I can honestly say . . .
Aug. 27th, 2011 10:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feliciakw. . . I've actually watched an episode of Tru Blood, so I can say whether or not I liked it.
WARNING: My review is going behind the cut due to mentions of "adult" content. I'm not going to get overly graphic, but since I have no idea how many underaged readers I have, I feel compelled to put this warning on here.
Someone from Geo's work loaned us the first season of True Blood on DVD. To be honest, I've never had any interest in seeing the show. I remember the ad campaign when it first started, which was really cool, but it's an HBO series, so, meh. I figure it's going to be harder than I particularly like, and probably along the exploitative lines. I've heard there's a lot of graphic sex, which right there puts it on the "sex over substance" measure of my radar.
I've heard the two extremes of recommendation: on the one hand, I've had people tell me I should check it out. Otoh, I've had someone tell me it's nothing but soft porn. Considering the source of each of these recs, I'm not surprised by either of them.
So here's what I thought of it, having actually watched the first ep.
Had I not known that someone was going to ask me, "So what did you think?" I would have turned it off after the first scene.
When a show introduces itself to me with a girl giving a guy a hand job, that sets the tone for the entire series. So, it is going to be sex over substance. And not just sex, but voyeuristic sex. Um, no, thank you.
And there is a lot of voyeuristic sex in this first ep. I realize it's HBO, and that's one of the selling points of the show, but I'm not entirely convinced that the amount of graphic sex is actually necessary for the purposes of the storytelling. Geo, btw, hated it, was offended by it, and will not be watching any eps ever again. As he said, once I could get him past his snarky response, it felt exploitative. Now, maybe that exploitative vibe is what the show is actually going for (and in the particular scene I'm thinking of, I can see that), but it's not something I'm interested in watching episode after episode. (I can maybe sit through it in a movie, if there's a bigger reason I'm watching the movie--MBV, F13--but it's not something I want in every episode of a TV show.) Also, who's being exploited? The characters in the story, or the audience?
I've said before, I'll say again: if a graphic sex scene works to advance the story or is necessary for storytelling reasons, I can go along with that. But when it's showing sex for the sake of showing sex, that feels pointless and exploitative and voyeuristic to me. In this show, it feels like it's showing graphic sex for the sake of showing graphic sex, because it's "edgy," it's "cable," and "ooooh, we can get away with it here."
And if you think it's just the sex that bothered me, you'd be wrong. The language and the violence (particularly when Sookie was getting beaten to a pulp) did not particularly endear the show to me, either.
But, be that as it may, I didn't find any of the characters particularly likable, with the exception of Sookie, simply because she was quite the opposite of her friends. And maybe her boss. The rest of them? No emotional investment established.
I don't really think the premise is particularly original, either. Vampires as a misunderstood portion of society. It seems to have been done before. Just, meh.
But one of the biggest indicators that this won't find a place in our household was the fact that during the scene where they're introducing the bar where Sookie works, going through my mind was "Twin Peaks was an awesome show. Maybe we should pull that out and watch it." For some reason, the bar being a central location of the story reminded me of the diner in Twin Peaks. When one show makes me wish I was watching a different show, that's not a good sign.
The fact that Raelle Tucker is involved kind of makes me think that the writing is good. However, I'm not overly keen on the show overall.
It was kind of fun playing the "Hey! I know them!" game with the actors. Larry (of Larry, Darryl, and Darryl fame), for example. And one of the villains from The Sentinel (whom I knew I recognized but couldn't place until I looked him up). And one of the guest villains from SPN.
I can understand why the show has such a following. The world created here seems to be very detailed. An alternate reality with its own rules and social mores. (And I was very amused by the grandma wanting to invite a vampire to speak about the Civil War to her community group.) And if it weren't for the fact that it's just harder than I like my TV to be, and the fact that it's basically a soap opera, I might be interested.
Geo told me after we finished it that if I wanted to watch any more, I'd be watching by myself. I haven't decided yet. I did watch enough of the second ep to get Sookie out of her predicament, but I sped through a lot of the ep to get there. So I'm not really sure how much more I'll be watching, if any.
I'd rather be watching Dean vs. Dean, which is the next ep in my SPN watching, "The End." (Listened to the commentary yesterday. Might be back with thoughts on that later.)
