Friday, June 12, 2009

Reviewing (or not) 'True Blood' season two

I've been having some technical issues with the work computer that's prevented me from posting today's column, which offers my review of "True Blood" season two. I have a lot on my plate today, so I don't know that I'll get a chance to rectify this, particularly since the column is more or less an 800-word expansion on the idea that Sookie Stackhouse is too stupid to live, and I have no patience for her or the show that's been built around her.

In other words, don't expect to see "True Blood" in the blogging rotation this summer.

68 comments:

mrsb said...

In the books that the show is based on, Sookie is not quite as freakingly pathetic as on the show.

I'm still watching though, hoping that she'll grow a spine, because I love the books so much.

And the guy playing Eric is kind of tasty.

Q Ball said...

I don't blame you one bit, Alan. I gave this show several chances and it had some entertaining aspects, but for me to watch a show, I have to be somewhat invested in the lead character.

Karen said...

Me, after catching up with the show through Netflix last week, I'm totally hooked. I'm adding HBO to our satellite package this weekend. No accounting for taste, I guess! Yeah, Sookie is dim (I spent a lot of time while watching the episodes yelling at the TV "LISTEN TO THEIR THOUGHTS, for God's sake!"), as is Jason, as is... well, in general they're not a real bright bunch, but I like the characters anyway, and... well, in short, I find it fun. Guess I'll count on Mo for my True Blood blogging fix!

LA said...

My addiction to this show is inexplicable because this is a genre in which I have absolutely zero interest. And yet...

I guess the draw is Alan Ball's humor and hot naked men.

april said...

Good to know, mrsb. I have the book at home hoping it would be better than the show. Everyone else pretty much sums up why I watch the show. It's like crack. It's so bad, but I can't stop. It's like I need to watch it to say how bad it is.

JD said...

Yikes, bummer to see you're not a fan Alan. It took me a little while to warm up to the show and the character of Sookie can be groan inducing (Paquin often looks emotionless or dumbstruck when reading someone's thoughts), but I love the supporting characters too much to not watch the show.

Cree said...

Hate that you don't like this one Alan. It's always more fun to watch a television show with you! I just finished up The Wire last night and I read your recaps after I finished each episode.

dez said...

I watched every ep of the season hoping it would get better and at the end, I was hating myself for wasting all that time. Yet, I want to see what happened to Lafayette, so I'll probably watch the season premiere at least, heh.

For a real-life couple, Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer have no chemistry on-screen as lovers. Bleah.

tvcasualties said...

Agreed on Sookie. The male characters seem to get all of the entertaining lines, and the girls (especially Sookie and Tara) are almost constantly shrill, selfish and irrational.

Brandy said...

Two good friends of mine keep telling me I need to pick this one up and now Alan is saying Sookie is irritating (it's the name, don't ever name a fictional character Sookie) so I'm really really curious to catch the first season just to see where I fall on the spectrum of this show.

I've read one of the books and Sookie while not the sharpest in the books was at least more rootable than the main character from the Twilight saga because she wanted to accomplish things on her own rather than always relying on Bill.

But that's only one book and I haven't seen any of the series so who knows.

Oaktown Girl said...

I watch this show the same way I watched Scrubs: I seriously dislike the lead character, but enjoy the rest of the cast more than enough to make up for it.

However, if this season Sookie becomes even more unbearable, it could tip the scales the other way for sure.

Brent said...

This show has a very odd effect on me. Despite the fact that I have seen every episode, my predominant reaction most of the time is amazement at how bad it is. The dialogue and characterizations actually make me cringe to the point where I have to turn the sound down some times because I find it so annoying and yet, I watch. Its like I find the surrounding narrative just appealing enough to suffer through all of the crap that I find almost unbearably awful about the show. I don't think I can say that about a single other show I have ever watched.

Dan said...

Well, at least you give things a good go, Alan. :-)

Personally though, I don't think reviewing season 2's opening is meaningful if you stopped watching mid-season 1. Similarly, awhile back, reviewing the end of Prison Break if you gave up YEARS ago didn't seem worthwhile. Surely if you stop watching things, it should be a total break?

