Entertainment For Lively Minds
Anyone see premier of new HBO show True Blood?
Posted by Adman on 18 July 2009 - 7:26pm.
I watched with mixed feelings. It was stylishly done, well written, well acted and it's about vampires (a plus for me). On the other hand I found it a little too self-consciously 'sexy,' a bit too David Lynch, but trying too hard. The fact that HBO made it and that it looks like an intriguing story will unfold will keep me watching. Now that the characters are established I'm hoping it will seem a little less clunky.
Anyone else see it? What did you think?
- More from Adman.
- Login or register to post comments
-
It's been shown here in NZ
I saw the first one and I thought the cast was pretty unengaging. Six Feet Under was successful because despite the occasional bizarreness, you could identify with the family members, who were all at different stages in their lives.
True Blood had a few moments, but it could have been Buffy "Nights!" - you know what I mean, when they make adult versions of kids' shows.
Excuse me fella...
Buffy wasn't a kids' show - it was a multi-layered, endlessly rewarding, witty, moving, pioneering work of televisual art.
Yes she certainly was ...
.
Dead Until Dark
As I've mentioned before on here (can't remember exactly where) I had been watching this earlier in the year via the Inter Net Webs and I rather liked it. I hasten to add that I have already pre-ordered the DVD boxset.
Like a lot of shows the first episode is setting up a lot of things for later - once the plots kick in things are better. Of course it simply may not be your thing, which is fine as well.
Hmmm...too self consciously sexy?
I'm afraid if you find that a failing of the show then you're not going to stop. I've not gotten onto the second series, but I've seen the first. It's good, atmospheric and all, but that HBO 'sex factor' doesn't stop.
Bring Back Buffy.
This is being hailed as the best thing on TV since the last best thing, but frankly I dont get it. I can't put my finger on exactly I think is wrong with it, but finding the lead character deeply, deeply, irritating may have something to do with it.
Interesting
I read some of the books (Southern Vampire series by Charlaine Harris) years ago when they came out but have been debating whether to bother with the tv series.
It's a long shot but has anyone who's seen the tv series also read any of the books? If so how did it compare?
I have
I actually thought the TV series was better. Mostly it may well be to do with the writers knowing where the longer-term plot arcs are going. One of the things that speeds the plot along is that we don't only get events from Sookie's point of view. Also I think they bring some characters straight away who don't appear until a couple of books into the series.
Between this and Twilight *spit* the whole "Paranormal Romance" genre seems to be exploding just now - I've even seen it have it's own section in Waterstones next to horror. I can't say it's a genre that I want to dive into in detail, but I don't mind the occasional book if it's not just thinly veiled erotica (which is what most of the Anita Blake novels turned into) or Mills & Boon with fangs/werewolves.
Thanks, I'll give it a go.
It's a while since I read them but they had more character and feeling of place than most of these vampire series I thought. Failed to finish Twilight but then I'm several times it's target audience age I imagine!
Twilight? Not a fan.
I hated Twilight and have said so at some length elsewhere. I read the first book based on an Amazon recommendation and was ready to give up on it when apparently a different author took over 200 pages before the end to desperately insert some kind of plot and an equivalent to Quidditch.
That's before you even get started on what it says about the role of women and what their expectations should be in romantic relationships ("be whiny and entirely self-centred, and you will get a man who loves you unconditionally and will always rescue you"), and how that whole chastity thing completely blunts the vampire/dangerous-sex allegory.
I didn't bother with the other books in the series, or the movie.
True Blood
For those of you are not convinced give it a few more weeks..also two other HBO treats coming up.."Hung"..high school basketball coach in Detroit who's life haas hit rock bottom sets himself up as a male escort..sound lame?..it isnt give it a try..also"Nurse Jackie" starring the great, impossibly soulful Edie Falco as pill popping saintly nurse at a New Youk Hospital..
US TV forever peaking!
I agree
it gets much better in episode 7 or 8 when Anna's puppies are unleashed for no apparent reason! ;)
Vampire soft porn
Episode 1 of True Blood was simply the Buffy/Angel storyline with some more explicit sex. I'll give it one more episode but wasn't impressed. Theme music was good though
Caught up with Episode 1 tonight
and loved it. Hokum but high grade hokum which manages to pull off the neat trick of being knowing and well executed but not taking itself too seriously
I have now seen Episode 2
And I have concluded that I will be deleting the series from the Sky+.
I can see its merits, but the flaws are getting in the way. Maybe I have just grown out of vampires, but... the leading men just irritate me, the concept of mortals 'draining' vampires for their blood & vampires insisting that they no longer need human blood is just, er, silly.The characters seem cliched - the grandmother who is clearly hiding something just takes the biscuit in that respect. It all feels vaguely like a lost opportunity to me. I shall continue to work through The Sopranos instead. Series 4 is calling.