Featured Blogs:

 

Cannes Film Festival 2013

TV Review: HBO's 'True Blood' returns for Season 4

This season, it's witches stealing time from your favorite characters

By Daniel Fienberg Sunday, Jun 26, 2011 1:45 AM

  • Critic's Rating C-
  • Readers' Rating n/a
Rate It
<p>The 'True Blood' vampires are just vampires. That's all. Pretty, pretty vampires.</p> <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

The 'True Blood' vampires are just vampires. That's all. Pretty, pretty vampires.

Credit: HBO
In all of the frustration that some of my colleagues and podcasting partners have had with Veena Sud, AMC and the end of "The Killing," one of the most nefarious charges that's been thrown around is that viewers were lied to, either by the showrunner, the network or the promotion/structure/genre of "The Killing." They (we?) were allegedly sold a bill of goods and betrayed by a show that entailed a 13-hour investment of our hard-earned Sunday nights.
 
Leaving aside who did or didn't lie to whom in the "Killing" case, I want to make one thing clear here: Alan Ball never lied to me about "True Blood."
 
For years, Alan Ball has insisted that "True Blood" wasn't metaphorical or allegorical in any way and even if you felt that vampires were being used as vehicles to discuss any or all manner of potentially ostracized or misrepresented minority groups, they were just vampires to him. 
 
And for years, I always chucked and figured he was just being disingenuous or trying to keep from limiting the audience for "True Blood."
 
After all, I rationalized, how can a man who wrote the most over-literal critique of the sickening rot of suburbia in literary history -- Yes, "American Beauty," as much as I love it in places, makes "Stepford Wifes" and "The 'Burbs" look subtle in comparison -- and who tackled so many hot-button topics over the years on "Six Feet Under" be working in the horror genre without any attempts to create an undercurrent of anything meaningful within its storytelling?
 
I asked Ball about subtext on conference calls and on red carpets and I'll confess that I never actually believed his answers when he said things like "I think a lot of people read a lot of allegory into it that is not really that intentional."
 
After watching three seasons of "True Blood" and now the first three episodes of Season Four, I'm finally ready to tap out and give it up to Alan Ball...
 
"True Blood" really isn't about anything. 
 
Sure, characters may pop up on TV talking about vampire segregation or vampire/human marriage and you might be inclined to think, "That sounds like rhetoric borrowed from the Civil Rights movement or the Gay Rights movement." But that's all it is, borrowed rhetoric. Alan Ball isn't shy about stealing words and themes that have held political meaning for millions and slapping them glibly into the mouthes of vampires or werewolves as nothing more than disconnected, meaningless, fictional agitprop.
 
But Alan Ball never lied and claimed meaning where no meaning exists, intellect where no intellect exists, value where no value exists.
 
I am at fault for wanting "True Blood" to be more than it is. 
 
And maybe I've finally made my peace? Maybe I'm ready to stop trying to care about undead characters who can never be in any real physical or emotional jeopardy, because they're monsters. Maybe I'm ready to stop trying to care about human characters who, in almost all cases, are just repositories for abuse, sexual fetishism, violence and a never-ending string of stupid decisions. The vampires aren't anything more than vampires and the human characters aren't anything more than compilations of bad writing. 
 
And that's OK. 
 
Because "True Blood" is violent, gory, flippantly funny and a really great place for attractive actresses to go when they feel like a little on-screen nudity on a buzz-worthy show is worth permanent screenshot/mpg enshrinement in various corners of the Internet. It's a show that will never hesitate to sacrifice the integrity of any of its characters for a cheap punchline, a bit of torture or a relationship that only makes sense because the two characters haven't been paired up previously and don't immediately seem to share DNA. And it's a show that will never hesitate to abandon or abruptly jettison a plotline because things got too complicated or convoluted for the scribes to draft a plausible exit strategy. And it's a show that solves the problem of how to service a ridiculously good, ridiculously huge cast of talented actors not by becoming more focused and honed, but by becoming more and more populated and diffuse.
 
If I expect more than that, that's on me. If I dislike "True Blood" because it fails to live up to my hoity-toity ideas of what good television (or good fiction) should be, that's a problem with my standards and not with the show's ability to live up to its own aspirations. 
 