Regardless, True Blood won't be finding a place on our DVD shelf. With the preparations for bringing a wee one into the house, this is not something I want around. As it is, I know I'll be having to put a lot of my stuff on a top shelf. (This is nothing new, btw. For years, I've been keeping a tally of what needs to be moved out of baby's reach--books, movies, etc. We have a lot of kid-friendly media in the house. We also have a lot of . . . not.)
So anyway, there ya go. I get the appeal of the show, but it has a lot of extra elements that make it not my thing.
WARNING: My review is going behind the cut due to mentions of "adult" content. I'm not going to get overly graphic, but since I have no idea how many underaged readers I have, I feel compelled to put this warning on here.
Someone from Geo's work loaned us the first season of True Blood on DVD. To be honest, I've never had any interest in seeing the show. I remember the ad campaign when it first started, which was really cool, but it's an HBO series, so, meh. I figure it's going to be harder than I particularly like, and probably along the exploitative lines. I've heard there's a lot of graphic sex, which right there puts it on the "sex over substance" measure of my radar.
I've heard the two extremes of recommendation: on the one hand, I've had people tell me I should check it out. Otoh, I've had someone tell me it's nothing but soft porn. Considering the source of each of these recs, I'm not surprised by either of them.
So here's what I thought of it, having actually watched the first ep.
Had I not known that someone was going to ask me, "So what did you think?" I would have turned it off after the first scene.
When a show introduces itself to me with a girl giving a guy a hand job, that sets the tone for the entire series. So, it is going to be sex over substance. And not just sex, but voyeuristic sex. Um, no, thank you.
And there is a lot of voyeuristic sex in this first ep. I realize it's HBO, and that's one of the selling points of the show, but I'm not entirely convinced that the amount of graphic sex is actually necessary for the purposes of the storytelling. Geo, btw, hated it, was offended by it, and will not be watching any eps ever again. As he said, once I could get him past his snarky response, it felt exploitative. Now, maybe that exploitative vibe is what the show is actually going for (and in the particular scene I'm thinking of, I can see that), but it's not something I'm interested in watching episode after episode. (I can maybe sit through it in a movie, if there's a bigger reason I'm watching the movie--MBV, F13--but it's not something I want in every episode of a TV show.) Also, who's being exploited? The characters in the story, or the audience?
I've said before, I'll say again: if a graphic sex scene works to advance the story or is necessary for storytelling reasons, I can go along with that. But when it's showing sex for the sake of showing sex, that feels pointless and exploitative and voyeuristic to me. In this show, it feels like it's showing graphic sex for the sake of showing graphic sex, because it's "edgy," it's "cable," and "ooooh, we can get away with it here."
And if you think it's just the sex that bothered me, you'd be wrong. The language and the violence (particularly when Sookie was getting beaten to a pulp) did not particularly endear the show to me, either.
But, be that as it may, I didn't find any of the characters particularly likable, with the exception of Sookie, simply because she was quite the opposite of her friends. And maybe her boss. The rest of them? No emotional investment established.
I don't really think the premise is particularly original, either. Vampires as a misunderstood portion of society. It seems to have been done before. Just, meh.
But one of the biggest indicators that this won't find a place in our household was the fact that during the scene where they're introducing the bar where Sookie works, going through my mind was "Twin Peaks was an awesome show. Maybe we should pull that out and watch it." For some reason, the bar being a central location of the story reminded me of the diner in Twin Peaks. When one show makes me wish I was watching a different show, that's not a good sign.
The fact that Raelle Tucker is involved kind of makes me think that the writing is good. However, I'm not overly keen on the show overall.
It was kind of fun playing the "Hey! I know them!" game with the actors. Larry (of Larry, Darryl, and Darryl fame), for example. And one of the villains from The Sentinel (whom I knew I recognized but couldn't place until I looked him up). And one of the guest villains from SPN.
I can understand why the show has such a following. The world created here seems to be very detailed. An alternate reality with its own rules and social mores. (And I was very amused by the grandma wanting to invite a vampire to speak about the Civil War to her community group.) And if it weren't for the fact that it's just harder than I like my TV to be, and the fact that it's basically a soap opera, I might be interested.
Geo told me after we finished it that if I wanted to watch any more, I'd be watching by myself. I haven't decided yet. I did watch enough of the second ep to get Sookie out of her predicament, but I sped through a lot of the ep to get there. So I'm not really sure how much more I'll be watching, if any.
