Darrel Manson, on 25 September 2008 - 12:20 PM, said:
I will say that the criticism that it flaunts its cable channel freedom in sex scenes is well founded. They are so numerous and wild that it's getting boring.
I'd mostly agree that it ain't anything spectacular, but it also is quite enjoyable. Some weeks drag, others are more involving.
I would point out that the major difference between this and other HBO series is that True Blood is played as a comedy. That goes for the sex scenes too. (Though it is high time that HBO braved male nudity.) I would point out that the heavy-handed excess is in all aspects of this show - the title sequence signals that very well. In this it seems to be trying its hand at the Southern gothic, though not entirely successfully. And, also, it's a vampire pic. Surely the genre demands excess? I'd agree that the references to social inclusion/exclusion aren't fully explored, and that's a real shame because I would say that the idea of vampires 'mainstreaming' certainly is a good one and has a lot of potential.
As for the lead: I wouldn't class her as white trash. I'm still not 100% convinced by erm... whatsherface... she's really good, but I just don't buy her relationship to others in the show. At least not to the lead vamp, her gran, nor her brother.
Overall, though, it makes for well made entertainment and little else.
Peter T Chattaway, on 25 September 2008 - 03:50 PM, said:
I still have a hard time believing that people are willing to get naked for something that goes direct to TV. Like, if anybody wants to see MY ass, I'd make 'em buy a ticket first. A cable-subscription package just wouldn't do.
Oh and this is late, but I feel it needs to be said: I would never, ever buy a ticket to that show.
More seriously - haven't you heard? Cinema is subscription tv's poorer, not as cool, older brother.
I caught part of Interview with a Vampire last night - the theatre scene - and I thought about all the poor actresses hired in for a nude scene that didn't make it, and this represents the pinnacle of their acting careers. Makes me sad.
gigi wrote:
: (Though it is high time that HBO braved male nudity.)
In general, you mean? I don't watch much TV, period, but I did catch up with HBO's Rome recently, and it seemed to me that that show, at least, had its share of male nudity (including the frontal variety).
: Oh and this is late, but I feel it needs to be said: I would never, ever buy a ticket to that show.
OK, so I ain't got HBO but what I've seen don't go anywhere near it. What I've seen are the major shows - Sopranos, Wire, Six Feet Under (only braved one series. found it boring.) and now True Blood. Was Angels in America HBO? Ain't even heard of Rome!
Peter, I hate to burst your strip-fantasy bubble but... not even if it were free.
Darrel Manson, on 06 August 2010 - 10:54 PM, said:
I'm just starting season 2 on DVD - anybody still watching?
Season 1 is still about 25 places down my Netflix queue. Vampires metaphorically represent oppressed queerness (in every sense of the term), OTT southern gothic presented by people who aren't actually southern, etc, etc, etc. Books are OK, but I feel as if watching this series is a duty. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.
Season 1 is still about 25 places down my Netflix queue. Vampires metaphorically represent oppressed queerness (in every sense of the term), OTT southern gothic presented by people who aren't actually southern, etc, etc, etc. Books are OK, but I feel as if watching this series is a duty. If I change my mind, I'll let you know.
I've kind of been casually watching this show (DVRing it, and trying out 2-3 episodes at a time when there's nothing else to do). Both the dialogue and acting is probably better than any other vampire stuff I've seen on film. Between the dark humor, cultural commentary, and religious symbolism and overtones, it's stayed interesting so far. True Blood is probably the exception to the rule of "metaphorically representing repressed queerness."
Season One will fascinate you to the point that you're addicted after the beginning episodes, it slows down, and then escalates back up to the end.
Season Two is the weakest, in fact it almost lost me (and I skipped a few episodes to get to the end). But the climax in Two is pretty good actually.
Season Three is coming back stronger, in my opinion, than either of the first two. There seems to be more depth to the consequences of the choices different characters are being forced to make. And Season 3 has the best bad guy so far (Denis O'Hare). He's starting to explain his philosophy now (and it's not as shallowly motivated as right-wing religious nut-job, Greek mythological creature, or plain-old-serial-killer bad guys).
The contrasts between the characters is what keeps the story interesting for me. Bill believes being a vampire doesn't mean you still can't be human and follow the moral law that applies to human beings (this view of his is being directly challenged in Season 3). Eric doesn't believe in being human anymore, but still has a moral code he lives by (partly from back when he used to be human). And Russell doesn't believe in any moral code whatsoever, except the one you make up for yourself as it pleases you. As long as this sort of discussion stays as a major theme in the story (with the romance as more of a sub-plot), I'll keep watching.