Oh well. I really enjoyed TB last year (ep4-8 were particularly entertaining), but it's clearly not your thing. Looking forward to the new series.

Hatfield said...

I think it's pretty clear that True Blood is well-done trash, and I couldn't stop watching, even though I kinda suspect it sucks (ooh, sorry).

Even worse, Lafayette was my favorite character, and he seems to be a goner...but I'll keep watching. There's just enough enjoyable quirkiness (not to mention vampires and gratuitous sex galore!) to keep me around.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you, Alan, True Blood is lame. It prompted me to kill my HBO.

Maggie said...

I'm glad to know that others find Sookie annoying. I stopped watching halfway through episode 3 when it first aired, because I couldn't stand watching her. It was something about Anna Paquin's facial expressions... and then she won a Golden Globe for the part, which amazed me.

So I recently went back and watched the first season in its entirety. I think Sookie gets a little less grating, but still the "love" scenes between her and Bill are tedious. I agree that it's bizarre that two actors with absolutely no chemistry could be dating in real life! Maybe this season they'll have more on-screen chemistry.

I am now listening to the audiobook of the first novel, and I have to say, I like the tv show better. No Tara, almost no Lafayette or Jason - it's really dull to be stuck inside Sookie's point of view throughout. I miss Jason!

One last question for those who have watched or read more of the books: what is the deal with her abilities? In one of the first few episodes, when she saved Bill from the Rattrays, she had some kind of power that caused the chain to wrap around the guy Rattray's neck and choke him, and super strength in fighting him. As far as I can see, that has never been explained nor has it ever come up again. Why the hell not? Is this sloppy story telling (like Belle's idly watching her friend's bloody bandaged head in one chapter of "Twilight" and fainting at the very mention of blood in the next - but don't get me started on that travesty of "literature")? Or am I missing something?

Jefferson said...

I think Mo Ryan said it best. The show is like a donut. Everything's good around the center. Plus, like Mo Ryan, it's fun having a contest to recreate the way all the characters say "Sookie."

Hyde said...

I've dipped into it here and there--I even watched the HBO special that's nothing more than Alan Ball recapping season one--but it's far from appointment television for me for the following reasons: I'm pretty much vampired out these days; I'm not a fan of Ball's work generally; and Anna Paquin has got to be the most overrated actor on television. The HFPA must have been drunker than usual when they gave her the Golden Globe.

Eldritch said...

Maggie says,
What is the deal with her abilities
?

I really don't recall that she has any abilities other than telepathy.

I've seen season one and read four of the books. Super strength or telekinesis would have come in handy for her here and there, but she doesn't seem to have those abilities.

--

I, for one, think Paquin is miscast in this role. She seems way too normal or well scrubbed to fit in with that cast of oddballs. I find her jarring in every scene, despite being quite good in other roles.

As for Sookie's intelligence, in both book and series, she seems no less than suicidal to insist on hanging out with creatures which murder with frequent abandon. In the books, she gets out of scrape after scrape mostly on the power of her being the book's heroine. Will season two be any different? (I ask that in light of the "Dexter" series not following that series of books beyond the first season.)

anyway said...

Maggie, in the books beyond the telepathy Sookie has no special powers. In the first episode of the tv show, they edited out that there was someone in the bushes causing the chain to tighten around Mack's neck and giving Sookie extra force in throwing the chain. Sloppy story-telling, I guess.

I enjoy the show, even though Bill and Sookie are my least favorite parts of the show. Sookie isn't so stupid in the books and it's a shame they dumbed her down for the TV show.

Maggie said...

Eldritch, if you watch the scene where she rescues Bill, it's very obvious that the chain around Rattray's neck is moving of its own volition. And, I think it's when she manages to grab his knife from him that she is super strong.

If you are right, Anyway, and they did edit out another character who was helping her from the bushes then I'm really disappointed. I hate being set up for something that goes nowhere!

