Mashable68%

The Vampire Lestat finale: Sam Reid on witches burning and poor Nicki 23%

7/20/2026, 2:17:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 875 faulty-reasoning hits from 634 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.3% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,366 of 21,161 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.30% of the article peer group.

Early on in The Vampire Lestat 's first season, the eponymous anti-hero mentions a formatively traumatic moment that we finally see in full in the finale, titled "The Failures." 
When Lestat de Lioncourt (Sam Reid) was just a boy, his mother, Gabriella (Jennifer Ehle), took him to see their neighbors burn alleged witches alive. 
In the final episode of this season, Lestat finally stops deflecting about what this moment meant. 
At the long table, before the Failure Finders , he confronts his resentment at his mother for how this execution impacted him for the next 200-plus years. 
In a post-mortem interview, Sam Reid told Mashable Entertainment Editor Kristy Puchko what that scene means for The Vampire Lestat and how it connects to the final moments of Nicolas de Lenfent (Joseph Potter). 
What did the witches burning mean to Lestat? 
'The Vampire Lestat's Sam Reid on Magnus, Claudia, Sofia, and more 
In episode 7 of The Vampire Lestat , the version of Gabriella at the long table argues that she took the young child Lestat to witness the witches burn so that he would see his neighbors for the vicious and ignorant "cabbages" they are. 
She wanted him to be motivated to leave this terrible place for something better. 
Asked about this sequence, Reid told Mashable, "That was one of the main conversations I had with [showrunner] Rolin [Jones] about the whole Lestat journey this season, was getting to the core of him, [which] was this existential crisis that he had when he was a child." 
"You know, he [initially] puts it on Nicki, because he cannot deal with that," Reid explained, "so he gives Nicki that existential crisis in episode three." 
Reid referred to the flashback in episode 3, where vampire Nicki goes mad, cuts off his own hand, and longs for death. 
At the time, Lestat told Daniel Molloy (Eric Bogosian) that Armand (Assad Zaman) killed Nicki with fire. 
And as he died, Nicki let out a long, low moan, an "O." 
In episode 7, recalling the witches at the long table, Lestat echoes this exact sound. 
"Nicki saw that in death there was a nothingness," Reid said, "That all of this means absolutely nothing, which is a very complex feeling as an immortal being. 
And his mouth formed a perfect circle, and all that came out was, 'O.' 
And then you see [Lestat] reprocess that memory as his own memory, watching these women die, and understanding for the first time: Yes, Gabriella has abused him, and has assaulted him throughout his whole life." 
He continued, "[By taking him to see the witches burned], she's weirdly saying to him, 'Get out. 
Go do [or] be something else, be something more [than these cabbages].' 
But unfortunately, it came out of a place of trauma. 
So his whole sense of direction has been running - running so far from the idea that he might become nothing and he might be dead. 
So it's very messy." 
"There's a lot left unresolved with Gabriella," Reid said, "But, we always knew that we were going to return to this 'O,' to this sound, the purity of existential crisis." 
Noting how the show's take on Nicki and Lestat differs from Anne Rice's novel The Vampire Lestat , Reid explained, "There is such a beautiful chapter in the book that he has with Nicki. 
The way that [Rolin and his team] do the the adaption is that they will look at it, and go, 'Well, maybe Lestat here in the book is deflecting.' 
So, [the writers] knew they were always going to return to that, and how fundamental the witches were going to be in Lestat's life." 
The Vampire Lestat is now streaming on AMC and AMC+ . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.4%Mashable: 2.1%Confirmation Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 2.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Mashable: 3.1%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.4%Mashable: 0.5%Hindsight Bias13.4%This article: 8.5%Mashable: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias8.5%This article: 3.6%Mashable: 5.5%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Mashable: 1.2%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 8.8%Mashable: 4.9%Negativity Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Mashable: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Mashable: 4.2%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.4%Mashable: 3.4%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.1%Mashable: 0.5%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 4.7%Mashable: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.7%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 4.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.8%Mashable: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion17.8%This article: 4.4%Mashable: 0.8%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Mashable: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.9%Mashable: 1.3%Unattributed Quote6.9%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.5%Mashable: 10.3%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 1.3%Mashable: 2.6%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Mashable: 18.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

634 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker39%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSam Reid • 47 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 28 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSam Reid • 35 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSam Reid • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Reid

88%flagged-word coverage
249 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.7 ptsWriter: 15.3%Sam Reid: 5.6%5.6%Unattributed Quote-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Sam Reid: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Sam Reid: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Sam Reid: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.