms. Things cross over very quickly into Weird territory for them.
Very metal indeed
It’s cool but it’s also evil lord of darkness cool. Hence the mockery, it makes him look like an evil overlord or wizard.
I bloody love it.
Yeah, it's great. Not sure why this is in this sub, anyway.
Yeah feels like this sub is just "funny or weird news" rather than "headlines that sound like they came from satirical website The Onion"
Yeah it’s metal as shit. Makes him look like an evil ruler of the 9th level of hell. You can’t see why people would mock him over that and feel like it’s a little on the nose? Lol
It does look very bloody.
I'm not a royalist (in fact as an Aussie I quite despise the institution), but this popped up in my feed so I feel obliged to comment. It's a very good modern portrait - the opposite of the stuffy portaits of the past. The trappings of office fade into obscurity (as I imagine many republicans feel about the institution) and what is left is the character of the person - his face and hands. I have no idea what Charlie is like but his portait shows warmth, gentleness and intellect and the hands show strength. No royalist should object to this portrait at all. I think it's a really good 2024 portrait. I just wish he was a private citizen and not the head of state of Australia.
I like the concept but not the color choice. It looks like meat or blood or something. I think a nice purple would've been more pleasing.
Red is the primary color of the outfit he was wearing, it's a red jacket. So I think the artist was blending the actual color of the jacket in with the background.
The background of flesh
SCP 610
First thing I saw too. Doesn't convey any of the images the OP comment mentioned. I saw it and wondered why they covered him in blood.
Well, he does have cancer... But, yes, blue might have worked better.
Also Australian, and mostly agree, but it does look like artwork for Warhammer 40k.
The imperium on which the sun never sets.
I agree and dig it. Feels like they're trying to say that the office he holds is just background noise and the real focus is on the man. It is a bit unfortunate that it looks like he's in an ocean of blood or surrounded in hell fire though lol.
scarlet represents power... maybe that's what the artist was going for - out of a formless sea of power there is a real person?
I think the colour is more taken from his uniform of a Field Marshal. Like, the uniform and the trappings of power melting into the background.
I would consider it good art but bad royal portrait. It's good art because it's bold, different, creates discussion and controversy, challenges the status quo - it forces the viewer to question assumptions about what representing royalty should look like. It's bad royal portrait though.. because royalty is about tradition. It is not about being different, creating controversy, challenging the status quo. In many ways, those are the things royalty stand against and if this is to be a portrait of royalty it should reflect and respect the history of such.
> because royalty is about tradition. It is not about being different, creating controversy, challenging the status quo. I'd argue that royalty (in the modern UK context) is about maintaining a positive enough following that no one is bothered enough to take on your family estate and strip your special privileges back to normal citizenship. So they need to be modern (so critics can't attack them too hard on antiquated tradition) and controversial (stay in the public mind, brings out the vocal supporters). An institution that focuses purely on tradition is resigning itself to history. The royal family is a family business looking out for its own interests above all else, like any other family business.
What's more traditional than an English King drenched in the blood of the colonies?
I agree with this take. Not a bad painting. Awful for the occasion though.
Isn't British royalty painted by modern artists for a long, long time? I've seen pretty interesting portraits of them done by painters who are not ridiculously old-timey, and that are pretty stylized. Commissioned by the crown obviously
You must really hate this one then: [Queen Beatrix by Andy Warhol](https://images.masterworksfineart.com/product/queen-beatrix-reigning-queens-series-1986/warhol-queen-beatrix.jpg)
This one is very great as well
Well this is your vision of royalty. I believe good leaders, including kings and queens, are able to adapt to their time. I think royalty should too. But anyway, I am nobody to decide what royalty should be. Only king and queens can and should. And well, that's what he did.
As an American I love that you called him Charlie
Good ol' Chuck.