I also still don't quite get why, when Jason took a drop of V he had major trippy fantasies, and when Bill nursed Sookie back to health with his blood (more than a drop), she just tasted her grandma's cooking more fully. I guess most of the V's power went to heal her and not much was left for her brain to get off on?

Chip said...

True Blood's alot better than Royal Pains or some of the other wack shows you still blog. But whatever. Do us a favor and dead Entourage too instead of making whiny posts about a show you clearly dislike as much as this and 24.

Matt said...

Apparently True Blood season 2 is inspired by the second book in the series--"Living Dead In Dallas."

As for Dexter, I believe some of the elements from the second book got incorporated in the second and third seasons, but the third book was apparently godawful (Dexter's "dark passenger" is really a demon entity, Dexter starts training his stepkids in "Harry's Rules"), and no one wants to touch it.

Loretta said...

To echo JD, "I love the supporting characters too much to not watch the show."

For me the show was really about Lafayette, Tara, Sam, the Sheriff and his Deputy, etc. I find Sookie painfully annoying and Bill's broodiness pathetic rather than mysterious, but I'm hoping Ball realized that it's his colorful supporting cast that people are tuning in for, and give them more air time.

My hopes for Lafayette's return are not very high though. :(

Nicole said...

I read the first book midway through watching the first season, and I actually started to dislike Sookie as portrayed by Anna Paquin even more, because she is just so dumb on the show. She might not be an intellectual genius in the novel, but she is not as whiny or as dependent on Bill.

Tara isn't in the books, and it's obvious because she was a horribly irritating character, even when she paired up with Sam, who definitely deserves better.

I would concur with the donut theory because Bill and Sookie are the least interesting part of this show. If this aired in the fall, I doubt I would even bother with it at all.

Hatfield said...

Always fun when someone shows up and claims Alan is whiny when he doesn't like something, but when we all agree it's sunshine and roses and sparkles, oh my!

I think he's just saying he really doesn't like it, and that while it's his job to at least review it, he ain't gonna spend any more time on it.

Anna said...

Chip, why don't you do yourself a favor and not read those posts then. Alan is a critic, and this is his blog, so he can write or not write about whatever shows he wants.

Jordan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quad Tuntstonion said...

Alan, Don't worry about it. True Blood is not good. It doesn't fit in with the other high caliber shows you review. Forget it.

Frans Klaupenschmientz said...

Chip. Get a grip.

haha. that rhymed.

Andrew said...

You bare description of the collumn makes it sound entertaining. I hope you find time to post it.

Jennifer said...

I concur with everyone who is all "yeah, it's entertaining trash." Mainly it just makes me laugh a lot.

Jennifer said...

Heh. I just found this. At least Sookie's still smarter than Bella:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31087539/

Hatfield said...

I've noticed that when someone wanders in here and rips Alan or makes snide remarks or just generally upsets the majority of readers around here, we turn into the Silly Hats Only party: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJYxCSXjhLI

(The whole thing is good, but fast forward to the 1:54 mark to see what I mean)

Stef said...

I love the Sookie books and have read every single one of them. I describe her to friends as the anti-Bella, cuz I like that she's a fairly smart, tough, independent character who doesn't always need or want a man in her life.

I've never watched the show and have been really torn about whether I will -- I've always hated Anna Paquin. Alan, this confirms it, I won't watch.

And fyi to the above commenter, Tara does appear in the books, just later.

Chip said...

I'm not making a case for True Blood, its not good enough to defend, I'm just wondering why Alan even posted it. There's a difference between being critical of a show you already like than posting reviews of shows just to rip on them. If he didn't like season one why even critique season 2?

Anonymous said...

The show is good better than Chuck

Not everything has to be on the level of the Wire/Mad Men/Breakin Bad/In treatment

J.R. said...

