Monday, June 28, 2010

True Blood vs The Gates: You Know Who the Winner Is

Well, last night's episode of True Blood was fucking insane. And last night's episode of The Gates was totally boring. I think I sense a pattern forming...

[This blog contains SPOILERS of both shows, but really, only the True Blood spoiler warning matters because who cares what happened on The Gates, am I right?]

But yes, last night's episode of True Blood was off the hook. There was not one, but two crazy sex scenes. (One of which was kinda hot, the other of which was just... yuck.) There were crazy twists and lots of blood and plenty of violence and the introduction of a new hottie, Joe Manganiello as the werewolf Alcide. I really like the way the show has made the vampires and werewolves physically very different - that is, the vamps are all sleek and sexy and goth and kinda metrosexual. The wolves on the other hand are like tough guys and bikers, all muscley and beardy. (Last season we learned that maenads are upper class hippies and so far most shape-shifters are white trash... can't wait to see what comes next.)

The Gates, on the other hand, was less climactic. This episode opened with a scene of two wolves running through the woods towards a sweet little deer. After seeing werewolves and vampires kill real life people just a few moments ago on True Blood, it's hard to be shocked when you see a couple of werewolves chowing down on a dead deer. (And I really expected the deer to turn into a blonde chick or a big pig or something.)

Then there's talk of a terrible upsetting murder... that's not nearly as terrible and upsetting as the murders we just saw on True Blood. (The body they found on The Gates still had a head, for instance.) And then there's a vampire-on-vampire sex scene that doesn't come close to what we just saw Bill do to Lorena. (Not that any show on TV should have scenes like that, ever ever again.) Now I know this is ABC, so you can't really expect the kind of stuff they show on HBO... but it's hard to care about Desperate Vampire Housewives when you've just seen the crazy shit that just went down in the past hour on True Blood.

Even if you haven't just watched True Blood, everything about this show still just feels unoriginal. I'm not sure if the series creators intended to make certain allusions or what, but everything about this show just makes me think of what else that came before it (and in this case, that's not always a good thing).

Even the name of the show makes me think of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's artwork in New York City, which in turn makes me think of those dumb AT&T commercials. And what a dumb thing to name your gated community: "The Gates"? It's surrounded by gates... let's just call it "the Gates", get it? The Gates! Talk about lazy naming. This ranks right up there with The Happening and Fighting for "all the other good names were taken so we just stopped trying" titling. Unless the actual physical gates turn out to have some magical powers themselves (because that would actually be kinda cool). This week's episode was called "What Lies Beneath" which was also the title of the 2000 supernatural horror/thriller film starring Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer which itself was full of allusions to Hitchcock films like Rear Window. (It is also vaguely reminiscent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "from beneath you, it devours" theme from season 7.)

So when Devon pressures Claire to give her a vial of her blood, we're not curious what that's all about... we just assume she's a V-head or something. That's probably not it, but you know it's not going to be anything as interesting as the Lafayette-Eric-SophieAnn blood-dealing set-up... so it's just really really hard to care. That's how I feel about The Gates. It's not a bad show... but I just find it really hard to care what happens. Meanwhile the second an episode of True Blood ends I'm counting the minutes until the next one (which is also the only reason I end up watching The Gates).

Get More True Blood!
 True Blood

Sunday, June 27, 2010

One Million Moms: Still Against The Secret Life of the American Teenager

cannot believe that the One Million Moms are still protesting against The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Have they even seen the show!? My god, it's the most preachy, anti-sex show I've seen in years. It's so preachy, it's almost a PSA or After-School Special. Nothing could send the message of abstinence to teenagers more than by making them watch this show.

I'm really beginning to think that the One Million Moms are against the show primarily because the show actually acknowledges that a) sex exists and b) sometimes teenagers are having it. Other than that though, you'd think this would be their most favorite show in the world. That's why it's so confusing to me when they continuously send out action alerts against the show...

