Maybe, or maybe not. It depends on the things you hold important in the show.
Oh, and in case it doesn't go without saying, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS! Proceed at your own risk if you aren't current through this week's episode.
If you're a diehard fan of Sookie Stackhouse and Bill Compton's intense, romantic relationship and want nothing other than a happily ever after for a human girl and her vampire beau (come on, we all watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer at some point during its airing and cheered for Buffy and Angel to just get with it already). then you might think everything is just absurdly wonderful in the universe. But if you've been reading Charlaine Harris's series, if the Southern Vampire novels have sucked you in and are now lining your bookshelf, you might have raised your eyebrows more than once in the span of that hour of blessed HBO programming.
I'm caught in the middle, but leaning towards the latter. I haven't finished the entire series of books but I'm going to get started shortly on the fifth, and because of that I'm nice and caught up with what should have, in theory, happened in this episode and how things should (possibly?) progress in the future of the show. And yes, being the holder of a college degree in media production I fully understand the creative freedom that the directors of programs have, and consequently need in order to make something suitable for a network, time slot, viewing audience, etc. I'm sensitive to it, too.
But I also think there are enough sappy romance stories on television at the present time. I don't have anything against a good, strong partnership in a good, strong story, and if it were to be asked of anyone who knows me, I'd probably be classified as one of the biggest romantics and/or girly girls known. The sweeter and more tender moments in life can be gorgeous and poetic, and the shows that depict them can have the same qualities.
However, answer me this. Since when has True Blood been known for being gorgeous and poetic?
That's about what I thought.
True Blood has the qualities that television has been thirsting (ha, ha) to have on its broadcast waves for years. It's sharp, new, sexy, fierce, and - come on, you know it's true - just dirty enough to make the viewers' skin crawl, yet keep them impossibly glued to the TV set each week. And yes, romance and relationships are an important component of that formula, but they don't need to be the central focus. Sure, the viewing audience might not mind some generous nudity (I know I have nothing against Stephen Moyer, thank you very much), but there doesn't need to be a desperate focus on Sookie and Bill's happily ever after.
Charlaine Harris had so many fantastic plot twists in the first four books of Sookie's series that I couldn't put them down. I went through four in the span of a week, itching to know what was coming next, and eventually caving in to buy a huge box set so the following one would be ready once I had finished the one I was currently reading. And while there was, of course, romance in those, I promise that the hiss-and-spit cat fight between Sookie and Lorena didn't show up. Nor did Eric call Lorena with jealousy as the pretense, and the list of inconsistencies goes on and on. Again, I'm not expecting the show to be a verbatim compliment to the books, but I did find that Dead Until Dark was very, very close to the first season of True Blood.
And did that season make the show take off in popularity?
Why yes, I believe it did. And I believe that first season was the reason thousands of fans gathered at Comic Con this past July, and so forth. There's a good, strong thing going with this show, and I would hate to see it lost because the fans want a happy ending for our favorite Southern blonde and her vampire beau.
However, Alan Ball has made promises in his panels and interviews, and I'm hopeful for those. Fingers are crossed, and I shall remain an optimist.
Until next week.
0 comments:
Post a Comment