I'd rather be watching Dean vs. Dean, which is the next ep in my SPN watching, "The End." (Listened to the commentary yesterday. Might be back with thoughts on that later.)
Regardless, True Blood won't be finding a place on our DVD shelf. With the preparations for bringing a wee one into the house, this is not something I want around. As it is, I know I'll be having to put a lot of my stuff on a top shelf. (This is nothing new, btw. For years, I've been keeping a tally of what needs to be moved out of baby's reach--books, movies, etc. We have a lot of kid-friendly media in the house. We also have a lot of . . . not.)
So anyway, there ya go. I get the appeal of the show, but it has a lot of extra elements that make it not my thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-08-27 02:57 pm (UTC)The same for Glee. My irritation at the inconsistency of the characters overran any joy I use to have. I didn't even finish the season. Bummer. I'm undecided about trying it next season. I know they've hired a few new writers, so maybe. I'll think on it.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:32 pm (UTC)The two shows I've got on my schedule coming up are SPN and H50. Not even CSI this year, since Lawrence Fishburne is leaving. *shrug*
no subject
Date: 2011-08-27 04:07 pm (UTC)As a friend of mine once put it, "I don't care about anyone else--I really just kind of want to see the wacky fun vampire adventures of Eric and Pam."
For the record, if you're looking for a show about bloodsuckers, Vampire Diaries is sooooooo much better. Sorry, True Blood, but you get consistently out-written by a little CW show time and time again.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:38 pm (UTC)I'm not really looking for vamp series at the moment, though. I tend to prefer my vamps on the gothic (and evil) side of the spectrum, rather than the current trend of making them . . . trendy. Knowing that David Tennant is in the new Fright Night remake has piqued my interest, but I think I'd want to reacquaint myself with the original first. It well and truly freaked me out when it was first released, what with the red glowy eyes and all. *shudder*
no subject
Date: 2011-08-27 04:44 pm (UTC)I don't really remember now why not (I tried watching it early on) but I think you mention quite a few things that probably made me react the same way.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:40 pm (UTC)Plus, you know, all the excess that really made me want to turn it off.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:49 pm (UTC)Cuz I watched Dexter Season 1 and found it interesting/fascinating and I enjoyed Game of Thrones on a lot of levels... and there's a plenty of violence, sex, etc in both, too.
So, yeah... right with you. :-)
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:42 pm (UTC)Jensen Ackles.
:-)
But, yes, sex, violence, and language simply for the sake of sex, violence, and language, rather than, you know, serving the story . . . it just doesn't work for me.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-27 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 04:47 pm (UTC)Of course, I strongly suspect that I'm not the demographic they're going for anyway, so there ya go.
I think you also have a very good point about lag time between seasons. The only reason I follow shows when they move nights or change up their schedule in some way is if I'm invested. Thinking back, there aren't a whole lot of series I've done that for.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-28 04:36 am (UTC)The reason I'm commenting is to suggest you try reading the Sookie books. Do read them in order, though, because the author continues with characters and references prior book's plot outcomes. They have a story to them and are not just about the sex.
I'm going to give the show another try because I thought the books had overshadowed the show the 1st time I watched but based on your review I might be wrong in that assumption.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 05:04 pm (UTC)Interestingly enough, as much as I tend to like vampire movies--Lost Boys! Salem's Lot!--wherein the vampires are evil and decidedly not sparkly, I'm not really into vampire books. I've heard excerpts from the Anne Rice books, but I've never read Dracula or anything like that. Perhaps I shall give the first Sookie book a try.
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 09:42 pm (UTC)OH and I'm huge Buffy fan!
no subject
Date: 2011-08-29 10:06 pm (UTC)Otoh, my bro and sis-in-law are fans. Of course, they're Joss fans in general. My bro insisted I watch "Hush" which is an excellent ep, Buffy fan or no, and the one where her mother died, which was pretty exhausting and kinda creepy if I remember correctly.
Seems I've seen the Anita Blake books at the bookstore, too. the author's name certainly looks familiar.
I've only read one Anne Rice book, Rameses the Damned, which I really liked when I read it. In fact, it was based on that book that I figured out what was going on with soulless Sam. (Well, a combination of that and a comment from Jensen.)
I'll have to put them on my reading list. Thanks for the recs!