May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 3031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 11:40 am
After being persuaded by this Hoyden about Town post I'm currently 2 episodes in to "True Blood", the TV adaptation by Alan Ball of "Six feet Under" of the Sookie Stackhouse books. After a slightly rocky start I'm really liking it, like the book it tries to actually charcaterise real people and situations which happen to involve vampires and murder in the south rather than being a shiny fetishised cliche like Every Other American Vampire TV Show Ever(*).

They seem to have turned "Dead Until Dark", the first book, into the first season so it's more drama than mystery and goes at a measured, atmospheric pace.

I've heard complaints about the vampire love interest being kind of old looking but I like it: it should feel a bit creepy for a 100+ year old guy to be interested in a young girl, and the actor does a good job of coming across simultaneously as a regular 30ish guy and Very Old.

Oh and it is FULL of sex. Lots and lots. But not in a very sexy way afaict, it's more just..there, this thing people do which impacts on and is impacted by their characters and lives. Most vampire romance equates death with sex, this goes the other way too, so it's all very visceral and bloody and grimy. The credits are intense.

Lot of vampire shows at the moment though aren't there? I still haven't gotten around to trying "Being Human".

(*)The english do a bit better :)
Tags:
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 05:07 am (UTC)
See, I disagree with you on this:

"Oh and it is FULL of sex. Lots and lots. But not in a very sexy way afaict,"

because of this

"it's more just..there, this thing people do which impacts on and is impacted by their characters and lives."

Sex for the sake of sex in TV and movies is just dull.
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 05:54 am (UTC)
There should be a difference between what goes on and what's forced on the viewers.
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 07:02 am (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going with this comment.
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 07:05 am (UTC)
I prefer, if there has to be the second, that there isn't the first.
Sunday, March 8th, 2009 05:55 am (UTC)
I didn't see it as just being there at all. Almost all of it involved a character who pretty much his entire point of being is to fuck. And the need for him to be involved with different women to both build this character required sex. either alluded to or shown, and I think the show works alot better this way than if they just alluded to his acts.

I do agree though, sex just for the sake of it, in a tv show or movie. is annoying, and dull. There are places for sex just for the sake of it but a tv show/movie isn't it.

Oh, and I've watched all of season 1 and quite liked it.
Monday, March 9th, 2009 02:29 am (UTC)
Yeah I didn't say that right. What I meant was, it didn't feel like it was meant to titillate first and foremost.