"True Blood" returns on Sunday (June 26) night with too many new characters, not enough time with the characters I like, a general evasion of the most prickly parts of last season's finale, some plodding hints at a lumbering dramatic direction for this season and some breasts. 
 
YAY!
 
[More after the break...]
 
Let's see...
 
What to say about the start of the "True Blood" season?
 
Well, HBO has made the first eight minutes in Fairyville, where Alan Ball and company rip off The Land of the Lotus Eaters, available online and on HBOGo and in a variety of other forms. It's a bad sequence, but it's pretty much only designed to make viewers darned grateful to get back to Bon Temps where... stuff is happening. I don't know how much I'm not supposed to spoil involving plotlines featuring our beloved characters. There are a few surprises, I guess. The two most surprising things: First, that the Tara plotline suggests that Ball and his writers were big fans of Season Four of "The O.C." and second that Ball and his writers are content to rely on a now familiar TV trick that renders the first episode an amorphous blog of exposition and explanation.
 
The only thing the episode really has time to do, when it isn't expositionalizing, is to introduce this season's new supernatural being. Following maenads and werewolves and fairies, the time has now come to spend time with... Witches.
 
I hate witches.
 
If you're a wiccan and any other pagan or neopagan off-shoot, I don't necessarily hate you. Worship your Earth gods and goddess and whatever other core beliefs you have that I don't understand because Hollywood almost never depicts regular, old fashioned wiccans who aren't trying to tap into some Dark Power (or even some Light Power). 
 
But I'm not a fan of fictional witches. The frequency with which I care about witching plotlines on any of my favorite shows that have delved into such things is low, a feeling that's also got me a bit nervous about The CW's "Secret Circle." As fictional beings, witches tend to have too much power and they tend to have too much power too quickly and you can never almost never have a witch step back on her power, so you're invariably left with a character who can do anything and thus becomes a convenient out for any excessively complicated plotline. [Obviously the extended, multi-season Willow arc on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is one of the rare exceptions. I'm also partial to Wicked Witches of the West and, in Updikean form, witches who hail from Eastwick.] 
 
This season's "True Blood" witches waste almost no time delving into powers surrounding life and death, yet another group of characters who seem not to have grasped the timeless message of "Flatliners." 
 
What do the witches represent? Nothing. Don't even try looking for allegory. That's the kind of thinking that got me in trouble.
 
They're fronted by Marnie, played by Fiona Shaw as the latest theater-trained actress to come to "True Blood" because the stage was no longer offering the opportunity to go broad enough. "True Blood" is becoming a vehicle for really talented actors and actresses to play to the back row of a packed auditorium even when they're being shot in close-up and Shaw seems determined to make us think that Denis O'Hare's performance as Russell Edgington was muted. The key difference is that O'Hare was having an infectious amount of fun. Shaw is twitching and talking with accents. The only good thing about the witching plot is that it promises to eventually give good material to Nelsan Ellis, whose Lafayette is routinely one of the series' most ill-used pieces.
 
Other ill-used pieces aren't immediately being better integrated. I credit Ball and company for at least remembering that Deborah Ann Woll exists and for giving Jessica the chance to be sexy and fiery in the early going, but the formerly quaintly sweet relationship between Jessica and Hoyt (Jim Parrack) is now dully discordant. 
 
Some other characters? By the end of the second episode, Alexander Skarsgard's Eric takes a turn that should make fans of the books happy and yielded a slightly-more-entertaining third episode. And by the second and third episodes, Stephen Moyer's Bill is sent off an an arc that probably won't make anybody happy. I watched every second of the Jason Stackhouse arc going "Really?" and wondering why the writers forgot how marvelously funny Ryan Kwanten was in Season Two and decided that was never an attribute they wanted to use again. Terry (Todd Lowe) and Arlene (Carrie Preston) are off in their own weird world, but it's a world that makes me laugh, even if it isn't likely to ever connect with anything else. I still don't care about Marshall Allman's Tommy and I wish he'd been another in the show's long line of introduced-and-forgotten characters. And Tara? Well, we should all throw a bit of a fiesta because nobody has raped, beaten or enslaved her through three episodes. Oh and I know it's a spoiler, but it feels charitable to warn you that you have to wait until Episode 3 for Joe Manganiello's Alcide to come back. 
 