Their most recent complaint is that the show "supports abortion". From the action alert:
Most recent episodes included:

• the discussion of teen pregnancy and motherhood

• s*x and oral s*x (* used to bypass internet filters)

• divorced parents living together

• Adrian, who makes one night stands a hobby of hers, finds out she is pregnant

• she plans on having an abortion to, in her own words, "take care of it"

• teen mom has gone from learning her lesson to parents aware she is on "the pill" and is ok with it
There are a handful of friends and future grandparents attempting to talk Adrian out of the abortion. This type of drama is not the type of entertainment parents want for their children. ABC Family thinks otherwise. S*x, abortion and birth control are exactly what this network is exposing your children to.
So what exactly is so bad about this show? The mere discussion of teen pregnancy and motherhood. Shouldn't we be discussing teen pregnancy and motherhood with our children... so we can prevent it? Why is it unacceptable for these topics to be addressed at all, even if it's done in a really preachy obnoxious way that you'd think they would like.

The existence of sex and oral sex is also unacceptable. Oh we mean s*x. We think it's funny that they now explain why they do the "s*x" thing. (Clearly they've been reading our blog.)

Divorced parents living together. I'm not sure what their beef with that part is... I know the OMM are against divorce, but the fact that they are living together and trying to make it work and considering getting married again has got to be better (in their minds) than the parents just splitting up, period. I mean, if they really care about the sanctity of marriage, you think they'd want divorced parents to get back together.


And then there's Adrian. Poor slutty Adrian. Adrian has been the "what not to do" example ever since the first season... she's the one with no morals, the only one on that show who doesn't think sex is something shameful... I'm actually surprised it took them this long to "punish" her with something like an unplanned pregnancy.

Of course, she's considering abortion. She's the horrible slutty character with no morals. But does that really mean the show is supporting abortion? Of course not. When Amy was considering "taking care of it" the whole friggin town came down to the clinic to talk her out of it. Why should we believe that the Adrian-abortion situation will be handled any differently? If she doesn't have an abortion, it will be because she learned the error of her ways. If she does have an abortion, it will surely ruin her life forever. I mean, isn't that obviously the way a show this preachy would handle it? (My money is on the last minute surprise miscarriage a day before her appointment at the clinic, TV shows love that convenient twist.)

Honestly, I think the OMM are just upset that Secret Life even acknowledges that abortion exists. However, they don't actually really portray it as a possible option. It's this horrible thing that teenage girls would like to use to "take care of" their unplanned pregnancies, but obviously can't because it's so horrible.

And they don't promote sex either. That complaint is so annoying. Admitting the existence of sex is not the same as promoting sex. In fact, the show is so anti-sex it's disgusting. On Secret Life, characters who have sex are almost always instantly punished. Let's recap some of the horrible consequences sex has brought them:

  • Amy has sex for the first time. Consequence: Pregnancy.
  • Amy's married father has sex with Adrian's mom. Consequence: Divorce.
  • Amy's mother has sex with her new boyfriend for the first time. Consequence: Pregnancy.
  • Jack has sex with Adrian. Consequence: Grace breaks up with him.
  • Grace has sex for the first time. Consequence: Her father dies!
  • Amy's date finds a condom in her purse. Consequence: He never calls her. (You don't even have to have sex to suffer consequences... someone just has to make the assumption that you might possibly have sex sometime in the future.)
  • Adrian and Ben have sex. Consequence: Pregnancy. Another fucking pregnancy!
Basically sex = ruin your life! I'm surprised they're still harping on the Secret Life after all this time. They just stick to their favorites. You'd think they would want to move on to something new at this point. (You'd think they'd be all over that new show Pretty Little Liars, but they just ignored it.) Going back to the same shows over and over just highlights the fact that they've had no success in hurting the show in any way.
Parents please consider making this program "off limits" in your home. If you're child finds a way to continue watching it despite your disapproval or had the unavoidable discussion with classmates, consider using this as an opportunity and a springboard for a discussion. If you were not aware of the topics on this show; now you have the information needed as a parent.
Yep. "If you're child finds a way..." I'm more concerned with whether my child is going to find a way to learn proper grammar than I am with whether she's going to watch a preachy melodramatic TV show.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Johnnyfest!