I have to say, I agree with what you write about a lot of shows, but I think you're wrong about True Blood. When I watched Season 1 for the first time, I rolled my eyes a lot in the beginning because I found things to be a little too ridiculous. Or, as a Southern girl myself, a little too stereotyped. But somewhere along the way, I was hooked. I'm not saying you should lower your standards, but maybe if you don't take it so seriously, you would enjoy it more. And you seem to be taking Sookie out of context when you talk about how stupid she is. When you meet her in episode 1, she is just a girl, but by the end of the season, she is a much stronger and thoughtful female lead. Anna Paquin has done a great job with her. And Stephen Moyer brings out the best in her. He plays Bill with such maturity, balanced with such a lack of reason when it comes to Sookie. They have amazing chemistry together, which is probably what makes the show feel so real.

Chip said...

Anonymous I agree there are different levels, you don't watch True Blood or other shows with the same expectations you hold for The Wire or Mad Men or something. but better than Chuck...nah

Mike F said...

I really enjoy True Blood, but I know its not Shakespeare...I've always been a pretty big vampire flick fan and used to enjoy reading the Anne Rice books when I was younger...and love the original Dracula of course

Why do I enjoy this show in particular?

-- I think Anna Paquin is nice eye-candy...and just because she doesn't have other powers in the books doesn't mean Alan Ball can't do whatever the heck he wants with her

-- I enjoy the lead vampire's accent and story very much

-- I love the angle of vampires coming out of the closet; and becoming the newest minority...hoping they improve the angles they take on that concept

-- Its a great-looking show, and I find it funny as well...if not extremely memorable

-- In shorts, its an easy read that titillates me and makes me laugh

As for how it compares to other shows Alan reviews, I can't imagine anybody not suggesting that Reaper isn't also stupid, annoying, with a pretty dumb set of characters...and without nearly the same production values...and this show is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Dollhouse

I think the show will probably grow over the years and we'll see Alan Ball take it in interesting directions...after all, this is the guy who did Six Feet Under

Nony M said...

Stay strong, Alan -- I agree with you 100%. The first book in the series remains one of the only novels I've given up on with less than 1/4 to go. Too stupid to live sums it up perfectly. I cannot bear being stuck with a heroine so phenomenally incapable of reason, sense, or logic. Yes, let's spend three chapters worrying about our brother's wrongful imprisonment for a murder WE COULD SOLVE IN FIVE MINUTES BY READING MINDS. But I'm forgetting -- reading minds makes her feel all icky for largely unspecified and frustratingly weak reasons. When you're rooting for the bad guys to suck your hero dry, that's never a good sign.

Eldritch said...

Maggie said,
I also still don't quite get why, when Jason took a drop of V he had major trippy fantasies, and when Bill nursed Sookie back to health with his blood (more than a drop), she just tasted her grandma's cooking more fully
.

Humans drank vampire blood in the books for health and sex, but I don't remember vivid fantasies (could be wrong though).

I do remember the effect on Sookie as coming from the book. I'm thinking the fantasies were invented for the series. Call that sloppy writing?

Anyway said,
Maggie, in the books beyond the telepathy Sookie has no special powers. In the first episode of the tv show, they edited out that there was someone in the bushes causing the chain to tighten around Mack's neck and giving Sookie extra force in throwing the chain. Sloppy story-telling, I guess
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr9cM2T-AKw

I found the scene with the chain. The chain certainly seems to grip the Mack's neck with more than the usual tenacity. I don't see any hint of how that happens. Sam, the bar owner, in the form of a dog, was present, but I don't think it was established that he had telekineses in either book or series. A scene deleted or sloppy writing are my only guesses.

Eldritch said...

Matt said...
As for Dexter, I believe some of the elements from the second book got incorporated in the second and third seasons, but the third book was apparently godawful (Dexter's "dark passenger" is really a demon entity, Dexter starts training his stepkids in "Harry's Rules")


Each of the sucessive books got worse. A fourth's due out in September (I think).

The first book was really funny and charming. In it Dexter discovers that Rita's children were both future serial killers. The boy kills, while the older sister watches and smiles approvingly. Of course, they're only killing small animals at this point. They became that way due to the brutal beatings Rita's husband gave. She doesn't know.

Dexter's first season seemed to suggest this possibility (wasn't there a scene in which the boy is enjoying hooking worms on a fishing line a little too much?). But they seem to have abandoned that plot thread.