There are lots of new faces and most of them are quite pretty. Early guest stars include Alexandra Breckinridge, Courtney Ford and Janina Gavankar, all actresses I've liked in other places. Normally I'd be like, "Darnit, I wish they'd just concentrate on mining drama from the characters they already have, or else start killing off a few of the characters they have no use for so that at least the new characters aren't required to make impressions based on two minutes per episode," but that would be a complaint the Old Dan would make about "True Blood." That whiner would also lament that Sookie keeps becoming more and more of a secondary character on what was once a show about her. For people who hate Sookie, this will be a relief. For people who like Sookie, or at least appreciated that she provided the storytelling with a spine and helped hold this sloppy mess together, it's less good news. "True Blood" is currently a series without a core, without a heart and New Dan just assumes this was an intentional decision, what with this being a show about creatures with no pulse.
 
There's a subplot about how vampires are in the midst of a PR campaign to recover their acceptable identity in the post-Russell Edgington world. Old Dan would probably point out that because "True Blood" has never wanted vampires to be anything other than vampires, it has never made a convincing argument that vampires have any reason to expect equal rights and thus this plotline offers nothing for you to sink your brain-teeth into. Old Dan laments that if "True Blood" were a show that gave a hoot about subtext, this plotline might have been an interesting opportunity to comment on bullying and cyberbullying. New Dan thinks it's funny that Eric is making a commercial for Fangtasia and has no interest in logic or the lack of continuity this represents for Eric.
 
I don't quite see how any of the plotlines introduced in the first three episodes are going to gel together  in the season's second half, but since none of last season's plotlines ever gelled together, that may just be the new normal.
 
And New Dan is all about the New Normal. 

Inside Analysis

  •  

Want More...

True Blood?
  • Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
Go There ►
"True Blood" returns to HBO on Sunday night and it's everything Alan Ball wants it to be!
Dan-feinberg-sm
Daniel Fienberg
Executive Editor
A long-time member of the TCA Board and a longer-time blogger of "American Idol," Dan Fienberg writes about TV, except for when he writes about movies or sometimes writes about the Red Sox. But never music. He would sound stupid talking about music.
Related Searches: TV, review, HBO, True Blood

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest

  • Option 2

    Connect

  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    anny acosta

    I don't understand why a show has to be meaningful!!! A show is exactly what it is a show, something to entertain us. True Blood is and entertaining show that takes us on a journey out of our daily grind. I dont know that any of the viewers look to plotlines or gelling of episodes. We just want entertainment and True Blood is doing that very well. Kudos to Alan Ball and the entire True Blood cast job well done!!!!!!

    Anny Acosta

    June 26, 2011 at 2:52AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Anny - I'd say that *some* viewers like gelling of episodes and meaning, even if you don't necessarily know them.

      But the bottom line: Enjoy! Trust me, I know that some (most?) shows don't need my seal of approval to succeed.

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 2:57AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      anny acosta Dan don't get me wrong i love all your comments as well as all your other pieces. I was just speaking on behalf of the little people that just looks to pure entertainment. I love HBO and Showtime for all its shows some are better than others but all entertain. I mean just imagine what our local channel shows could do with the degree of freedom hbo and showtime have?

      June 26, 2011 at 5:40PM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl hey, a show doesn't have to be 'meaningful' to be good, lots of cheesy dramas are unmissable, done with more flair...while still cheesy as hell...I keep watching, and I keep seeing potential squandered, but I keep watching...

      June 26, 2011 at 10:55PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    amberlita

    Just started reading your stuff lately. Love your writing style. Anybody with the ability to drop references to Land of the Lotus Eaters, Flatliners, and the WItches of Eastwick into a single post has my devoted attention.

    I think you hit the nail on the head with this assessment. While Alan Ball certainly has the ability to mold his show into whatever he wants it to be, the lack of depth to Trueblood begins with the vacuous source material. The books are terribly written and poorly plotted, but I've read them all from a compulsion to be complete.

