MovieChat Forums > True Blood (2008) Discussion > Where did this show start to go wrong?

Where did this show start to go wrong?


Lets face it, season one and two were great campy fun. Even 3 and 4 had a lot to enjoy. But then the show really started becoming a turgid mess, beginning with the whole vampire religion plotline.

But for me, the first moment the show really faltered was when they did the subplot of Jason being captured by the werepanthers, being bitten repeatedly and used as a potential breeder.

He suffered a sort of similar fate in the books, but readers know he became a werepanther from the bites (those bitten become half breeds- who actually turn into a half man/half animal creature, unlike the full breeds to change fully into the actual animal when they turn.

However in the show, after several episodes of his capture, and eventual escape which was anti-climatic, Jason awaits his transformation- and nothing happens....Because it was so awesome having this arc culminating in no payoff whatsoever.

For me, this was the first instance of poor writing where randomness ensued for no reason (other than the whims of the writers)

After this, we had characters make entire personality changes from season to season (and sometimes episode to episode) for no viable reason.

Bill goes from good guy to good guy with shady past, to jerk, to outright supervillian and eventually an overpowered vampire beast god, just for that to be dropped into him being an enigmatic self serving jerk, and then complete 180 reversal into being a nice guy again.

And this is just ONE example.

discuss

reply

The lack of character development for the main characters. I am referring to Tara, but no one really changed much except for Sookie and Bill and they never changed for the better. Also, all the storylines. It was to confusing and further caused the lack of character development with the main cast. I always held that the show could have been fine with only Sookie, Jason, Sam, Tara, Lafayette, Bill, Eric, Pam and Jessica. So after S3, the show really went downhill, but like a crackwhore I kept coming back for more.


Hide yo kids(from Carol). Hide yo wife (from Rick)

reply

Bill goes from good guy...


Bill Compton was never a good guy.

Pimp, procurer, abuser of and liar to Sookie, Bill Compton was always a self serving a/hole.

Compton was also the weak link and once his duplicity was exposed he should have been staked or relegated to the background of the show.

Every other character, in one way or another, suffered from the idiotic choice to continue to force his position at the center of what was supposed to be Sookie's story.

True Blood was in truth a load of misogynistic sexism which continually sacrificed Sookie's mental and physical well being to the service of whatever male ego was next in line.

Buckner, like Bill Compton, seemed to have a problem with strong women who refused to be doormats and Sookie was therefore never afforded a real opportunity to grow or evolve beyond her past of abuse and low self esteem.

Bill Compton as a character was a black hole of mediocrity who sucked all of the life from the show and should have been staked four seasons earlier.

Better late than never, I suppose.



Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it's a plan.

reply

If True Blood is misogynistic, then it's misogyny created for women, by women.

The original Charlaine Harris books followed the same exact formula when it came to Sookie and her menagerie of love interests, her addiction to danger, and the sexual thrills of the illicit. The books are loaded with sexual tension that's allowed to simmer for a while before exploding in floridly-written descriptions of sexual encounters: Crickets chirping, warm summer nights, outdoor sex, and always some line like, "...and then he was inside her. Yes! He was inside her!"

What, do you think men write that stuff? Do you think men read that stuff?

The TV show was in the hands of a gay male showrunner, so it would be inherently difficult to accuse him of some sort of perverse enjoyment of misogyny.

No. The more likely answer is that many women have fantasies about guys who treat them like garbage, and they love it. That's fine, but don't try to frame it as some sort of attack on women, because it's not. By saying Sookie has no choice in any of her relationships is also infantalizing her, which does no favors for feminism either.

reply

You obviously fail to comprehend the reality of the sexist and misogynistic culture in which both the books and television series were created.

Women do not inherently choose to be mistreated and to demean themselves.

Women as well as men internalize the values of the culture in which they are socialized.

You should research the term 'internalized misogyny' for some insight.

A culture which constantly chooses to demean women and which allows the use of female-coded terms as slurs in order to demean others is a culture which telegraphs quite loudly that to be a woman (or to be perceived as, or like, a woman) is to be somehow 'less than'.

It is unsurprising that many women and men choose to believe and then act upon their enculturation.

What, do you think men write that stuff? Do you think men read that stuff?


Are sexy books not 'manly' enough for you? I think you have rather illustrated my point for me. 

The TV show was in the hands of a gay male showrunner, so it would be inherently difficult to accuse him of some sort of perverse enjoyment of misogyny.


'Perverse enjoyment'? Your words, not mine. One does not have to enjoy something in order to be capable of perpetuating it. Alan Ball is as much a product of his culture as anyone else.

No. The more likely answer is that many women have fantasies about guys who treat them like garbage, and they love it. That's fine, but don't try to frame it as some sort of attack on women, because it's not.


Where did I make any such claim? I think you doth project too much. 

People are free to enjoy whatever fantasies they so 'choose', but to deny the impact of socialization on those 'choices' is incredibly naive.

By saying Sookie has no choice in any of her relationships is also infantalizing her, which does no favors for feminism either.


Interesting. Again, where did I state that Sookie had no choice in her relationships? Projecting again.

Sookie's choices were manipulated, particularly from the start by Compton and his blood roofie.

Sookie's choices were rather limited in a world of supernaturals who wanted her blood and her telepathy and she was manipulated by others who used her ignorance of supernatural customs to her disadvantage.

Sookie had to be bonded and married to Eric by vampire custom (in the books) to ensure her freedom from enslavement. She was given no real choice in either the bonding or the marriage, both of which were conducted under duress and as the 'best' of bad choices available in order for Eric to ensure her safety.

True Blood continually undermined and usurped Sookie's agency by treating her as a trophy to be won by whichever male character could wield the greatest influence.

As for my Feminism? No 'favors' required. Those who object to the idea that women are human beings deserving of the same equality of opportunity as men are those whose favor and approval are irrelevant.

You might as well ask Bill Compton not to be a self serving a/hole. 



Unpalatable truths are no less true.

reply

Oh, I understand your point perfectly, and I'm familiar with the absurdity of "internalized misogyny," it's just that I don't play that game, and I'm well-versed in the madness of modern extreme feminism.

What you're trying to do is lay all the blame on men and wider societal norms, while absolving the women -- who, in this case, own authorial intent and will happily tell you they enjoy the subject matter -- from any responsibility at all. But not just responsibility -- you're saying these women are not even aware of what they're doing because society has so fully brainwashed them, so even smart, educated women are somehow fooled into "perpetuating" misogyny.

That IS infantalizing women. It's the exact opposite of acknowledging they have agency, of acknowledging that an author like Charlaine Harris had complete control of the books the series was based on, of acknowledging actresses like Anna Paquin knew what they were doing.

The difference is that you don't approve of their moral choices, so you construct this elaborate, convoluted explanation for why women like Harris and Paquin would never participate in such horrendous misogyny, if only they really, truly knew what they were doing.

And lastly, I read two of the books because I enjoyed the TV series. But I am a person who acknowledges the very real differences between the sexes, and men are for the most part visual creatures who are turned on by visual stimuli. There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the prose in the Sookie Stackhouse Mysteries was written primarily for women. That's not to say men can't enjoy them, but we are hardwired differently and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

reply

Oh, I understand your point perfectly, and I'm familiar with the absurdity of "internalized misogyny," it's just that I don't play that game, and I'm well-versed in the madness of modern extreme feminism.


Color me unsurprised. A blatantly misogynist statement from a misogynist.

You claim to understand my point but then refuse to engage with it by using a dismissive and ableist slur toward a movement which seeks equality for both men and women.

You also just had to engage in mansplaining my intentions because of course you would. 

The difference is that you don't approve of their moral choices, so you construct this elaborate, convoluted explanation for why women like Harris and Paquin would never participate in such horrendous misogyny, if only they really, truly knew what they were doing.


You could run a movie theater with all of this projection. 

Please go ahead and quote where I made any claims of moral disapproval. Hint: I won't hold my breath.

There's no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that the prose in the Sookie Stackhouse Mysteries was written primarily for women. That's not to say men can't enjoy them, but we are hardwired differently and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.


Now the expert on reasonable thinking and prose? And on behalf of what other men are able to enjoy? How generous of you. 

You may choose to delude yourself but as a male who lives in a culture steeped in male privilege you are not an objective observer, nor can you have a true understanding of the lived experience of women.

You also appear overly defensive in support of the status quo and the 'differences' between men and women while refusing to acknowledge the very real influence that socialization has on these differences and the ways in which men and women navigate the world.



Unpalatable truths are no less true.

reply

Color me unsurprised. A blatantly misogynist statement from a misogynist.


I just want to make it clear that this is where the argument ended, and you forfeited. You went for the ad hominem, rendering anything else you said moot, and waving the white flag when it comes to engaging in a discussion in good will. If you cannot engage someone without insulting them, you've acknowledged you don't have anything substantial to say in reply.

...a dismissive and ableist slur...engage in mansplaining...a culture steeped in male privilege...


I am going to address you as a human being now, so hear me.

I know that being exposed to ideology can seem like enlightenment, and it can even be exciting. Whether you learned this stuff on the internet, or in college, you might feel like an entirely new world has been opened up to you in some sort of revelatory moment, like a person who has her Thetan levels tested by a Scientologist and says "Aha! So THAT is why I've been feeling so depressed..."

All ideologies are the enemies of human freedom. You haven't made progress when you've chosen existentialism over fatalism, feminism over humanism, conservatism over progressivism, or anything over anything.

Real maturity begins when we notice that ideologies are cultural furniture.

There is not, nor can there ever be, a governing protocol that judges everything without requiring real thought. If there was, life would be perfect.

I sincerely hope that you have that realization sooner rather than later, and come to notice ideology for what it is. It's certainly better to go through life that way, when you can see others as human and not ones and zeros in a binary moral system.

Cheers.

reply

I am going to address you as the misogynistic mansplainer which your own words have exposed you to be.

You claimed to be 'well-versed in the madness of modern extreme feminism.'

That is an ableist and misogynistic statement.

If you engage in making misogynistic statements then that makes you a misogynist. FYI.

You spew forth an eruption of pretentious, patronizing and presumptuous rubbish regarding ideologies and my supposed motivations and you then presume to lecture me about what I think and believe.    

Mansplaining 101 dude.      

Your own words expose you for the fool that you are. A mansplaining, misogynistic fool.

But keep deluding yourself in order to prop up that fragile male ego. 




Unpalatable truths are no less true.

reply

Well that was a fun read. I'll be sure to bookmark this thread as a perfect example of how feminists "argue". Namely by plugging their ears and covering their eyes and going "Lalalalalalalalalalala I am not listening! Lalalalalalalala misogyny. mansplaining (not a real word. Stop using fake words) patriarchy lalalalalalalalala".



No but seriously, you didn't win that argument. You only succeeded in making feminists look stupid...which admittedly 90% of the "feminists" on the internet who don't actually bother to study anything other than Tumblr articles that reinforce their own stupidity do every single day.



On the off chance that I get a reply...I know, I know, mansplaining, misogyny, "you called me stupid so you hate women" blah blah blah.

reply

And your sad little 'splaining load of drivel is a perfect example of how misogynists "argue".   

Sad. Pathetic. Predictable. Yawn.


Unpalatable truths are no less true.

reply

Mansplainer: Women are stupid. I am here to explain why and while I'm at it I will dictate which terms you are allowed to use.

Women: Somebody find this loser a blow up doll.



reply

Exactly.  With apologies to blow up dolls.

I always enjoy a good laugh at the expense of fools. 

The original 'splainer and this sad little boy appear to be obsessed with 'winning' an argument and someone also needs to consult a dictionary about the actual meaning of 'ad hominem'.

If one persists in engaging in misogyny and mansplaining then one shall clearly be labeled a misogynistic mansplainer as a simple statement of fact.



Unpalatable truths are no less true.

reply

Your posts are so painful to read. And I don't even agree with the person you're arguing with. You talk about Bill being an a-hole when you excel at being one.

reply

sorry friend, I have to agree with winter on this one. This entire post is full of nonsense. You sound more crazy-town than intellectual. Dial it down a notch, simplify your response a bit, as its a bit contrived....and lastly, stop generalizing and make sure you have some logic to back up those ludicrous statements in your posts.

Real maturity begins when we notice that ideologies are cultural furniture



that seriously made me lol 

reply

S3 was bad S4 was worse and that's when I just gave up. I had hope for the govenor storyline and thought the vamps would finally get justice throen at them but nope! Trying to portray these sadistic murderers as victims comparable to holocaust victims was the last straw for me.

1. BVS 2. TWS 3. Avenger

reply

If True Blood is misogynistic, then it's misogyny created for women, by women.


Amen.

reply

The mysogeny was not prevalent when AB was the show runner. It came into being when Buckner took over and changed all the characters and the direction of the show. He turned Sookie into a plot device to service the arcs of the male characters,particularly Bill Comptom. She was sidelined and Bill Compton was placed at the center of the show. It all became about him and his journey. Sookie was passed around to Warlow ,then to Alcide and back to Bill,eventually ending up with some faceless Mr. Anybody man. In each case she was seen by the male as a prize to be won. she was objectified-- a trophy representative of their male peowess and sexual allure and skills. She lost all of her agency and in so doing she also lost the good will of most of the fans of the show. In poll after poll, after Buckner took over, she was ranked beneath all of the male charters and well bellow Pam and Jessica. There was a whole lot else that showed Buckner's mysogeny including Sarsh Newlin's fate,Pam's treatment,Tata's underwhelming death and pitiful ghost storyline, Jessica's forced marriage to Hoyt by Bill, etc. all of it lies at the door of a man. Brian Buckner and his desire to turn Sookie into Stepford Sookie in her little straw hat and gloves,the good little southern woman clutching onto the arm of her man and finally into pregnant Sookie serving her faceless any man husband and guests their meal with no one helping her least of all him. It as sickening and disgusting all sugary sweet and bespeaking of a Hallmark card ending of HEA that had no place whatsoever in an irreverent over the top black comedic show like True Blood. He turned it inside out and it did indeed become misogynistic as well as some other unsavory things.




reply

The mysogeny was not prevalent when AB was the show runner. It came into being when Buckner took over and changed all the characters and the direction of the show. He turned Sookie into a plot device to service the arcs of the male characters,particularly Bill Comptom. She was sidelined and Bill Compton was placed at the center of the show. It all became about him and his journey. Sookie was passed around to Warlow ,then to Alcide and back to Bill,eventually ending up with some faceless Mr. Anybody man. In each case she was seen by the male as a prize to be won. she was objectified-- a trophy representative of their male peowess and sexual allure and skills. She lost all of her agency and in so doing she also lost the good will of most of the fans of the show. In poll after poll, after Buckner took over, she was ranked beneath all of the male charters and well bellow Pam and Jessica. There was a whole lot else that showed Buckner's mysogeny including Sarsh Newlin's fate,Pam's treatment,Tata's underwhelming death and pitiful ghost storyline, Jessica's forced marriage to Hoyt by Bill, etc. all of it lies at the door of a man. Brian Buckner and his desire to turn Sookie into Stepford Sookie in her little straw hat and gloves,the good little southern woman clutching onto the arm of her man and finally into pregnant Sookie serving her faceless any man husband and guests their meal with no one helping her least of all him. It as sickening and disgusting all sugary sweet and bespeaking of a Hallmark card ending of HEA that had no place whatsoever in an irreverent over the top black comedic show like True Blood. He turned it inside out and it did indeed become misogynistic as well as some other unsavory things.




reply

A misogynist is someone with an ingrained prejudice against women. Why on earth would you think that a gay man couldn't be a misogynist?

reply

For me, Seasons 1-5 had good and bad points. The series didn't start getting really bad until Season 6. Seasons 4 and 5 slipped in quality, but there were still enough things I enjoyed about them to keep me entertained. I couldn't find anything I liked about Season 6, and Season 7 was even worse. The writing was sloppy, the characters were poorly developed because there was just too many of them, and it kept getting less and less inspired as the series went on. They needed to keep the storylines tighter and cut a lot of the side stuff to focus on the main plots/characters. The religion aspect was an offensive (not to me, but to people who are religious) mess, and Billith was just plain dumb. They should have just left Bill dead at the end of Season 5.

reply

The show went wrong the minute they let Alan Ball have it.

reply

The worse it got, the more I enjoyed it. I think the were panthers and Lafayette vs the witches was the height of ridiculousness and I got to the point of starting to hate it, but then thought, "actually this show is kind of hilarious" and just watched it for the campy trashy fun that it is.

reply

This is where you should turn your gaze to Buffy the Vampire Slayer...Campy...but with great writing, and character development.

reply

I'll keep it simple and say season 5-7 were pretty awful. Seasons 4 wasn't nearly as good as the first three but pales in comparison to how terrible the following were.

The last couple of seasons had some ideas that were very interesting and could have played out really fantastic... The writers just took those ideas and completely flushed them. They needed to go back to a more ensemble type setup as opposed to having several convoluted storylines shooting off in all directions. A little more focus on their original ideas would've been good too. It's kind of like they said "Well, we have this idea but we work within this universe that really has no rules so let's get crazy,". That *beep* doesn't work. Obviously.

reply

Personally the minute they left the direction the book took it started to suck lol

reply

The exact moment for me was the time jump. Sookie in the fae world then coming back 12 months later and everything had changed? The story line never really gelled for me again after that.

I only kept watching for my Eric Northman fix. At least they gave us a better ending than the books.
___

soccersteve718 - will you marry me?

reply

I think season four was the beginning of the end. Three wasn't as good as season two imo. (I didn't care for season one.) Sookie being gone a year and being declared dead was strange. I mean wouldn't Bill and Eric still have a connection to her? Jason just sells her house when he has his own? Why not rent it out? It seems weird he was so willing to sell his grandmother's house. I think season four was just the beginning of writers not caring. It was also the beginning of too much Eric.

reply