Interestingly, at the end of the 1st book, when he rescues his sister, she learns he's a serial killer. Then oddly enough, that's not mentioned again in the sequels.

The second book was okay, but it lost much of the charm of the first. It has the same mood and feeling of the series' third season, and had an external villain. The villain was really cruel in ways that disturb me to think about. You're right that some elements of that were incorporated into the TV series. I thought the second season was better than the second book, because Dexter himself was more personally threatened.

The third book just wasn't any fun. Dexter finds himself unable to kill, because he's lost his Dark Passenger, so while investigating that, he concentrates on training his two young protégés. Dexter's fun as a wry serial killer, not a conduit of the supernatural.

By book's end, he recovers his Dark Passenger. Ergo, the soon to be issued book four.

Anonymous said...

I am so addicted to this show because for that one hour I get to escape my crappy reality.

I adore the books though. Book Sookie is a no nonsense, independent, straight talker.

Craig Ranapia said...

I, for one, think Paquin is miscast in this role. She seems way too normal or well scrubbed to fit in with that cast of oddballs. I find her jarring in every scene, despite being quite good in other roles.

Well, I had the opposite reaction to 'Pushing Dasies' -- everyone was so self-consciously, obnoxiously 'quirky' I was begging for someone relatively understated I could relate to. I wouldn't have a problem with Sookie being "too normal", but when the writers apparently don't give a $#@! about making her character remotely interesting I think Anna Paquin is getting more stick than she really deserves. Don't think anyone could do much with the role.

jasctt said...

Christ, I can't elieve this POS got a second season, ut what else does HBO have going for it (nothing)? i still remember almost throwing up at how horrid thi pilot was. imagine all the nastiness and ugliness that was 6FU AFTER the third season and add vampires and you get the picture.

Anonymous said...

I think people miss the point with Sookie's mind reading. She has so many psychological scars tied up with her "disability" that it isn't as simple as opening up and reading the people. Also, she can't read everyone equally and in fact she couldn't even read the person who did end up being the killer. The book does a better job of explaining the issues around her mind reading skills than the series does.

I actually like the series a lot and think that it is a lot more sophisticated storytelling than people give it credit for. Much of that has to do with the fantastic supporting characters. I do agree they are much more interesting than Paquin, especially Lafayette, Andy and Tara.

And regarding LaFayette -- I wouldn't count him out so easily. I really, really, don't think that body in the car is his.

Hillary said...

I think Anna Paquin is nice eye-candy...and just because she doesn't have other powers in the books doesn't mean Alan Ball can't do whatever the heck he wants with her

Actually, that's not what bothers me. I would applaud Alan Ball for giving her other powers that enhance the story. But filming a scene where she has other powers, then changing his mind and leaving most of the scene intact without any explanation? That's sloppy.

Also, she can't read everyone equally and in fact she couldn't even read the person who did end up being the killer.
Actually she did read him in both the book and the series. In the book I'm on that section right now (he is one of the people she runs into when she finds Dawn's body) and in the series, she remarks to him how funny it is that he doesn't think in the same accent he speaks with.

Part of the reason these inconsistencies bother me is that I want, really want, to like this show. So its failures rankle more than, say, a flat joke on "Two and a Half Men." (Thankfully that show came along, as I wasn't sure what touchstone we'd have for "inexplicably popular show" once "Yes, Dear" went off the air.)

Mike F said...

Bill asks her after he saves her when they first meet "what are you" at that point and her "specialness" is stressed throughout the first season. I think that's the meta-mystery on the show...who is this girl, where did she come from, what can she do, and then perhaps most importantly, what will she choose to be in this world?

As for her being stupid, I think its more that she's supposed to be young and inexperienced. Its the start of her arch. In a small backwater town where she works in the bar, where everybody seems to have lots of nasty thoughts, she has probably spent years working on her ability not to hear people's thoughts...and apparently, never honing those abilities...as evidenced by her feeling overwhelmed when she's unable to block those abilities.

Its an epic inner-conflict...and I think what we'll see over the next few seasons is Sookie (perhaps with Bill's help) come to terms with who she is, what she can do and who she wants to be.