    But at least the books retain some focus around Sookie and so the plot strands can't possibly veer far from a certain center. Trueblood, unfortunately, has the most bloated cast of characters and story arcs than I can ever recall. Can we PLEASE get a crazed gunman in to Merlotte's to trim the fat on this show? If it continues as is I don't think I can stick with this show for long. I spend 50-75% of the time wanting to fastforward through storylines I don't give a squat about.

    June 26, 2011 at 3:20AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    marty language

    Wait, I thought Marshall Allman's character was dead now?

    June 26, 2011 at 4:24AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Rocky

    I think Sookie is at her best when there's no Bill involved. May his mission be long, and may we never hear about it.

    June 26, 2011 at 8:28AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ryan when has Sookie not been involved with Bill ?

      June 26, 2011 at 1:11PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Karyn

    I don't really care one way or another about True Blood in terms of critical analysis, since I agree that the show itself could not give even a single damn about it. However, I feel like you vaguely insulted Charmed in this piece, and I have a hunch Alyssa Milano is feeling very put-upon somewhere in the world and she's not sure why right now.

    June 26, 2011 at 8:33AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Karyn - "Charmed" was just a show I rarely, if ever, watched. But certainly given its lengthy run (and its amazingly passionate fanbase), I can see why it would disprove my problem with fictional witches for many...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 1:36PM EST
  • The_boondocks_a_pimp_name_slickback_talkback_profile

    tigger500

    I watch for Nelsan Ellis. Always have always will. The rest of the show? Incidental

    June 26, 2011 at 10:16AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rick

    The attention this piece of crap gets still annoys the hell out of me. It shouldn't be that you can put a show on the air that is basically nothing else than highly stylized vampire porn and make a truckload of cash off of it.

    True Blood's season 3 Blu-ray/DVD sales were higher in its second week in stores than Breaking Bad's in its first. That just ain't right.

    June 26, 2011 at 12:51PM EST Reply to Comment

    • Rick, I second everything you said. Seriously, you nailed it.

      June 29, 2011 at 1:13PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Liz

    Aw, no mention of Sam?

    No one ever cares about Sam except me :-(

    June 26, 2011 at 1:29PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Liz - As we return in Season 3, Sam is being mopey, rumpled and grumbly about something. Like Sam always is...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 1:37PM EST
  • Tattoo_talkback_profile

    Hatfield

    I'm curious what you mean about Eric making a commercial screwing with his continuity. Is that something you can explain, or will it make sense when I see it?

    I love this show, even though, like Dexter, it always disappoints me. Last season felt like it might be headed to something truly compelling with Denis O' Hare's storyline...and then just fizzled out. Oh well. Like you said, boobs.

    June 26, 2011 at 1:58PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Hatfield - I won't go into details, but it's just something he does that's wildly out of character for him, if you actually think about it. But it's a funny thing for him to do, so the writers decided they didn't care.

      The second and third episodes are better than the first when it comes to nudity.

      I feel like I should just do weekly recaps of "True Blood" nudity. That would almost certainly be good for traffic...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 2:03PM EST
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield Especially if you find a way to structure it like your AI and The Voice recaps!

      June 26, 2011 at 3:57PM EST
  • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

    Mulderism

    I just recently got caught up on TB. I had heard a lot of bad things about season 3 but I quite enjoyed it actually.

    I haven't started watching The Killing yet. Your opening paragraph concerns me. Would I be wasting my time?

    June 26, 2011 at 3:02PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Mulderism - My own *personal* recommendation (probably the point of this blog, I suppose) would be to say that although "The Killing" starts out tremendously well, it fell on its face rather aggressively and early.

      Then again, I pretty actively disliked S. 3 of "True Blood"... So who knows?

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 3:16PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Tausif Khan Don't watch The Killing.

      If you do watch The Killing. Watch the first couple episodes and then the last one. It will give you the same affect as if you had seen all 13.

      June 27, 2011 at 2:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Tausif Khan *effect not affect

      June 27, 2011 at 2:26AM EST
    • Jeff_avatar_2_talkback_profile

      Mulderism Ouch! And this show has been renewed?

      Thanks for the heads up. I will probably give it a pass until I'm desperate for something to watch.