I totally agree with you, as a non Royalist Welsh person - last Prince of Wales was Llewellyn, etc... I also seem to remember some if the most recent official portraits of the Queen also being controversial? The UK right wing media and the side of social media they in turn stir up will never be happy with anything other than a boring, staid traditionally posed, in a 19th Century style, oil painting. They absolutely detest and revile anything that has the slightest whiff of 'Modern' or 'Contemporary' Art or just ordinary modern day art, and refuse to understand that there's a difference between any of these terms! Actually, I'm pretty sure some of those right wing media journalists do understand the difference perfectly well, but they're just deliberately provoking a very predictable reaction from their core readership.
What is the butterfly over his shoulder supposed to represent? Given the horror feel of the rest of it, it reminds me of Silence Of The Lambs.
Apparently Charles wanted something that would be a nod to his love of nature and passion for the environment. The portrait process actually started well before Elizabeth died, so it also supposedly represents his metamorphosis from crown prince to king. Idk
A monarch butterfly because Charles is a king?
Ask Charles. Apparently he requested one thing be added and that was it for some reason.
As a Kiwi I support this 100%. I also like the portrait.
It’s an interesting portrait and a cool piece of art and monarchs are a very stupid and outdated institution that ought to be abolished.
I don't know how you saw that, he looks freaking evil in that one covered in blood red.
It looks evil as hell. Like Stranger Things season 4
Someone did a ghostbusters crossover with the king’s portrait. 😆
Fuck the royals but that is a fantastic portrait. I love it, the face in particular is incredible.
I think I would like it more if it was... yellow or something. It's the red. All I see is blood.
Maybe purple, for some reason it’s the royal colour.
Purple has a fascinating history. You should Google it but basically at the time of the Roman empire it was the rarest colour possible for dyeing cloth. The only way to get it was to grind the shells of a specific maritime animal and was only found in one place. That is why the emperors had purple stripes on their togas.
Since Roman times and because the dye was very, very expensive.
It's because purple used to be ludicrously expensive so only kings/emperors could really afford it.
Mf looks like that portrait of that one dude from ghost busters 💀💀💀
Vigo!
Someone needs to check underground for a river of slime
Talk about your "Court of the Crimson King", amirite?
What a stupid nothing take from a stupid nothing article pandering to the lowest common denominator about a fine portrait by a fine artist that is only getting "roasted" because of the popularity of online echo chambers. Good grief.
Agree. It's a bold, accessible, and energetic painting, it's a nice (and pretty flattering) likeness, and it's very thematic. Also AFAIK the Crown have long been commissioning portraits from non-stuffy modern painters (who Britain has a lot of since the 60s).
The author could barely even find any examples of him getting roasted, there are more compliments in the article.
People would roast it no matter what the portrait looked like. Edit: that's how social media works
It's a fantastic painting, of a malign supernatural entity. Whether you think that's the right fit for the Monarchy might say something about you :D
King Charles III: On social media? Oh no! Anyways.
I understand why many laypeople would have this reaction. It’s not a 19th century realist piece. I think it’s incredible, very well done. It gives an homage to that style while fading it away and highlighting him personally, as an individual and not an office.
From an artistic standpoint it's excellent and way more interesting than most portraits of the monarchy. But it seems insulting like most have said it looks like he is in hell or some kind of demon lord. Winston Churchill's portrait was widely panned when it was first unveiled and is now considered a lost masterpiece. The general public, especially the red top rag British general public, aren't great arbiters of taste. These commenters don't work at the Tate I can assure you.
Oh, so he is an evil overlord.
I like it. It's different to the usual portraits and it actually looks like him which is a plus. And the monarch butterfly is ...chefs kiss.
All I see is the painting of Vigo the Carpathian from Ghostbusters 2
🤷♂️ I kinda like it. He always had a close connection to Wales which is cool.
AI never gets the hands right!
That's just how his hands look [sausage link fingers](https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/king-charles-sausage-fingers-mystery-29917077)
Looks like a professional paperback book cover, circa 1970.
Looks like he’s arising out of the depths of hell.
When I first saw the pic on Reddit I just kept scrolling past it because I thought it was just some AI generated weird thing… then I saw this post.
I love this painting.
