EVILFACE
Insufferable S.O.B.
Ugggg Jessica was soooooo close to unleashing those bewbs. . ..
Ugggg Jessica was soooooo close to unleashing those bewbs. . ..
I would love to spend one day in Jason's shoes. Especially that last one.
He's one of my favorite characters.
I like Jason a lot too - the actor is PERFECT in that role.
Ugggg Jessica was soooooo close to unleashing those bewbs. . ..
The best answer I can give, to my personal viewpoint, is it's just not what most people, particularly most women, want to see. For TV, it's just about viewers and ratings, it's about hitting key demographics within those numbers. Someone with high earning power in the 25-45 age range is simply worth more to advertisers and a given network than some other demographics. This is why you'll see very lighthearted fare on Saturday Night tv for the most part. Simple plots and storylines, non controversial, more suited for older audiences. There's not as much appeal to advertisers there, so they put weaker or unpopular shows there. But you'll see networks putting out their best shows on Sunday night or Thursday night, where they are hoping to catch those desired demographics. IIRC, in a study I read, in American households, about 80-85 percent of consumer purchases are made by women.
What appeals to people is "fantasy" and "romance" not reality. Reality is doing loads of laundry, packing lunches, carpooling to work, sitting in a cubicle, trudging through the same boring day after day, hope to just get to the two hours a night where you can just feel like you are left alone. Romance to people is the chase. Having someone wine and dine you, the allure of what you can't have, the lure of resolved sexual tension. Case in point, you will never ever read a fairy tale that talks about what the prince and princess, the one he saved from the tower, do after he's killed the dragon. They just say, "Happily Ever After" Because consistency and patterns and routines aren't sexy to people, esp most women. The idea of "fantasy" lends the idea of importance. Sookie was just a waitress in a small town, with a job and life that were going pretty much nowhere. No love life, cursed with a gift that only made connecting with people harder. Now she's the belle of the ball, the center of attention. Everything revolves around her. Everyone is fighting over her.
That is what sells. It sells to people. It especially sells to women. The basic idea that the more drama you have in your life, the more important you must be. This is why TV relationships never last, it doesn't serve the ego of many viewers. Because they want to project themselves in that scenario, from their routine lives to a "fantasy", which is the goal of soap operas, and True Blood is, pretty clearly, a high powered super charged soap opera. But you can't "project" is the main protaganist is simply not surmountable. There is a reason why Anna Paquin is cast for True Blood, or Kristen Stewart for Twilight, or Gellar for Buffy, because the show is mostly fan service for women, not for men. It's also the reason why they are written to be so damn irritable, because part of buying into the fantasy is that anyone can overcome "her". If you can overcome "her" and she's not so great, then a person can place themselves within the context of that fantasy. The fantasy falls apart if you try to cast a Charlize Theron or a Jessica Alba or a Angelina Jolie as Sookie.
Bill can do better than a whining selfish insecure scatter brained Sookie ( aka Anna Paquin) - Easy to buy into the fantasy that you too can get a Bill Compton
Bill can do better than a whining selfish insecure scatter brained Sookie ( aka Charlize Theron) - Uh, wait a minute. Good God, she's like a Greek Goddess. If it takes THAT to get a Bill Compton, then holy crap, there is no hope for any of us. Fantasy plunges to a burning heap of wreckage.
In a show for women, the key is really the appeal of the men on show. Anna Paquin only has to be just pretty enough or interesting enough to validate Bill or Erics or Alcides worth as men of quality to the audience, but never so much that the fantasy implodes.
IMHO, this is one of the core reasons why relationships, esp on soap operas like this, and esp shows that takes its bread and butter as fan service, never really last for very long. Sookie only needs to succeed just enough to drive home how important one can be with projection, but needs to fail enough to allow that projection to never hit any basis of reality.
Fundamentally, IMHO, a problem I see with True Blood now is they completely character assassinated the Hoyt character. In order to justify the Jason/Jessica romance, they need to make Hoyt do horrible things.
"Wow Jessica cheated on Hoyt and glamoured him, that really does suck . And Jason just slept with his best friends ex, breaking the bro code on all kinds of levels BUT looks Hoyt wrote "Monster" on the box, what a jerk, he deserves to be alone, Jessica and him wouldn't have been happy anyway"
This is how a lot of people think. Sad isn't it?
The little difficulty is it requires them to write Hoyt completely out of character. Nothing in his previous character construction would indicate that he would behave that vindictively. Why would they do this? Because he's the least marketable of the three characters and the most expendable. You railroad a character when you are a poor writer or when you just can't wait to kill them off. IMHO, Hoyt is as good as dead now.
The other problem is by making Hoyt into a villain, to try to victimize Jessica just enough so she doesn't seem like a worthless whore with Jason, the show has now eliminated ALL of the developed redeeming characters on the show. Other than the traumatized Terry, who is a can short of a six pack, and possibly the underdeveloped Alcide, the show has wiped out anyone with any semblance of decency left. What is the point of a fantasy world that strays away from hyper realism when you remove anyone left to root for? Pam is funny in 2 minute doses a week. But as you see, give her 10 minutes or 5 minutes, her base killer ruthless selfish nature comes out. She's not so amusing anymore.
Alan Ball has just destroyed four characters at once ( Hoyt, soon to die, Jason, before just a simple minded dummy but with a decent heart who is now just a scum bag, Jessica, who was confused and immature, but now is a cheating whore, and Hoyt's mother, who was before just crazy and entertaining, but will eventually have to play into Hoyt's death somehow.)
Sookies grandmother. Tolerant. Loving. Kind. Got her throat cut.
Sheriff Dearborn. Tried to do the right thing. Tried to keep order. Wanted the best for the young Sookie. Didn't get to enjoy his retirement. Dropped dead.
Hoyt. Loyal to his friends and family. Until he was character assassinated, treated Jessica with real love. Now he gets to die because he's just not as popular a character as Jason.
In a show that progressively tries to rationalize why a bunch of vampire killers aren't really so bad. No no, Bill, I don't mind that I was kidnapped and made into a vampire. See my Daddy beat me. And my lief before sucked. And now I can live a better life. So what you didn't wasn't so bad. Gag. Why doesn't Alan Ball just get a baseball bat and start clubbing straight people in the face, it would be a lot more subtle than the agenda he's pushing now.
When you start wiping out all the good people or make them bad for sake of ratings or marketing, whatever the people on the show are fighting for, they are really fighting for nothing. When there's nothing left worth saving, no people left worth saving, then it's all pointless. Wiping out Hoyt isn't just wiping out a character, it's wiping out the basic ideal of hope in the True Blood universe.
I guess Alan Ball believes more people will buy into the fantasy if he can make it more cheap to acquire. Good luck with that.
Then we roll into Boardwalk Empire!!
It's just getting real good too. HBO seasons just seem way too short.
Enter your email address to join: