Topic: somebody justify True Blood to me (Read 7258 times)

jhocking · « **on:** 14 Jul 2009, 04:38 »

I just watched the first few episodes of this show. I kept watching even though the writing made me cringe because I wanted to give the show a fair shake of the stick. Many people have told me it is awesome, but from what I could see it is shit. If there are any fans here, somebody please explain to me why this show is awesome, because I really don't see it at all.

Avec · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 04:41 »

I've gone as far as episode three solely for the silly accents.

Inlander · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 04:55 »

I haven't seen it, but if I start watching it my only justification will be that it provides me with an opportunity to gaze at Anna Paquin with unabashed adoration.

I mean hell, I almost watched a whole episode of Harper's Island or whatever the hell it's called when I found out it had Elaine Cassidy in it.

jhocking · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 05:07 »

She was the most annoying character of them all! I couldn't believe it!

Inlander · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 05:22 »

Well obviously you don't watch it with the sound turned up. Sheesh!

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 06:03 »

... so, it's a lot like the L-word?

pen · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 06:26 »

I am addicted to True Blood. I also read the books, though, so I don't know if that's why I absolutely must watch it, but I enjoy it a lot. Sookie does drive me nuts, but a few of the other characters are interesting and lots of fun, like Lafayette. He's fucking hilarious. And it's sexy.

Inlander · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 06:26 »

Quote from: BeoPuppy on 14 Jul 2009, 06:03

... so, it's a lot like the L-word?

Now I heard that Elodie Bouchez was in a season of that. Is that true or is it just a trick to make me watch it?

scarred · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 10:57 »

The first and second episodes were entertaining for me. But then I lost interest.

Alex C · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 11:03 »

Most people I know who watch it seem mostly to cite that: 1. It's on HBO and that means it's better. 2. It's not Twilight. 3. Fuck you, vampires are awesome.

I do not understand why people fuckin' love vampires so much, I really don't.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 11:52 »

Well ... vampires love humans so it's only natural to return the favour.

KvP · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 12:04 »

It has a lot of nudity and graphic sex. As far as I know Anna Paquin didn't go off-kit until later in the first season and a lot of people seemed to be disappointed by that fact.

I hear the second season is actually pretty good. First season got low marks from a lot of cats because of Second Season of Twin Peaks Syndrome (symptoms include B and C stories / characters that are incredibly difficult to care about or watch)

Surgoshan · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Jul 2009, 14:51 »

Quote from: KvP on 14 Jul 2009, 12:04

It has a lot of nudity and graphic sex.

That works for me!

MrBlu · « **Reply #13 on:** 16 Jul 2009, 07:17 »

Quote from: Alex C on 14 Jul 2009, 11:03

Most people I know who watch it seem mostly to cite that: 1. It's on HBO and that means it's better. 2. It's not Twilight. 3. Fuck you, vampires are awesome.

I do not understand why people fuckin' love vampires so much, I really don't.

#1 is usually true. Except for Co-Ed confessional. Come on, if I wanted to see "college students" get it on, I'd buy a Girls Gone Wild.

I also don't get the whole Vampire fixation that we've dropped under. I mean, there were always good Vampire movies and books, but I think since Stephanie Meyer made it appeal to lovesick Scene teenage girls, the whole world has went Bat-s*** insane (pun maybe intended). Heck, right before Edward St. Emo Cullen came along, there was "Let The Right One In" which was a kick-ass movie, but nobody but nobody's best friend who smells funny knows about it.

Pop culture blah

pen · « **Reply #14 on:** 16 Jul 2009, 08:21 »

If you want to really get into it, the Sookie series of books started long before Stephenie Meyer.

KvP · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 Jul 2009, 13:48 »

More like Sookie Stackedhouse lololol

Before Stephanie Meyer there was Anne Rice. It was eventual that vampire novels would be cleaned up enough for mass tween consumption. Besides, vampires have always fit neatly within the constricts of romance fiction because Bram Stoker's defining novel (along with many other defining horror novels, tellingly) was written in the Victorian era, and the threat and mystique of vampirism comes from symbolism rooted in a repressed conception of violent, immoral sexuality. Vampires are described as perfectly beautiful with a savage / vulpine quality (exotic!) and they only come out at night, being bitten by a vampire is often described as being something pleasurable that one submits to, etc. etc. They were basically begging to be included in guilty pleasure smut pulp.

Which Twilight is, just repurposed to a hilariously twisted degree. Vampires are still sexual beings preying on virginal girls, but Edward is made a hero by barely containing his desire to devour the protagonist. It's basically a really long screed meant to reinforce repression and promote abstinence. But that's common knowledge by now and besides, messages never really matter to anyone older than a certain age.

True Blood is trying to take a different path by making sex front and center (thus demystifying and disempowering it to a degree) and offering broad social commentary, which is usually the domain of, I don't know, zombie horror. It's an interesting way of doing things but I just don't think the show is any good (haven't seen the second season)

Nodaisho · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 Jul 2009, 14:17 »

Quote from: KvP on 16 Jul 2009, 13:48

Vampires are described as perfectly beautiful with a savage / vulpine quality (exotic!)

Fun Fact: In Dracula, the eponymous character is described as actually being quite ugly, but when spoken about (or written about, as the case may be), the adjectives and verbs used to describe what he does sound like the kind you would use to describe some sort of godly creature. So he is actually incredibly ugly, but with so much charisma that people wouldn't notice. I wish that held over more.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 Jul 2009, 20:29 »

All of the vampires (male and female) as I understand it, are so described. They're repulsive on one level, but utterly, inescapably seductive.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Jul 2009, 21:46 »

Could be. I can't remember the description of the wives, and I never got around to finishing it before I had to take it back to the library. I really ought to check it out again, just skip past the boring crap with Mina and Lucy.

Yeah, I know, I should never ever read Les Miserables.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Jul 2009, 06:49 »

I hear War and Peace is a ripping good yarn.

Professor Snuggles · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 Jul 2009, 13:29 »

The best reason to watch this shoe is for the absurd amount of hella rude titties.

Liz · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 Jul 2009, 21:18 »

The best part about this show is Anna Paquin. She is one of the few girls in the world I would consider going gay for.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 Jul 2009, 21:41 »

Quote from: Professor Snuggles on 18 Jul 2009, 13:29

The best reason to watch this shoe is for the absurd amount of hella rude titties.

Fuckit, man, I don't watch shoes.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: somebody justify True Blood to me (Read 7258 times)