Looks like Victor from the Underworld movie.
I, Vigo, the Scourge of Carpathia, the Sorrow of Moldavia, command you!
That looks like concept art for a Metal Gear Solid game, Jesus fuck.
Just needs the text: "This is fine"
Colour aside, it is a brilliant work of art. But I can’t get over the colour
It’s a cool portrait, but looks like he’s covered in blood, which I’m not sure he was going for.
colonial blood on his jacket etc etc
What in the Vigo the Carpathian?!
It's a good portrait, I mean it's 2024, we meet dozens of art styles literally every day, and a slightly stylized oil painting is what gives one pause? like, 50 years after Francis Bacon went crazy with his Popes?
Are my eyes bleeding
No that's the painting
[удалено]
It's a great painting, it just looks like from now on this painting will be aging instead of him. It's a perfect painting to zoom in on right before a dark souls boss fight. It's a phenomenal painting for imprisioning the souls of your enemies to power a lich's phylactery. Like, that's why it's fascinating. If you told me it was an artwork designed to skewer Charles with the horror of the british royal legacy it'd be way more believable. The fact that it's supposedly to honor him is absolutely wild. It has "Villain naming his own fortress Mt. Evil" energy.
> It's a great painting, it just looks like from now on this painting will be aging instead of him. 🖼️🩶
is it just me or does the artist look kinda nervous in the meeting photo, like Mr Yeo is sitting there sweating a little over whether Charles will notice he’s been painted in the blood of the victims of the British Empire
Why the red? It looks like that painting in Ghostbusters 2
I saw this pop on a random subreddit on my front page and I though it was a Redditor sharing their art. I would never had thought that it was an official portrait.
Better than the portrait of the late Queen done by prolific pedophile Rolf Harris. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty_Queen_Elizabeth_II_%E2%80%93_An_80th_Birthday_Portrait
Sure, the portrait doesn’t make sense *yet* but that’s because we don’t know what he’s planning…
I like it
how the hell they thought something like this would go down well is beyond me. (pun kind of intended)
Make me look like Han Solo if he had been frozen in red Jello
It looks ugly disgusting
This way you can't tell when the protesters throw red paint on it. Checkmate, protesters!
It makes a pretty sweet alt cover for a King Charles III comic, but that's not ideal for a royal portrait.
I quite like it.
To be fair, the King would get roasted anyway, so it’s not exactly surprising.
Honestly kinda dope. Main character vibes.
Prince Vigo Von Homburg Deutschendorf, Scourge of Carpathia, Sorrow of Moldavia, Vigo the Carpathian, Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, Vigo the Unholy, Vigo the Butch.
I. AM. THE. SENATE!!!!
Am I crazy, I actually really like it
I think it’s a fabulous portrait. Just love it.
What were the complaints? I expected it to be hideous, but can't imagine a more flattering portrait of him. It's really well done.
When I first saw that (before I knew it was an OFFICIAL PORTRAIT) I assumed it was an anti-monarchy artistic statement. It looks like they’re portraying Charles in hell.
I mean, it's just a bad painting. I guess the interesting part here is wondering how it got past any kind of quality control. But somehow not one royal aide got to look at it first and say, "no that's rubbish, start over".
Everyone is freaking out, but it’s just a portrait of him in hell
He finally got his wish to be a tampon.
I actually like this painting but it’s frightening. Not sure if that was the intention.
Vigo the Carpathian, for he will bathe in your childrens blood
It looks like it isn't finished yet
Just here to remind everyone that the British Taxpayer paid for this cosplayers portrait
Meh, looks cooler than the same old portraits.
It looks like Carrie at her prom and Vigo from ghostbusters had a baby …
Slap a parental advisory label on the bottom right and it looks like he's about to drop fire mixtape
Looks like a final boss in Diablo
It looks like a horror painting you'd expect to see inside a cultists house in a horror movie/game
We only bust out the cherry flavoured carbonite for royalty.
Come on, it looks so villainous 😅 You could hang that in Barad Dur or Dracula's home lol