Do you say that because there is nothing repressed about the queerness here?
Going into season 2, I was looking forward to the Jessica storyline. After 2.2, it still has potential, but has take a bit of a turn - from her rebellious freedom at the end of season 1, she seems to be holding onto her humanity a bit more than e
Do you say that because there is nothing repressed about the queerness here?
Going into season 2, I was looking forward to the Jessica storyline. After 2.2, it still has potential, but has take a bit of a turn - from her rebellious freedom at the end of season 1, she seems to be holding onto her humanity a bit more than expected.
Darrel Manson, on 08 August 2010 - 07:12 AM, said:
Do you say that because there is nothing repressed about the queerness here?
lol - let's just say that True Blood, unlike any other vampire story on film, does not really "repress" anything at all.
Quote
Going into season 2, I was looking forward to the Jessica storyline. After 2.2, it still has potential, but has take a bit of a turn - from her rebellious freedom at the end of season 1, she seems to be holding onto her humanity a bit more than expected.
(Offensive language warning here obviously, btw.)
This may sound strange. Because I don't think the creators of True Blood are exactly this turned in to thinking about Christianity. But consider this for a moment - I sat down and had a fairly energetic conversation over a few beers with some other Christian friends who watch True Blood. Our discussion turned on the duality of the nature of man and how it's portrayed in this story.
Christianity teaches that, once you become a believer, your old nature is dead, and you are given a new nature that is in the process of being sanctified. Even though the old man is dead, you aren't quite rid of your old nature, in fact, defeating the sin nature inside you is a daily battle. We know what is right, and yet our nature wants to do the opposite. As believers, we have a new nature that is now pitted against the old. Being a Christian doesn't stop you from being a sinner, but it does give you something to strive for. In fact, as a natural condition of man, C.S. Lewis explained at the beginning of Christianity that we all have a "moral law" that we know we all ought to follow. We all don't follow this moral law. And when we don't follow it, we want to come up with excuses and explanations for why there are exceptions to following it, etc. Every man is created in the image of God and every man is corrupted with a sin nature.
In True Blood, once a character becomes a vampire, that character is dead, and is essentially given a new nature with new desires. The basic premise of True Blood, is that the vampires are people too (they've come out in politics as a group of citizens who still possess natural rights, and minority group that the majority doesn't want to give any rights). Even though a vampire is "dead," he or she isn't quite rid of their humanity. Being a vampire doesn't stop characters from being human and believing in right in wrong, as demonstrated by Bill, Jessica (under Bill's influence), and to a growing extent (in spite of what he declares to the contrary), Eric. This means that holding onto their humanity and morality is actually a choice (the other vampires who don't believe in being human or following right and wrong chose to think this way). In other words, characters like Bill know they ought to act one way, and yet their nature (the new nature in this case) wants to do the opposite. So the vampires have a new nature that is pitted against the old. Most of the moral dilemnas in the show are exploring (if not taken explicitly from Christianity) the philosophical idea of struggling with this new nature and now it affects your actions. Of course, not everyone watching the show is going to care about any of this.
While the classic works in literature like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein fully explore these questions, I've never seen an instance of a vampire story making any effort to explore the same thing until True Blood. The ability was there all along, it just took someone like the scriptwriters of True Blood to decide they were interested in it.
...
This may sound strange. Because I don't think the creators of True Blood are exactly this turned in to thinking about Christianity. But consider this for a moment - I sat down and had a fairly energetic conversation over a few beers with some other Christian friends who watch True Blood. Our discussion turned on the duality of the nature of man and how it's portrayed in this story.
... So the vampires have a new nature that is pitted against the old. Most of the moral dilemnas in the show are exploring (if not taken explicitly from Christianity) the philosophical idea of struggling with this new nature and now it affects your actions. Of course, not everyone watching the show is going to care about any of this.
While the classic works in literature like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein fully explore these questions, I've never seen an instance of a vampire story making any effort to explore the same thing until True Blood. The ability was there all along, it just took someone like the scriptwriters of True Blood to decide they were interested in it.