Have I ever mentioned that I love Johnny Weir? I think I may have once or twice before. Well, tomorrow night is the season finale of his reality show, Be Good Johnny Weir. It airs at 9pm on the Sundance Channel, and to celebrate they're having an all-day marathon of the whole season. Set your DVRs, bitches, it's a Johnnyfest!





If you don't get the Sundance Channel, you can also find Be Good Johnny Weir on itunes. And for the next few weeks, you can also find Johnny blogging over at SUNfiltered.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Sherri Shepherd & D.L. Hughley Spread Misinformation about HIV/AIDS

We already knew that Sherri Shepherd was a fucking moron, but now here's the proof that D.L. Hughley is an idiot too. From the June 22, 2010 episode of ABC's The View:



Basically both Hughley and Shepherd make the (false) claim that the primary reason for the prevalance of HIV/AIDS in the African-American community is that women are contracting the disease from men who are "on the down low".
Hughley: When you look at the prevalence of HIV in the African American Community, it's primarily young women who are getting it from men who are on the down low. That's the thing.

Shepherd: The down low is black men who've been going out. They are having sex with men and they're not telling their girlfriends or their wives that they're gay and their husbands, as well. And it's very prevalent with African American women because they come home and have sex with their wives or their girlfriends. And they're not telling them that they're gay.
Everyone already knows that Shepherd is an idiot, but Hughley actually almost sounds somewhat intelligent as he's discussing this (except for the fact that almost nothing he is saying is accurate or even remotely based on fact). He does not have a medical background, he does not have any knowledge or expertise on the subject of homosexuality or HIV/AIDS... he's an actor-comedian with no formal education on the subject. He's speaking purely from a position of ignorance and homophobia and disguising a very misguided opinion as "fact".

It's very possible that a lot of viewers accepted this misinformation as truth... and the perpetuation of these myths can be damaging to both the gay, bisexual and African-American communities. (It's extra sad that this blatant spreading of ignorance had to come during Pride Week of all times.)

The topic of HIV/AIDS transmission in the African-American community came up as part of a conversation about the FDA's continued refusal to accept blood donations from men who have sex with men. Hughley referenced a Slate.com editorial that posed the question "If it's OK to reject blood from gay men, what about blacks?"
The FDA bases its MSM policy on simple math. "Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence … 60 times higher than the general population," the agency observes. "Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood," that leaves a population of MSM blood-donor applicants whose HIV prevalence is "over 15 fold higher than the general population."

So a 15-fold difference is good enough to warrant group exclusion. How about a nine-fold difference? According to the Centers for Disease Control, HIV prevalence is eight to nine times higher among blacks than among whites, and HIV incidence (the rate of new infections in a given year) is seven times higher. For black women, HIV prevalence is 18 times higher than for white women. [Emphasis mine]
For the record - for those of you who don't click the link and read the full article (we definitely recommend that you do) - the author is not actually suggesting that the FDA reject blood donors based on race. Rather, he's just making a point about how rejection based solely on "group membership" like sexual orientation or race - regardless of the general numbers - makes less sense than basing it on actual individual risk factors.



Hughley tried to defend the FDA's ban on gay men donating blood by saying that political correctness shouldn't work its way into the medical field. "We have to defer to medical experts," he said. So let's see what the actual experts have to say about his claim that "down low" men are responsible for the high HIV rates among black women:

Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention debunked this myth. The CDC has studied why the HIV/AIDS rates among African-American women is so extremely high (they make up 61% of all new HIV cases among women). Although 80% of African-American women contract HIV through heterosexual contact, this is mainly from men with high-risk behaviors such as having multiple sex partners (primarily female partners, not secret gay male partners) or IV drug use. There are actually "relatively few" infections coming from male partners who are bisexual.

Fenton also explained, "if there is a high prevalence of HIV in a given community and you have sexual partners from that community, your probability of coming into contact with HIV is much higher than others." He said there is currently a concentration of the epidemic "among the poor, among ethnic minorities and racial minorities in the United States" partly because these are "populations which have been historically and traditionally hard to reach and more difficult to serve". He emphasized the importance of tackling stigma and discrimination about the disease.

Shepherd and Hughley's statements will only make that stigma and discrimination worse. The blog BlackGayGossip made this point perfectly:
For the longest time and still today, the black community as a whole has been plagued by lack of education and at times, intentional ignorance when it comes to HIV, which has allowed it to spread as rampant as it has now. [...]
And while we’re on the subject of down low men, ask yourselves this question, “why are these men on the down low?” Allow me to offer some real life reasons: 1) black culture is heavily rooted in the church and whether these men attend church or not, they are bombarded with the message they are going to burn in hell for their homosexual desires, 2) fear of being disowned by their family or evicted from their households (this pertains to males of minor age as well) 3) battery, assault or murder at the hands of a stranger due to intolerance and homophobia. I could keep going but those are three pretty convincing reasons.
Even the CDC sites one of the reasons HIV/AIDS has hit the African-American community the hardest is due to the stigma (negative attitudes, beliefs, and actions directed at people living with HIV/AIDS or directed at people who do things that might put them at risk of HIV). That last part sounds like code for gay men to me. But it’s true that the stigma is grossly damaging our community. Stating THE reason black women are contracting HIV at such high rates is due to men sleeping with men and not telling these women only perpetuates this stigma. [Emphasize mine]
GLAAD contacted ABC and The View, asking them to retract the statement and educate their audience with actual facts.
"Sherri Shepherd and D.L. Hughley's claim that African American gay and bisexual men are ‘primarily' responsible for increased HIV rates among African American women is inaccurate and dangerous," said GLAAD's Senior Director of Programs Rashad Robinson. "Medical experts, including the Centers for Disease Control have dispelled that myth and ABC has a responsibility to its viewers to correct the information. Shepherd and Hughley's comments fuel a climate of homophobia and racism."The network has refused to correct the false information or take any responsibility for Shepherd's and Hughley's statements.
GLAAD has released a call to action:
TAKE ACTION NOW
Call on "The View" to issue an on-air apology and correct Sherri Shepherd and D.L. Hughley's misrepresentation of African American gay & bisexual men. This program reaches millions of viewers and ABC must ensure that its platforms are not used to perpetuate dangerous falsehoods that put our community in harm's way.

ABC Contacts:

Brad Jamison, Vice President Corporate Initiatives

ABC Television Network

818-460-6120

Brad.Jamison@abc.com

Julie Hoover, Corporate Communications Vice President

ABC Television Network

(212) 456-6641

julie.t.hoover@abc.com


Bill Geddie, Executive Producer

ABC "The View"

(212) 456-0910

bill.geddie@abc.com

We would like to encourage all of our readers to take part and pass it on!

If you go to the GLAAD link, there is also a petition you can sign that will send an automatic message to ABC. For the extra-lazy activists out there.)

And while we're sort of on the subject of blood donation... if you've ever donated blood - or at least attempted to - you may be familiar with the donor history questionnaire, but not that many people are actually aware of the fact that homosexual men are in the indefinitely deferred category regardless of their actual risk factors.

You are restricted from giving blood if in the past 12 months you have [partial list]:

  • Come into contact with someone else’s blood
  • Had an accidental needle-stick
  • Had sexual contact with a person who has hepatitis
  • Lived with a person who has hepatitis
  • Had sexual contact with a prostitute or anyone else who takes money or drugs or other payment for sex
  • Had sexual contact with anyone who has ever used needles to take drugs or steroids, or anything not prescribed by their doctor
  • Had sexual contact with anyone who has HIV/AIDS or has had a positive test for the HIV/AIDS virus
You are restricted indefinitely if in the past 33 years (from 1977 to the present) you:

  • Have received money, drugs, or other payment for sex
  • Are male and have had sexual contact with another male, even once
So being gay is riskier than having sex with someone who has HIV/AIDS? Really? So basically... if you had sex with just one man... with whom you were in a monogamous relationship... and you were both virgins beforehand... and it was protected sex... and it only happened once... and you were both tested beforehand and afterward. You can't donate blood.

