I've noticed that over the last year or so True Blood has made quite a name for itself and there seems to be alot of discussions between people I know - and myself - about which one is "better" so to say. So I'm curious, which one do you guys like better and why? Or is there a different one that you think is better than both and why?
Personally I prefer True Blood leaps and bounds over Twilight. Sookie is a badass while Bella is a wimp; Bill and Sookie's relationship borders on the unhealthy at times but because Sookie is always gettting physically hurt and when they break up neither turns into a zombie; and Alcide the werewolf beats out Jacob and the whole pack in sexiness.
PS Shall we leave the books out of this? Makes it cleaner. Though I have read both series.
HAHA. starts coughing freakishly
Sorry, my bad. I just go pretty crazy when vampire VS vampire comes up :)
Personally, I've started watching True Blood, at times, and I thought i was a VERY MATURE 11-YEAR OLD, lolz, but I just found TB disgusting. I know, you guys have your pitchforks ready :).
And as for TWITARD?? Don't even get me started on that sparkley crap, this is when I get out MY pitchfork! LOL.
First lets get one thing straight. The only reason that wretched thing is successful is because of Taylor Launter and his "hotness" (which I don't see at all...)
And as for the actors. It makes me laugh when I think how much they actually get paid to stand there, acting stiff, and kiss each other and talk about sparkly vampires. UGH !
And also for thePLOT-Not enough spice for me. I find Bella the most annoying of all, always wanting someone to save her, and being so needy, she's a disgrace to us girls. And Edward wouldn't be such a jack-a$$ if he wasn't played by Rob Pattinson, who can't act. And Jacob?? He just annoys me cause everyone is so obssesed with him taking his shirt off :***
Please don't take this as a flame though, its not intended, I have read Twilight, not True Blood, and I really couldn't tell you which is better. I do love vampires, and gore and stuff. BELEIVE ME.
My favorite vampire show is The Vampire Diaries... and noooo its not just because Damon Salvatore's in it! xD
LOL, but you guys should check it out... I'm serious, its the best Vamp show I've seen nowadays, when they turn vamps into stiff, crying babies with some HUGE skin problems xD
I've tried getting into true blood...It's a little...lacking for me. The plot moves at an ever so slow pace and the show is at times to me confusing. However Twilight is just an insult to vampires. So in this arguement I have to say true blood 100%
True Blood the series. The books are...ok...on the whole. Some of them are pretty bad. It depends. Anyway, I think the series is superior.
As for which is better. Well, that's a no-brainer.
Both are 'trash-books' made for women and made to make us feel good. However, the Sookie Stackhouse/True Blood series knows what it is and just tries to have fun.
Twilight takes itself way to seriously and is laughable as a result.
A level of research was done into all the supernaturals and into the setting (the deep south) in the Sookie Stackhouse/True Blood series. Twilight had none (as the author herself admits.)
Sookie Stackhouse is better written. The cast in the series are better actors. The show is shot better and has a far more interesting storyline. It does go slowly at times, and, if not your thing, is dull, but it's storytelling is clearly much stronger.
True Blood and Sookie Stackhouse have a lot of humour. Again, they have fun and don't take themselves too seriously. Twilight is just not funny. Well, not purposely.
Sookie is a superior heroine. She often plays detective, she's intelligent (despite poor education), she has real problems and she fights for what she wants. Bella has no interests (she apparently reads but we never see her read a book) and she likes the Cullens. That's about it. Bella looks out the window and goes into a coma when her boyfriend dumps her. Sookie's boyfriend tried to eat her, but she didn't let that destroy her life.
I haven't seen very much of it, but True blood is definately better. I used to be obsessed with twilight before it got popular, but then I got pissed at all the annoying hype for it, so then I started getting in to true blood. To me, true blood is like the R version of twilight. Twilight seems so dumb to me now. I feel like it's too dramatic sometimes. True blood is more interesting
Ok, finally tried a series of True blood tv series, and the books...Books:....1.5 out of 5, tv series:...2.5 out of 5.
Twilight, both the books and movies: 0 out of 5...
I'm losing faith in the vampire series. The last good vampire anything I saw was the Hellsing manga and that's been finished for about a year now (before that it was Cirque Du Freak for me).
>>6 I also enjoyed Cirque Du Freak except the ending. My response was more or less 'WTF is this shit?' To be honest, it was probably the worst ending to a book series I'd ever read. Scratch that--it WAS the worst ending to a series I've ever read. Tried to get into Shan's Demonata Saga after that, but wasn't really feeling it.
Haven't seen True Blood. Maybe I'll rent the first season and see if it's any decent. I'm kinda wary. I like vampires that are closer to their source material: blood sucking monsters.
I vote that in light of the over-romanticization of vampires in recent years, we separate the new age of vampires from the old. The new, dramatic and sparkly ones can still be called vampires. The old, more beasty ones go back to being called upir or upiri. All in favor, say aye.
Well let me put it to you this way, if you didn't like the ending to Cirque Du Freak and it ruined the series for you (Which it did for me), than I'll save you the trouble here and now...don't. It's an ok series, but the plot is painfully slow, the characters while more developed than Twilight are just so by a bare margin, and it seems like the only reason it isn't as bad as twilight is becasue at least the female lead isn't a complete bitch incapable of thinking.
Also I disagree (Neigh) to the seperation...the new vampires are what need to go to some new terminology...calling them vampires is insulting to most vampire plots (True blood though not as much). Maybe just call the new vampires Pseudo-Macarbe.
We are doing to vampires what our ancestors did to Elves.
Once, elves were considered scary and evil. But time went on and everyone kept making them more attractive. As they were more attractive, people started making them good (humanity is shallow.) Now when we think of elves we either think the glorious, good-looking creatures from Lord of the rings or, if your like me, cute little green men that dance around toadstools.
In 100 years time, vampires will be considered cute and sweet. They'll laugh at the idea that vampires were ever considered threatening monsters.
I don't know about that....
I think the elves are an improvement. They're mostly cool. Before they were these fugly ass little creatures that went in fighting with brute force (what little they had), now though, they're your typical bad-ass archer/sniper support units.
The issue I think is different. Elves were enhanced to give a more appealing physique and combat ability and to create that kind of character that is more in tune with nature. Vampires were perfect to begin with but are being changed to appease the yaoi fangirls...
there is a difference.
>>10 They're being changed to appeal to girls in general, because it's a lucrative market. Have you been to a bookstore lately? Pseudo-vamps are why I stopped bothering to look in the young adult section anymore. Maybe it's just the two stores where I live, but they are overloaded with girly vampire fiction! Girls seem to like that pseudo-vamp stuff.
I'm half and half on the elf debate. Then again, I couldn't really care about them one way or the other.
>>10, I dunno. The elves can be traced back to the Aesir which were ancient anglo saxon gods. Personally, I thought they were way cooler.
You say they were ugly before, but that's sort of what I meant. There are two types, LOTR and short 'cute' ones. Neither are like the originals.
Oh and vampires were not always perfect. It was Bram Stoker and La Fanu that started all that shit. Before, in old Eastern European folk tale, they were more like this guy:http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/tt20/archebaldy/Nosferatu_door_in_the_castle-vampir.jpg&imgrefurl=http://s593.photobucket.com/albums/tt20/archebaldy/%3Faction%3Dview%26current%3DNosferatu_door_in_the_castle-vampir.jpg%26newest%3D1&usg=__SoXKDe-kieK_UyS29Sv7-5XQAkQ=&h=352&w=480&sz=82&hl=en&start=0&sig2=LjNhzB0r-d8xia7mgtNpgQ&zoom=1&tbnid=wMMN3XgwWjfuGM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=152&ei=5BtwTLLrGou7jAem9Iz7CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnosferatu%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4DSGJ_enGB364GB364%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D527%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=763&vpy=101&dur=1310&hovh=192&hovw=262&tx=130&ty=83&oei=5BtwTLLrGou7jAem9Iz7CA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0
I don't know...I think you're now going back to original cultural folklore and mythology now, which as big a fan of the stuff I am, I'm a bit out of touch. I guess for me, I like the elves, don't like the Pseudo-vamps.
>>11 Well have some hope dood. I only have one book store here, but thank god, they have a seperate section for Twilight series and in the Young adult section there are books of ACTUAL vampire fiction. They're still out there, if you're willing to search. (PS: I know a guy who works for Borders says that the company definitely favors the girly Pseudo-vamps so if it's only Borders stores, you might be screwed).
>>15 One Borders, one Barnes & Noble. B&N has a lot more books on sale, so I usually go there because I am a cheap, cheap bastard.
Aren't we all? :-)
Well at least you do have a B&N. Youu have some hope...
I only have a B&N that only restocks once every other month.
I don't recall Stoker's vampires as being 'perfect', either. Dracula had hairy hands, for a start.
As bad as both series are, I prefer True Blood. The TV series is oversexed but the characters are a lot more believable.
Bella is a cardboard cut out so girls can pretend to be her more easily. The dialogue is weak, corney and does my head in. There is a load of abuse pretending to be romance. At least in True Blood they acknowledge when the relationships are screwed up. Twilight pawns them off as "true love".
I like the structure of the vampire system in True Blood over the half-baked Twilight system. I like the fact that the vampires have weaknesses. I like the fact that they admit to manipulating humans and their feelings, how the vamps are out in the open, I actually like the human side characters in True Blood, whereas in Twilight they are only ever used to further the relationship of Bella and Edward.
Now I am not saying True Blood is the best ever representation of vampires, or that is it true to vampire lore, but it does a much better job than twilight, that's for sure.