You're kidding, right? You've never seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then? (I had to check to see that you've never posted in that forum.) No one would claim it's as "edgy" as True Blood, but within the restrictions of its (supposed) target audience and networks (WB/UPN), Buffy still managed to be better written than most TV (and have a book devoted to it's linguistic style & influence) and scandalous enough to make the Parents TV Council "bad" list. However, the main point is that throughout seven seasons of Buffy, questions of redemption, the soul (and what happens to a vampire's soul in particular), are raised repeatedly in Buffy, especially for the vampire characters Angel and Spike, not to mention witch Willow and Buffy herself, and later the quest for redemption is at the heart of spinoff Angel. Of course, both are famously created and (mostly) written by the "very angry, hardline atheist" Joss Whedon.
There is definietly nothing repressed in season 3. Last night had a lot of guy on guy action. The Jessica storyline really picks up between the end of season 2 and into season 3, I am really liking the character, and she had a really great moment last night.
Comparing Buffy and True Blood is hard, afterall, Buffy essentially came down on the side of vampires are evil and soul-less, inhabited by demons. The True Blood universe treats them as...more natural super-natural creatures. They are predators by nature, though capable of resisting their basic urgesses.
Season three has been a very good season for several characters, and several episodes have had just "Oh wow!" moments (at least for me). Last night had some doozys.
But Buffy and True Blood are very different animals...and I appreciate them both for different reasons.
Buffy still managed to be better written than most TV (and have a book devoted to it's linguistic style & influence) and scandalous enough to make the Parents TV Council "bad" list. However, the main point is that throughout seven seasons of Buffy, questions of redemption, the soul (and what happens to a vampire's soul in particular), are raised repeatedly in Buffy, especially for the vampire characters Angel and Spike, not to mention witch Willow and Buffy herself, and later the quest for redemption is at the heart of spinoff Angel. Of course, both are famously created and (mostly) written by the "very angry, hardline atheist" Joss Whedon.
Yeah, I've seen Buffy - it seems like years and years ago. Can't say I ever took much of it seriously, or that any of the dramatic parts seemed actually thought-provoking though. It was fun and well-written, just more light-hearted entertainment than really trying to go into any philosophy questions. Of course, I'm sure some of the hard-core fans could discuss Buffy related philosophy for hours on end.
On another note, you know, it's going to be a bummer if they knock off Russell Edgington at the end of Season Three. He's such a perfect bad guy.
Yeah, I've seen Buffy - it seems like years and years ago. Can't say I ever took much of it seriously, or that any of the dramatic parts seemed actually thought-provoking though. It was fun and well-written, just more light-hearted entertainment than really trying to go into any philosophy questions.
Yikes, this (to me) is akin to saying that hard-boiled novels, especially by those Cain and Chandler guys, are just page-turning summer reads without any moral quandaries.
Jason Panella, on 16 August 2010 - 03:29 PM, said:
Persiflage, on 16 August 2010 - 02:55 PM, said:
Yeah, I've seen Buffy - it seems like years and years ago. Can't say I ever took much of it seriously, or that any of the dramatic parts seemed actually thought-provoking though. It was fun and well-written, just more light-hearted entertainment than really trying to go into any philosophy questions.
Yikes, this (to me) is akin to saying that hard-boiled novels, especially by those Cain and Chandler guys, are just page-turning summer reads without any moral quandaries.
What Jason said, to which one might also add comparisons to the (original) Grimms' fairy tales or Alice in Wonderland ("just a children's book"). And I don't want to derail this thread or cast aspersions on True Blood, which I'll inevitably get around to seeing eventually. Take our word for it--we're not just making this stuff up. (Considers pinning Persiflage down until he watches Buffy 4.22 "Restless," followed by reading Matthew Pateman's analysis in The Aesthetics of Culture in Buffy the Vampire Slayer...)
What Jason said, to which one might also add comparisons to the (original) Grimms' fairy tales or Alice in Wonderland ("just a children's book"). And I don't want to derail this thread or cast aspersions on True Blood, which I'll inevitably get around to seeing eventually. Take our word for it--we're not just making this stuff up. (Considers pinning Persiflage down until he watches Buffy 4.22 "Restless," followed by reading Matthew Pateman's analysis in The Aesthetics of Culture in Buffy the Vampire Slayer...)
ok, I like Buffy too - guess I'm just speaking from the fact that one of the main reasons I liked it was because, unlike other shows, it didn't quite take itself that seriously.
I'm perfectly happy to include Buffy with True Blood in the exception of vampire stories on film that actually do have some philosophical depth to them. Point being, this is a genre I generally dislike and find incredibly boring, but both shows overcame my objections to the genre by being of much higher caliber than normal.
Sign In
Register
Help
Darrel Manson, on 25 September 2008 - 12:20 PM, said:
MultiQuote
