OK, so after watching the second season premier of True Blood, it might be much easier to list the things that were similar in book 2 that appeared in the TV show versus what WASN’T the same. Pretty much everything in the episode had nothing to do with book two; which was extremely disappointing – especially the whole Lafayette debacle. How the heck are they going to work that one out?
I am becoming more and more disappointed in the show. I really need to work on separating in my mind the book and the TV show because they are so different, especially leading into season 2.
Beware of spoilers if you haven’t read Living Dead in Dallas but here are some differences between book and show:
· Lafayette is dead in Andy’s car – not the phony exorcist that never even existed to begin with.
· Mary Ann does not exist in the capacity she does on the show – she makes a couple brief appearances but not in the form of “Mary Ann” and she certainly does not have some rich demented half-way house – nor does Tara even meet her – except at the end LDID.
· Because Bill never killed Long Shadow to begin with (ERIC DID), he certainly did not have to make a young and annoying vampire – who also doesn’t exist… at all.
· Sookie’s uncle died “falling down the stairs” I’m pretty sure she found out about this in book one though, and both her and her brother received and inheritance.
· Jason never comes close to joining Fellowship of the sun.
· Sam had a happy childhood and was never abandoned or resorted to stealing and "Mary Ann" certainly didn’t take his virginity.
· Because Lafayette dies in the beginning on book 2 he is never tortured by Eric
· Eric does not need to highlight his hair
I will be very upset if Eric doesn’t attend an orgy with Sookie and if he doesn’t take care of her when she gets hurt in Texas. At least episode was more entertaining than last season.
Any one else have any thoughts/complaints?
And don' forget to enter to win Tanya Huff's Blood Ties!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Well I haven't read the books yet, I'm on a very limited student budget and the library doesn't have them, but I'm enjoying the series.
I'm in New Zealand and we've only just finished the first season so I will have to download the new episodes.
I imagine though, that the books are far better. I'm an avid reader and everytime a book is translated to film etc, it seems to fall short so I can understand your frustration.
I'm hoping that reading the books after watching the series will make it easier to keep them seperate.
Like you I will be VERY upset if they leave out the best Eric-parts in the book. Him being my fave-vampire and those parts being my fave-parts in the book, I'd kill Ball if he doesn't do tv out of it. (Excuse my english.)
Books and movies always have to treated differently. To me, Episode 1 - no pun intended - sucked. Anna's acting was the worst I'd seen in a very long time. Without reading the books I still saw that this was a show that was good on paper, but lost something in production. I was going so far as to accuse Anna of trying to tank the show, she was so horrible.
But I found myself drawn to the Jason plot line and felt the character of Lafayette was the most brilliantly done character on TV. And Tara was just so fun, I would focus on scenes she was in just to see what she would say next. The Sookie/Bill plot quickly started to fade into the background and, as a result, I became a fan. I'm even obsessed with Lizzy Caplan now (yummy)!
While I'm sure the Sookie in the book is a lot more interesting than the one on screen, if they tried to say true to the books (at this point) no one would care about the show for very long! Get rid of Lafayette and you loose a huge chunk of your audience right there. And focusing more on Anna's bad acting job and your target demographic boils down to people who just think Bill's hot.
The second season is starting to grow on me - even if it has nothing to do with the books. All I am asking if for some good Eric action which I think we might start seeing more of.
And I agree with Anna's acting being terrible. I rewatched episode 2 from last week and I just cringed at how horrible she was! Especially when she was in bed with Bill talking about teenage girls. I still think Bill is a bit homely though, lol.
I believe that the producer of this show stated quite clearly that this series is BASED on the novel, not an exact replica.
I personally enjoy this series. I like the characters (yes Anna included) and believe that having Sookie and Eric romantically involved would make a liar of Sookies character.
First, Sookie is in love with Bill on the show, not in the books. This should have made it obvious in the beginning that things would be different.
Second, so many new twists have been added to the series - it shouldn't surprise people that perhaps the plot line of this story won't be exactly the same as the novel (thank god! Who needs to watch an exact rendering of a book - again!)
I hope that Bill and Sookie stay together. I'm a romantic at heart and having them seperated would ruin a bit of this show for me.
So please stop expecting everything to match the book. If you wanted the book, pick it up and reread it!
Goodluck to True Blood - THE TV SERIES!!
Hi Kim, thanks for your opinion, however Sookie was in love with Bill in the books, until he betrayed her. Bill and Sookie's relationship is quite similar to that in the books. It doesn't seem like you have read the series. Most people who haven't read the books do find the show entertaining. Many fans of the books series have found Ball's version of the Sookie story falling quite short of the books.
The second season is so far away from the books that really they can no longer be compared. Besides Anna's terrible acting I am enjoying season 2 more than season 1.
I like you, was at first very disappointed with the show, but after Bill staked Long Shadow and they had that ridiculous trial, i had to separate the two to be able to continue watching.
Here's what I'm curious about...What are all these Bill/Sookie fans going to think in season 3? If the series is AT ALL like the book? I think A LOT of people will be upset if it does or does not follow the book at least a little (what about the part in the trunk of the car in book 3...).
And the orgy? Can you see them NOT showing that on the show? Like they'd pass up an opportunity to show an orgy? with all the sex they add to the show from the book?
Thanks for the review, I totally hear you on most issues you mentioned!
I did not expect an exact rendering of the book series in the show. I did expect that they would at least not completely change certain things. I do enjoy the show and after the last episode it seems that book 2 and 3 are going to be part of this season. I guess we will find out during tonights episode.
I am very disappointed in season two. It is just too stupid. The whole Maryann orgy stuff is over done. Is that all they have to work with? The SAME thing over and over? The writers must be on strike again. Get on with it and put us out of our misery.
Maryann should have never been given this much clout. Stick to a good story that you have with the books!
I started watching True Blood before reading the books. After reading the books, I can't believe how awful the show is... Anna Paquin's acting is worsening rather than growing with the character - how is it possible? It seems like each episode in Season 2 just drags on and is painful to watch. I agree that the MaryAnn Orgy crap is way overdone - boring, farcical, unimaginative.
I LOVE Eric's personality - which we don't get to see a lot of. His dorkey cover at the F of the Sun was hilarious - almost good ole country boy. The tension between Sookie and Eric is what MAKES the books - I agree, they need to expose Bill for the coward he is and start promoting the Sookie/ Eric storyline.
Post a Comment