      June 27, 2011 at 2:59AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    rachelmed

    Like you Dan, I became New Me about half way through last season. I realized Ball and the writers didn't give one damn about continuity or giving the show a little substance here and there so I just let go.

    There are enough characters and actors that I still enjoy enough in Pam, Eric, Jessica, LaFayette and Jason (when he gets to be funny), to keep me coming back. It's fun and frivolous entertainment for me now and that's okay. We all need a little fun and frivolity in our lives now and then, right?

    June 26, 2011 at 3:17PM EST Reply to Comment



  • Dan- liked the article but one thing I missed, did you like the show? You focus the entire piece how you didnt like the first three seasons because you wanted it to more than it was. My question to you would be, whenviewing the new episodes through the lens of someone who's just looking for a little throw away entertainment for an hour, did you enjoy it? Or could you not take off your reviewer glasses?

    June 26, 2011 at 3:26PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Dunno. There's an awful lot about how the fourth season continues to waste the characters I like and introduce new characters I don't care about while barely bothering with a coherent story. But there's also gushing blood and boobs aplenty.

      So there's that?

      But no. I didn't especially enjoy the first three episodes of the new season.

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 3:34PM EST
  • Jam_b-day_2010_talkback_profile

    JAM94

    Dan, when you said "the Tara plotline suggests that Ball and his writers were big fans of Season Four of "The O.C."", did you really mean season 2 of The O.C.?

    June 26, 2011 at 3:50PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Jam94 - Nope. S.4. You'll know what I'm talkin' about pretty quickly in the "True Blood" premiere...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 3:52PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      matt Chuckled when I saw that. Of course the "True Blood" writers wouldn't think of borrowing the humor, heart, and overall quality of "The O.C." S.4. Just the melodramatic cage fighting.

      Jam94- I know what you're getting at, but TV lesbians existed long before Alex and Marissa. Though perhaps not quite as hotly.

      June 27, 2011 at 1:28AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    alynch

    Come fall, everybody going to be writing this exact same article about The Walking Dead. "Okay fine, so it's just a zombie show."

    June 26, 2011 at 7:05PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan ALynch - Fortunately, I never wrote anything saying otherwise and didn't much like "Walking Dead" after the fantastic pilot... And Kirkman's also always maintained that his zombies aren't metaphorical, they're just scary...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 7:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Tausif Khan Yet with the Walking Dead the entire writing staff under Darabont was fired because he felt they under performed so there could be an upswing in quality with the new writers.

      June 27, 2011 at 2:30AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Pete Wilson

    Hey Dan, Can you clarify why you feel Six Feet Under was void of any "undercurrent of anything meaningful within its storytelling"? That seems like such and unwarranted criticism with no evidence to back it up.

    June 26, 2011 at 10:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Pete Wilson I say this because I purchased and watched the series mere weeks after my father died. I found the show to be one of if not the most meaningful show that I ever had the pleasure of watching. I felt the show helped me to understand death and allowed me to move on with my life.

      June 26, 2011 at 10:23PM EST
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan Pete - It would, indeed, be unwarranted criticism if that's what I'd written. It's not, though... What you say about the undercurrent of meaning in "Six Feet Under" is exactly why "True Blood" is so disappointing to me and exactly what I wrote...

      -Daniel

      June 26, 2011 at 10:26PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Pete Wilson My apologies, I read Six Feet Under and lack of meaning in the same sentence for the first time and I freaked. I've been rationalizing True Blood to my friends as just a way for Alan Ball to get HBO to throw tonnes of money at him to make his epic true successor to Six Feet Under.

      June 26, 2011 at 11:03PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    rowan729

    Ugh. That was pretty bad-after catching a marathon of the show out of sheer boredom last weekend, it's painfully obvious how far it's dropped in quality and just about everything else.
    Except the boobs and blood, there's always plenty of that, and hard to really mess that dynamic up the way they have the rest of the show....

    Looks like it's nudity only for me, along with the Eric storyline-all else is just filler at this point.
    I'll be interested to see if the ratings are gonna drop off or not.
    A nudity update is not necessarily a bad idea.....