Just because there's some source material doesn't mean the show can't just use it as a launching off point. I always thought the powers she exhibited with chains wrapping around the guy's neck were brought out by her anger/rage and she may not have even realized it happened. I can't imagine Alan Ball being clumsy enough to screw up as big a detail as that, evidence that she's more than just a mind-reader as he's introducing her and her powers in the first 20 minutes of the series.

Hatfield said...

Until he referenced Alan Ball, I thought the above poster was Alan Ball.

Just kidding, I enjoy the show, but I also think it would be funny to see Alan's bad review.

Alan, since I'm not a Twitter type of guy, I know nowhere else to put this: will you be blogging the Kings burn off that starts tonight? I don't think you ever did the 5th episode, so I don't know if you'd even wanna put in the effort, but here's hoping.

DeeTV said...

I really like this show. I agree with the folks that say it's just fun. It's also one of the few shows that both my husband and I like.

I've read all 9 books, and Stef, if you're still reading you should give the show a shot.

The show strays a bit from the books, but it seems like what they're doing is combining things from multiple books pretty quickly. So we're seeing characters and story lines much quicker on the show than in the books. The show also gives certain characters more "show time" than the book, so that it's not so Sookie-centric.

But if you can not get hung up on the differences it's a lot of fun. And I think by reading the books, you get a lot more insight into the characters, especially Sookie.

It's like movies that are based on books. The movies don't usually have the time to develop the characters as well as the books do.

Jonathan said...

This show is brilliant trash candy. It doesn't take itself at all seriously, which is why it is just FUN. Is it The Wire, Sopranos, Six Feet Under or Deadwood. Of course not, but we have to quit judging HBO by those standards or we will be forever disappointed. Those four golden standards are possibly the 4 greatest TV shows ever to grace the earth, and HBO fans (including me) are spoiled because we had them all within the same time frame. Right now HBO isn't making all-time great art, but Big Love, Entourage, and True Blood are all very good shows, and they are the flagship right now,and True Blood is the star at this point. I also think I should point out it is the only HBO show I have ever been able to get my girlfriend into, and I think she loves it more than me.

erin said...

I must say--I saw some clips of the show and thought it was UNBELIEVEABLY cheesy, but for some reason I was tempted to watch it. I borrowed it from a friend, and watched the entire thing this weekend. Holy cow, was it addictive!!

Anna Paquin is just a terrible actress, and Sookie and Bill are really the weakest parts of the show (kind of like the same issue I have with the Twilight books) but the rest of the show is really quite good despite that fact. The characters, the accents (which are pretty bad, but at least unique for a tv show), the stories, the non-Paquin acting...I was surprised how engrossing it was, and they have a really consistent way of doing good episode cliffhangers, which is definitely what kept me watching. It is the definition of Guilty Pleasure. I'm not surprised it's not your thing (and no, I don't understand why anyone would find Sookie appealing, much less a sex symbol--she's pretty unsexy), but I got a big ol' kick out of it anyway. It's good, old-fashioned trash, and I think it's intended to be!

Anonymous said...

The first episode of season 2 leaves no doubt in my mind it's going to be just as ridiculous as last season.

I did enjoy the one detectives "What the fuck!?" line and the "Nobody asked for towels!" from Admiral Cain/Paul's Wife.

This show is just ridiculous though.

The best shows HBO has are Big Love, In Treatment, and of course Curb Your Enthusiasm. I sure wish those new seasons were ready to go.

Indeed said...

This show is pure guilty pleasure for me and does not need any blogging or analysis as far as i'm concerned. I just like to enjoy it for what it is - a bit mysterious, a bit funny, a bit romantic, a lot trashy and a lot of 'special times'.

TIMMY!!! said...

I just want to add that, in addition to being absolutely horribly written,"True Blood" features what I consider to be the worst performance I have ever seen in any medium (and I saw Candace Bergen in ""HurlyBurly" on Broadway!), that distinction belonging to the godawful Rutina Wesley as Tara. If you want an excellent drinking game, try doing a shot every time she:

1)Presses her lips together and bugs her eyes out to convey anger
2)Presses her lips together and bugs her eyes out to convey sadness
3) Presses her lips together and bugs her eyes out just for the hell of it
4)Says "Maaaaw-muuhhhh!"
5)Says "Fuuuuuk yewwww"

This is a terrible terrible show, and she's the worst thing in it. Who knows, maybe that's a compliment?

Maggie said...

Sorry, but I had to fast-forward through Sookie and Bill's "love" scenes in the season 2 premiere. I honestly hope that the actors are enjoying a fabulous relationship, but their on-screen chemistry is painful to watch. There were more sparks between the red-haired waitress and the pts-vet/bartender in their one hug.

Here's an example of why I think this show is ridiculous: A close-up shot of Sookie's finger when she cuts it packing her grandmother's things is followed by a scene where a lawyer stops by to tell her that her abusive uncle has died, and left her all his money. Cue handing over the check and Sookie's taking it in her injured hand. Now let the camera linger on the envelope which is streaked with blood.

Wait... I get it, it's "blood money"! How clever?

No, not clever. Obvious and cheesy, yes.

dez said...

So what did happen to Lafayette? Did Bill drain him and/or turn him?

Anonymous said...

This show is so much better than most of the trollop reviewed on here. I love it when all the Alan defenders get their panties in a bunch when someone posts a criticism of their God. LOL. That makes this blog worth reading.....

Alan Sepinwall said...

This show is so much better than most of the trollop reviewed on here.

Anonymous, I think you mean tripe, and not trollop.

Though that does give me some ideas for a spin-off blog...

Hatfield said...

dez: Lafayette seems to have been captured by Eric, though we still don't know why. He was down there with one of the rednecks who burned down the house that those three vampires were in last season, and when Eric came down to take that guy away for "some questions," the guy shoved a silver cross in his face, so Eric ripped him to pieces. After biting him in in his naughty area quite a few times. Seriously, that's exactly what happened. Alan Ball is ridiculous, and yet I keep watching.

Alan, I would love to read about the trollops you've been watching. Do tell!

Andrew said...

Well, the show's premiere numbers were very good (3.7 million). Like it or not, it now appears to be HBO's flagship show.

dez said...

Thanks, Hatfield! So who was the dead person in the back of the car?

Hatfield said...

You're lucky I troll this site so unabashedly from my desk at work...but since I'm here, it was Miss Jeanette, the sham voodoo lady who had performed "exorcisms" on Tara and her mom. Her heart was ripped out, and by the look on her face she got to watch it happen. Based on the shows you seem to comment on, I assumed you had HBO. Is the show just too silly for you, but you had to know what happened anyway?

LA said...

I'm pretty sure Eric kidnapped Lafayette because he was using Eddie as a source for V. He may be holding L responsible for Eddie's disappearance. Remember last season, Eric and his posse went into Sam's place and told the locals they knew who was doing wrong by the vampires and they'd be dealing with them.

Anyway, just read that the True Blood season 2 opener marks HBO's second best audience, coming in behind The Soprano's finale.

dez said...

Based on the shows you seem to comment on, I assumed you had HBO. Is the show just too silly for you, but you had to know what happened anyway?


Yeah, that's basically it :-) Well, that and the crappy acting and the main character being such a moron. Even as trash, I couldn't enjoy it, but I did want to know what happened to Lafayette since he was the one character I cared about. Thanks for saving me an hour of viewing :-)

Anonymous said...

This show is hilarious. I guess it depends on what you are looking for in your television viewing. I'm not sure the show is intentionally trying to be as funny as it is but that doesn't make it any less funny, not does it matter. The scene with Eric, Bill and the salesclerk where she assumes they are gay is a riot.

Now, back to The Claverings.....

Anonymous said...

One of the things I like about this show is the new characters that are continually being introduced. This week it's a dwarf, older, female physician with an acerbic tongue. Shes on screen for all of a minute but its terrific. Eric just gets better. Disclaimer: I love any show that openly mocks "christian" wingnuts.