On the other hand, if you're a man who has had sex with thousands of women... always unprotected... and some of these women were IV drug users... who shared needles... and some of these women were HIV-positive... and you have never been tested. You can donate blood as long as it's been 12 or more months.

Does anyone else see some kind of disconnect here?

Also, it's worth pointing out that the questionnaire doesn't even specifically say "sexual intercourse". It says "sexual contact". What exactly constitutes sexual contact? Is it limited to penile-vaginal or penile-anal sex? Does it include oral sex? Does it include any physical contact (kissing, touching) that might be of a sexual nature?

Way back when I was in college, our school refused to host blood drives for many years because of a non-discrimination policy. That is, they would not allow any organization that would discriminate against any of their students based on sexual orientation. I believe the school now does host blood drives, but at the time they were very torn on the issue. Students disagreed on what was more important: Refusing to tolerate homophobia and discrimination or denying hospitals and blood banks of much needed donations?

I was researching the subject, for a potential article for the school newspaper, and questioned a representative of the Blood Bank on why gay men were restricted from donating blood. She informed me that gay men were at a higher risk for contracting HIV/AIDS. I reminded her that not all gay men are at a higher risk, only those who engage in high risk activities like unprotected anal sex with numerous partners. However women who engaged in the same high risk activities could donate. She didn't understand, so I explained further.
Me: The risk factor isn't "being a gay man". Yes, unprotected anal sex is a higher risk activity, but it would be the same level of risk for a woman.

Idiot: Oooh, you're right! She could have had anal sex with a gay man!
At the time, I couldn't believe the idiocy of her answer. However, now Sherri Shepherd and D.L. Hughley are given full freedom to repeat this kind of idiocy on television. And ABC doesn't care.

That might be the most annoying part of this incident... Sherri Shepherd said some stupid shit. That probably happens every day on The View, but when an organization contacts you and says that what she said was not only totally wrong and offensive, but also potentially harmful with really serious consequences - you don't just blow them off. Why shouldn't she and Hughley be held accountable? Why shouldn't ABC take responsibility?

Please contact ABC and let them know that they need to take responsibility for what happened on The View and make a public apology and correction.

Monday, June 21, 2010

The Gates: Another Vampire Show That Kinda Sucks


So did anyone else watch The Gates last night? My first reaction to the trailer for this show was "ugh, another show about vampires and werewolves." Then my immediate second reaction was "Cool... another show about vampires and werewolves!" Now having seen the show I'm thinking I might be leaning more towards that first reaction, but I can't completely decide how I feel yet...

[Warning: This review will contain spoilers.]

Apparently ABC thought there was still room for one more show about supernatural creatures living in suburbia... Sunday was a risky night to air a new vampire drama... ABC was smart enough to schedule this for 10pm (ET) instead of 9pm, when True Blood airs on HBO, but True Blood is by far the superior show. Are viewers really going to be able to handle an extra hour of bloody goodness every Sunday night? Especially when the first one is far superior?

That's not to say that The Gates totally sucks (no pun intended). But this concept has been done so many times by now that a show really needs something extra special to catch our attention. And so far it hasn't caught mine. I think I need to see a few more episodes before I can really know for sure, but so far I'm not a huge fan. It's not a terrible show... but it seems like it can't tell exactly what it wants to be yet. It's been billed a "supernatural crime drama" but I'm not really buying the "crime drama" angle. Yes, there are crimes, but it's a lot more of a melodramatic evening soap opera-type show than a crime show. (Think Desperate Housewives... if the housewives were also vampires and witches.... and the cute young guys were werewolves.) In the same way that The Vampire Diaries is your typical CW show like 90210 with supernatural themes thrown in, The Gates is your typical ABC evening drama like Housewives. And it's certainly dramalicious, but so far it hasn't drawn me in.

The show follows the story of Nick Monahan and his family who has moved from Chicago to a quiet, upscale planned community called The Gates, where he will be chief of police. And bloody supernatural hijinks ensue! Monahan is played by Frank Grillo who you may recognize from Prison Break and his wife is played by Marisol Nichols, who I will admit that I love... although I don't completely buy her as the mother of a teenager (although technically I know she is old enough to be one, she still looks like a teenager).


I was also pleased to see Rhona Mitra starring in a show and she does an excellent job with the slightly creepiness that the role of a vampire housewife requires (craving blood while feeling sorta guilty about it). Of course, she's already got plenty of experience playing a vampire in Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. She also stared in a werewolf movie, Skinwalkers, but she played a human being. Although it's a little hard accepting Luke Mably, who plays her vampire husband, as a bloodsucker when I just keep thinking of him in The Prince and Me and then I start to laugh and then I'm not scared of him at all, no matter how sharp his fangs are. The rest of the cast is relatively forgettable... but I'll give them a few more episodes to prove themselves.

Of course, my first complaint is that the vampires in The Gates can walk around in daylight. Between Twilight and The Vampire Diaries we've just about had enough of these rule-bending mythologies. (At least these vamps wear sunscreen.) There are also a few bitchy witches and werewolves that are played basically as football jocks with 'roid rage. Also, interestingly enough the werewolves not only have super strength, speed, and hearing... but they also work as semi-human-lie-detectors, which is a pretty cool. Except that so far all the werewolves are also douchebags.

I think this show would do better if ABC had been a little smarter with its scheduling... They should've done what The Vampire Diaries did... Their first season premiered while True Blood was on hiatus and ended a few weeks before True Blood's season 3 premiere. It was the perfect filler for those of us who were needing a vampire fix and didn't have to compete for fans. Or if they insisted on trying for a summer hit, put it on Thursdays or Fridays... just when people are starting to get a little stir crazy waiting for the next episode of True Blood and will watch anything vamp-related in the meantime. But airing immediately after viewers have already gotten their fix of the best vampire show on TV... that just isn't smart, no matter how great The Gates ends up being (which if last night's episode is any indication, isn't that great... yet).

The artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude have no direct or indirect affiliation or involvement with ABC's The Gates.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Amanda Bynes You Will Be Missed...

So apparently Amanda Bynes announced on Twitter that she is retiring from acting...



This is actually really upsetting for me. Those of you who are longtime readers will no doubt remember how much I love Miss Bynes.


I definitely understand why she might want to quit acting - or at least take a temporary break. She's been working in the industry since she was just a kid, getting her start on Nickelodeon's All That in 1996 and then moving on to her own spin-off The Amanda Show. So I do understand how she might already be burnt out and disenchanted with the industry at the young age of 24. But just this past January she was on the cover of Cosmo, talking about how she's ready to start a new stage in her career (taking on more adult roles).

It makes me sad that "young Hollywood" is going to lose her. I don't think that children should look up to actors and other celebrities because being famous doesn't necessarily mean that you're a good role model. However as far as young women in show business go, Amanda Bynes was pretty good. Not perfect, obviously - because who is? - but compared to some of the other stars out there, she ain't half bad.

She's definitely beautiful (even if by society's unfair standards) but not in an unnatural or unhealthy way. She's thin but doesn't look anorexic or malnourished. She has the acting chops to do serious scenes, but also the guts to go all out for laughs. She has never been above doing the really funny, goofy comedic work. She's not afraid to look silly or even look "ugly". I know that she hasn't always had a lot of creative control behind the shows and movies she starred in (maybe she did on The Amanda Show?) so I can't say how intentional her choices were... but basically, you won't see many other young actresses do some of the physical humor scenes that she does...






So while I'm going to wish Amanda the best (and not-so-secretly hope that she reconsiders and makes a comeback!) I'm definitely going to miss her... and I'm heartbroken over the fact that she's never going to fulfill remake casting fantasy of starring in a remake of Sixteen Candles opposite Channing Tatum. Hey, a girl can dream.

But of course, we will be going to the theater to see Amanda in Easy A this September. It may very well be Amanda's last movie... we wouldn't miss it for the world. In the meantime we'll be planning our very own Amanda Bynes Movie Marathon. We suggest you do the same. Here are some suggestions:
















Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Conscience Off, Dick On: A Review of the True Blood Premiere


Okay, I think we've waited long enough that we can write about the True Blood Season 3 Premiere without ruining it for everyone who had it on DVR. If you haven't watched it by now (what are you waiting for!?) then this will obviously contain spoilers... so... tough luck!

This episode "Bad Blood" was so bad it was good... It had kind of a sad start, with everyone upset over something - Tara over the death of Eggs; Jason over his secret role in that death; Sookie over the fact that her almost-fiancĂ© Bill has been vamp-napped. But then it became clear that the writers were going to give the readers exactly what they want this season (or at least some of what we want).

Nerve.com has compiled a list of the top five things we want to see in True Blood's third season and the fans have made a pretty hefty wish list for season 3 (plus we have some requests of our own!) So let's see how the first episode stacked up against what the readers have been hoping and asking for... to prove whether Alan Ball and the forces behind True Blood really have been listening.

  • More Sexy Eric Scenes
Well, they certainly delivered on this one, having Sookie walk in Eric as he's "initiating" one of Fangtasia's new dancers. We even got to see his butt (which now has it's own twitter) as he stands around naked talking to Sookie. Now that scene was just fan service. Not that we're complaining!



Sexy nakie Eric photos blatantly stolen from Celebitchy.com

  • More Pam
Unlike Sookie, we're always in the mood for Pam's "lesbian weirdness". Pam has definitely been underused in the past two seasons... but if the premiere was any indication, we're thinking she might actually have some kind of a plot line in season three. Possibly her best line of the night (in response to Lafayette's "no can do hooker"):
“I don’t know what it is about me that makes people think I want to hear their problems. Maybe I smile too much. Maybe I wear too much pink. But please remember, I can rip your throat out if I need to, and also know that I am not a hooker. That was a long, long time ago.”
Love it.



  • A Little Bit of Sam/Bill Homoeroticism
Oh yes. The fans have been hoping for this ever since Sam drank Bill's blood in the second season finale. (We all know what that vampire blood can do to your libido...) The Sam/Bill sex dream was both sexy and hilarious at the same time.
“I hear the water in Arkansas is … very hard.”


  •  Less Annoying Stupid Tara
Note that doesn't say "less Tara"... we'd actually like to see more Tara. But enough of this annoying stupid victim version of Tara! It feels like the writers have been putting Tara through this endless downward spiral since season one and we're sick of it. We were happy to see Eggs go (because he was rather irritating) but we can't take a whole season of Tara mourning and blaming. Please bring back the smart, sassy Tara that we remember...

 


  • More Lafayette
Unfortunately, Lafayette was more of a supporting character in this episode... taking care of Tara, dealing with Pam. Let's hope that this season Lafayette doesn't just play sidekick to the rest of the cast because he's just too good of a character to be wasted on that. We've heard that he's going to get his own little story arc [spoiler] this season, so we're really looking forward to that.





  • More Jessica and/or Hoyt
We really enjoyed the sweetness of the relationship between Jessica and Hoyt... and both of them are just such funny characters in their own ways. This episode hinted that we might be seeing more of Hoyt this season because he has moved in with Jason. As for Jessica, she got lots of laughs this episode as she tried to deal with a trucker she accidentally killed. Another character might not have been as cute and sympathetic in the same situation, but we have to remember that as a young vampire she has poor impulse control and is still learning how to do all this vampy stuff, so it all came off as hilarious instead of horrifying.


     

  • More Jason/Andy Stupidity 
Some of the funniest moments of Season 2 were conversations between Andy and Jason (who can forget the burning question "Do you think Sam could turn into a chicken and lay his own egg?") and there was no shortage of quotable moments from this episode. While we personally find the the Jason murder story pretty annoying, it's worth it just to see more Jason/Andy scenes.
"When this thing blows over you can go out and not get laid all you want to, but for now you gotta be the Jason Stackhouse everybody knows. So conscience off, dick on. And everything's gonna be alright."


  • More Great Quotable One-Liners
Speaking of which... this episode was filled with great quotes left and right, especially from supporting characters like Arlene. Possibly the best quote of the episode was Arlene's response to an angry Tara:
"I’m sorry you fell in love with a serial killer, all right? But honestly, who here hasn’t?"
Pretty much sums up the whole show doesn't it?



  • Werewolves!
Yep, they're here! Season 3 will finally introduce us to some werewolf characters. We only saw a little bit of foreshadowing this episode: howling in the distance, Bill facing off with a few wolves in the woods, Jessica and Sookie identifying the Operation Werewolf rune symbol (apparently there's an app for that). Can't wait to see what happens next week.



What do you all think? Did the season premiere satisfy your blood lust or did it disappoint? Anything you wish they would (or wouldn't) have included in this episode? Hopes for next week? Let us know.

Get More True Blood!


  True Blood)

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Waiting Sucks... True Blood Season Premiere TONIGHT!!

We're too excited about the True Blood season 3 premiere tonight to actually write anything... so we're just going to take one last final look at our favorite TB characters before we get to see them again for real!


Sookie






Bill





Eric




Jason





Jessica




Lafayette




Sam


 

Tara




Hoyt



Terry




Arlene




Andy





Pam


We're really looking forward to seeing some of the new characters too...

Are you watching tonight? Going to a True Blood premiere party??

Saturday, June 12, 2010

How to Kill a Vampire

We've previously guided you on how to spot a vampire and how to become a vampire. Today's Guide to Supernatural Creatures will give you a few main ways to kill a vampire... or at least hurt them. There has been quite a lot of conflicting information on the subject lately, so hopefully this will help, as we take a look at how to kill a vampire in some of our favorite movies and TV shows.


How to Kill a Vampire

True Blood

In the True Blood series, garlic and crosses don't harm vampires at all (Bill finds garlic unpleasant)... but the surefire ways of killing them are stake through the heart, being burned to death by fire, or going out in the sunlight. Vampires can also be weakened by silver or the disease Hep-V.


Sunlight will kill (or at least hurt) most vampires, but a lot of the local vamps have magic jewelry that allows them to walk around in daylight. The general stake-through-the-heart is a surefire killer and the herb vervain will weaken them. Garlic has no effect (in fact the Salvatore brothers quite like it, being Italian and all).


Again, Stephanie Meyer decided to forgo all previous vampire mythologies and make up some crazy bullshit. In the Twilight universe, vampires cannot be killed or even hurt by human beings. Even sunlight doesn't hurt them, it just makes them *sparkle*. To be killed, they must be dismembered and burnt, which only another vampire or werewolf would be strong enough to do. (Although surely Bella could just annoy them to death?)


You can stop a vampire by staking him and weaken him with garlic or holy water (unless he's been "invited in" of course). If you kill the Head Vampire, his little vampire prodigy will die too and half-vampires will be turned back to human.


Silver bullets and stakes make vampires disintegrate. Blade's arsenal of vampire-hunting weapons include various swords and blades (aha!), "vampire mace" (liquid silver nitrate and garlic), and throwable injector canisters filled with anticoagulant that makes them explode.




The usual methods - stake through the heart, sunlight, fire, beheading - will turn a vampire to dust. Vampires also have an aversion to crucifixes, holy water and garlic.


In the Anne Ricean universe, vampires die from sunlight and fire. A stake to the heart however, doesn't kill them. Nor does decapitation or dismemberment (it's only temporary; they can be put back together like a puzzle and reanimated). Holy water and crucifixes have no effect. Drinking blood from the dead will make a vampire seriously ill.