Anyone else a fan of the series before HBO turned it into a new TV show?

You mean the book series? I didn't know it was a book series till I saw a 'making of' thing on HBO. But it's on my list of books to checkout at the library now, for sure.

Yeah, my wife was introduced to the series some 3 months ago from some people we are playing DnD with, who had been reading the series since it came out. (and I was introduced to the books last night )

Well, I really like the HBO show so far, so I'm betting I'll love the books. Cause if I like something based on books, 99% of the time I like the books at least as much and usually more.

The show looks kinda crappy, are the books any better?

So far they are different.

There is a lot less revealed about vampires at this stage of the books. Also, have you guys figured out the secret about Sam yet?

There was -alot- of forshadowing if you know the books in tonights episode.

2. The "slave" conversation isn't nearly as snarky or political. In general, the TV show so far is much more political than the books are. (though the later books do make references to Katrina and such, just not in a political way)

The secret of same is revealed in the very first book.

I certainly found the first HBO episode fairly interesting. I don't read books, but I might have to let my wife know about the series now.

I don't understand why the vampires have their fangs on the teeth just inside their canines, rather than on their canines.

It makes them sort of look like vicious bunny rabbits.

According to the writer, It's a rattle snake thing. (not part of the books though)

Thats also why you hear a clicking noise when they come out.


ooh look an internet source:

http://io9.com/5045729/creature-creator-da...-and-true-blood

Have you ever noticed that every new vampire show or movie, decides they have to change some aspect of Vampire lore for their own series?

Why can't you just stick to the basics?

Sort of the cool thing about vampires, they don't have any basics, other than that they drink blood.

I like Twilight's vampires best.

Bram Stoker's Dracula also had a cool mythos.

Well, if every movie/show had exactly the same vampire in it, it'd be a little boring. The only basics you really need are that they've got fangs and they drink blood. Everything else is negotiable.

well apparently, even what type of fangs are negotiable


But what I meant is that the book has certain rules about vampires, and the TV show decided that those rules were not good enough and had to change them also.

(for example, in the book, Bill levitates for Sookie, while in the TV show he says they can't do that, and also as far as I know so far, the books don't have their fangs be snake like)


Its one thing for bram stoker, and anne rice, and Vampire the Masqurade to have different generic mythos. But I'm more talking about when the creator of the movies based on those series, decide to make changes as well. It always happens.

Do you think Bill was telling the truth though?

But yeah, movies/tv shows always alter stuff from the way the books had them. Did you see the last few Harry Potter movies? I'm used to it by now. I haven't read the books so the changes don't bother me. Besides, whether the fangs spring up like snake fangs, or grow down from canines, they're still fangs.

"Do you think Bill was telling the truth though?"

The interview I heard with the writer, said that he was trying to look at Vampires as being within nature, and not being supernatural. So I'm guessing they can't do anything that the writers couldn't feel they could explain naturally somehow.

Huh. Musta been running really fast then or something. Looked like flying to me. But ah well. Was awesome, either way.

Yeah, I thought he was running fast /jumping since I was tainted by the interview.