    June 26, 2011 at 10:21PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Cranky2_talkback_profile

    xbrooklyngrrl

    This show is incoherent, sloppy, cheesy and the old and new me is continually disappointed in Alan Ball for not doing a vastly better job of cheesy (is that an oxymoron?) Kill off some of the excess (like Hoyt's mother)! Hell, you have a cast of vampires on hand. Six Feet was just so spectacular, I did expect better...

    But many folks, like me, have tuned in for the hotly anticipated Sookie/Eric sex. C'mon, that's it, yes?

    June 26, 2011 at 10:53PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      rowan729 Yes, I will admit to this. Although any Eric is ok by me-sexy Eric is always best, but man is Skarsgard good at all the rest, too!

      June 27, 2011 at 12:30AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    fritanga

    Perfect review, point by point. True Blood is now a muddled, uninteresting mess full of pointless scenery chewing, cheap "gotchas!" and a plethora of totally uninteresting characters. I hope New Dan can hold out longer than I have (with this awful premiere, I'm done for good).

    June 26, 2011 at 10:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Shadowcat85

    I feel like Ball stuck close to the books for the first season to appease those fans and then after getting acclaim decided to go on a crazy tangent. Season 2 was watchable and last season started out alright but became a farce.

    The show works best when all the secondary characters have a strong link to the Sookie story a la Season 1. Too many established characters (Jason, Sam, Lafayette) have been thrown to the wayside to make way for new uninteresting ones (Tommy and everyone else). Terry and Arlene don't need their own storyline. Neither do Jessica and Hoyt (and I adore both of them but in a pure supporting capacity). Charlaine Harris juggles all her characters in a satisfactory way (even though each new book has become more muddled). The show, unfortunately, does not. Ball needs to go back to the basics of S1.

    June 26, 2011 at 11:44PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Kyle

    Vizio wouldn't happen to be a sponsor of the show, would they?

    Too many stories going on at one time. They really need to gut out some of them. It's a mess.

    June 27, 2011 at 12:36AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tausif Khan

    Re: Fiona Shaw I guess she was fed up with playing muggle Aunt Petunia all of these years and was happy to be a full blown witch.

    June 27, 2011 at 2:41AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ambivalentman

    I guess I understand the hate for "True Blood." I had some issues with season three, but on re-watch found the show to be quite engrossing. It's modern pulp fiction -- sleazy, exploitative, and fun. I think there are some quality ideas under the surface, but the show is far from preachy. I agree that the sheer number of characters can be overwhelming, and sometimes their subplots underwhelming, but overall the show remains true to its vision -- it's an adult soap opera with monsters and mayhem, a "Dark Shadows" for the new generation.

    June 27, 2011 at 1:23PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jack

    I agree with Daniel. None of the humans have depth or are consistent. Any one of them will do any number of things that previously would have been out of character for them before--LAME! I was so bored by so many of the story lines last night. What a disappointment. I don't know how long I'll last on this season.

    June 27, 2011 at 4:45PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    C M

    True Blood has jumped the shark, the episode was awful. The acting and special effects left me wondering if I was watching the space channel and if star trek deep space nine was coming on after. The writers seem to be directing at a specific Fan base (21 year old women, who watched the O.C.)

    July 3, 2011 at 1:09AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Casey

    I couldn't agree more with pretty much everything you've written. Though I am personally sitting with one eyebrow up through the Arlene psycho baby storyline and not laughing. I feel sorry for the baby. Maybe it's my maternal hormones making me judge... Anyway, why do some great shows have to go haywire after a couple of seasons? It's like building a mash potato tower and not stopping when the thing starts-a-wobblin'.

    July 19, 2011 at 7:18AM EST Reply to Comment

News From Our Partners

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web
About HitFix

HitFix delivers the Movie, Music, TV and Awards and general entertainment news that fans care about most, without the gossip or celebrity scandal. Our nationally-recognized, tastemaker journalists provide the latest breaking news, analysis, reviews, recaps, interviews and exclusives 24 hours a day while our proprietary localized Event Calendar and mobile apps allow consumers to stay up to the minute while managing their entertainment lives. Find out What’s Next In Entertainment with HitFix.

Advertise on HitFix
Subscribe to HitFix

Get the latest headlines & updates in your inbox

Popular Topics

© Copyright HitFix.com. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy