Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And what was Tommy doing? He seemed very out of character tonight.
I dunno, to me Tommy was in character.
You've to remember that he is damaged goods, a victim of systematic abuse, which taught him to take it as good as he can dish out, but he doesn't have learned yet to keep his nose out of someone else's business.
Right now he only respects dominance so he tries to assert dominance with every person he meets (or perceives as a threat).
Quote:
It is pretty clear that both Eric and Bill are shady.
Yeah, well what didya expect?
They're both soulless vamps.
In my book soulless vamps are always tricky.... errr I mean shady.
I dunno, to me Tommy was in character.
You've to remember that he is damaged goods, a victim of systematic abuse, which taught him to take it as good as he can dish out, but he doesn't have learned yet to keep his nose out of someone else's business.
Right now he only respects dominance so he tries to assert dominance with every person he meets (or perceives as a threat).
I was referring to his brief groveling after Sam cussed him out and told him to leave. It seemed too fake, too contrived. Also at the end he was trying to break into something. There may be more to Tommy than we think.
Quote:
Yeah, well what didya expect?
They're both soulless vamps.
In my book soulless vamps are always tricky.... errr I mean shady.
I wouldn't go as far as to call them soulless; in that they can be very passionate. What is interesting to see (and I said this at the beginning of the season), is if Alan Ball will begin to show the strain and havoc that results when humans (who bridle their passions more) live in close proximity to vampires (who are essentially self-serving). Which I think he has...especially in this season.
I don't think anyone is expecting the tragic matyr breed of vampire (a la Twilight) here. But you have to admit; some of the vampires in True Blood; namely Bill, Jessica, Godric and even Talbot have had their 'monsterous bloodsucking side" minimized. As oppossed to vampires like Lorena, Russell, the Magistrate, and Pam who seem to 'embrace' their vampire nature more.
Eric, Queen Sophie and Nan on the other hand seem to be on the fence. It is very entertaining to watch these particular vampires because you don't know where their real loyalties lie. Notice we have only seen Nan on TV since the Russell freak-out incident; I think it shook her more than she let on. Somehow, I don't see Queen Sophie as completely evil; she is very self-serving...but that is different from being evil. I think if she finds out about Sookie, things will get quite interesting. Oh and Eric...well ambiguity is pretty much all he is about (and I'll leave it at that).
I was referring to his brief groveling after Sam cussed him out and told him to leave.
I still see this as related to dominance.
Quote:
I wouldn't go as far as to call them soulless; in that they can be very passionate.
Yeah, but even the cruellest sadist can be passionate about hurting others.
Being consumed by passion says nothing about being good or evil.
And btw I was talking about the Buffyverse vampires where the only good vampires are vampires with a soul.
To me the soul is a synonym for your conscience; people without a conscience do not have a soul. And since all vampires have no soul they can't have a conscience either. The fact that all vampires are very self-serving also proves the fact that they don't have a conscience (or soul) either.
Quote:
Somehow, I don't see Queen Sophie as completely evil; she is very self-serving...but that is different from being evil.
To me being evil is the same as being self-serving.
For example a rapist doesn't care about his victims at all, in his mind she only exists to serve his needs.
Does anyone think the football player story is going nowhere? It feels like filler to me.
I thought the best character in Sunday's episode was Andy. And that reminds me, William Sanderson (Sheriff Dearborn) is still listed in the opening credits.
I miss Alcide. He's kind. He's helpful. He's meaty... (after all of the pasty scrawny vampires I like seeing a character with some meat on his bones and some color in his cheeks. ) I know he comes back for the finale but I wonder what his future is if all of the other werewolves and Russell bite the dust.
I know why the magister was offed. The actor is in the new TV show The Event as a regular cast member.
Observation: No waitresses in Merlotte's were killed this season.
It was interesting to learn that the vampires miss being out in the sun. I have no idea what's going to happen in the next 2 episodes but for Eric's sake (nah, he won't die) I hope there's no sudden solar eclipse ruining his plan for Russell.
I loved the way that the vampires spoke of missing the warmth of the sun. It was pretty compelling. The way that eric just gingerly walked out there feeling every warming ray..until...it started to burn. How about that evil flash that Lafayette had? He got that guy out of his house pretty darn quick!
Yeah, but even the cruellest sadist can be passionate about hurting others.
Being consumed by passion says nothing about being good or evil.
And btw I was talking about the Buffyverse vampires where the only good vampires are vampires with a soul.
To me the soul is a synonym for your conscience; people without a conscience do not have a soul. And since all vampires have no soul they can't have a conscience either. The fact that all vampires are very self-serving also proves the fact that they don't have a conscience (or soul) either.
To me being evil is the same as being self-serving.
For example a rapist doesn't care about his victims at all, in his mind she only exists to serve his needs.
You can be 'self-serving' without being evil. For example, you can love attention and being loved. You can be generous and charitable, not so that you can help others, but so that they can love you. Actions are only the surface; what drives the actions are what is important.
I can only speak for myself, but this is why I like Eric so much more over Bill. No one knows for sure what drives Bill...he's way too ambivelant. It was just a tad too easy for him to dip into that "Oh there is no hope for me...let me forget my humanity and give into my nature and consort with Lorena/Russell" bit. Contrast this with Eric when he went to see Russell. Sure he lied, he even 'did the do' with Talbot. But he staked him before he walked out, leaving you with no questions as to where his loyalties lie. Bill on the other hand can't give a straight answer to save his life. His wishy-washiness takes away from whatever vampiric passions he holds. And the vampires in True Blood are driven by more than just blood lust. They can be around blood and open wounds without totally losing it (like the vampires in Twilight).
Never saw Buffy The Vampire slayer except for once or twice; so can't make any comparisons there.
Yeah, but even the cruellest sadist can be passionate about hurting others.
Being consumed by passion says nothing about being good or evil.
And btw I was talking about the Buffyverse vampires where the only good vampires are vampires with a soul.
To me the soul is a synonym for your conscience; people without a conscience do not have a soul. And since all vampires have no soul they can't have a conscience either.
actually, that's not quite true. Spike became more compassionate as time went one, even before he regained his soul. at the end of season 5, he didn't ave a soul, yet he protected Dawn and grieved when Buffy died. granted, some may point to the chip in his head, but Spike was always a weird vamp, more compassionate even before the chip went in. and w/ Angel, Darla sacrificed herself for her unborn child (staked herself through the hurt so her body was dusted and the live baby was left).
when it comes to vamp lore, it's not fully known how the soul or lack there of corresponds to a vamp's personality or conscience. it seems to vary depending on the source
So if the Queen suspected that Sookie was a Fae, why didn't she just abduct her, suck out her blood and kill her? Now that we know how Vampires work, she could have done that easily.
So if the Queen suspected that Sookie was a Fae, why didn't she just abduct her, suck out her blood and kill her? Now that we know how Vampires work, she could have done that easily.
Maybe faeries are Yahtzee-challenged. As soon a Bill verified Sookie was a faerie, he'd challenge her to a game. If Sookie lost then Sophie Anne would have to decide if she wanted to keep winning for the next bazillion years or walk in the sun.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I dunno, to me Tommy was in character.
Yeah, well what didya expect?
The fact that all vampires are very self-serving also proves the fact that they don't have a conscience (or soul) either.
To me being evil is the same as being self-serving.
) I know he comes back for the finale but I wonder what his future is if all of the other werewolves and Russell bite the dust.
