CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

TV in the Movies – Twilight vs. True Blood

twitrueI’ve seen a lot of movies. I’ve also watched my share of television. So, why not combine the two into one weekly column. Movies and TV, or TV and movies. To quote Forrest Gump, they go “together like peas and carrots.” Ah, that Gump was a sage. An idiot, but a sage nonetheless. Anyway, “TV in the Movies” is a damn fine idea. I take zero credit for it; I’m too busy trying to convince Amy Adams I’m the guy for her (it’s not going well). The idea germinated in the savvy minds of Keith and Deb. I’ll try not to screw it up, but I can’t make any promises.

Enough of my exposition. Let’s talk vampires. Since the silent film era, the vampire genre has been a staple in the entertainment biz. Max Schreck, Lon Chaney, Bela Lugosi and Christoper Lee each wore fangs proudly from the 1920s through the 1970s. Not to be outdone, Dark Shadows, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Ultraviolet have carried the torch for vampires on the small screen since the late ’60s.

Whether you like classic (The Return of the Vampire), erotic (Vampyros Lesbos), crazy (Vampire’s Kiss), allegorical (The Addiction), action packed (Blade), Russian (Night Watch) or Swedish (Let the Right One In), there are plenty of choices to satisfy your thirst for pointy-toothed creatures of the night. I’m a child of the 1980s; I dig Fright Night, The Lost Boys and Near Dark, but I also have a huge soft spot for a spunky, blond TV slayer named Buffy.

Present day bloodsucker plots have kinda switched gears from the “destroy all vampires” theme. Take Twilight and True Blood for example. Both focus on young, nubile women falling for pasty faced undead guys. With season two of True Blood set to launch June 14, and The Twilight Saga: New Moon scheduled for release in November, I thought it an opportune time to compare and contrast these very popular incarnations.

The narratives:

I haven’t read any of Stephenie Meyer’s books. Thus, I don’t care if the film lives up to the prose. The movie is more of a teen romance than anything else. It’s a classic new girl falls for bad boy story. The apple of Bella Swan’s eye, Edward Cullen, just so happens to be a vampire, instead of a popular football player or loner with a rep. Edward uses his super speed and super strength to keep Bella safe from unruly drunks and hungry blood drinkers. Edward is also a vegan vamp. He and his Brady Bunch-like family only imbibe animal blood. PETA would not be pleased.

Again, I am not privy to the book series penned by Charlaine Harris. True Blood is set in a world where vampires have been integrated into society. They even have their own brew: True Blood. Sookie Stackhouse’s (great name) boy toy Bill is similar to Edward Cullen in that he eschews human sustenance. Evidently, drinking human blood is so last century. Bill is a former Civil War era soldier, so he’s gallant and polite and totally devoted to protecting Sookie. Turns out Sookie has many suitors, including her boss Sam, and Bill’s boss, Eric. Not everyone approves of Sookie and Bill’s relationship, which of course complicates matters for the loving couple.

The universes:

It’s rainy and overcast much of the year in the hamlet of Forks, Washington. Great place for Edward and his clan to call home. Sunlight isn’t such a terrible thing for their kind. Rather than burn up, they glow like diamonds. That’s new. This clever trait adds to the surreal atmosphere of the Twilight universe. The characters inhabit a clean, civilized world. The Cullen abode is immaculate. The family dynamics are downright wholesome. They support each other and even play baseball together. It’s a damn 4th of July picnic in the Cullen household. Oh, they also have zero problem hacking up and burning those pesky blood drinking vamps.

Seedy, sticky, sexy and sullen. Bon Temps, Louisiana is a hip, happenin’ place where small town folk mingle with the undead. Guys turn into dogs, zombie-esque chicks wander the night with leashed pigs, vampire blood (“V”) is sold as a drug and an abnormally high amount of murders occur. This backwoods trailer park existence is much less sophisticated and exceedingly more violent than the pristine life inside Twilight. The assimilation of vampires into human society exposes a fair amount of prejudice. Humans, intolerant? Nah.

The characters:

Bella Swan, as played by Kristen Stewart, is your typical, boring high school girl. An empty vessel, if you will. The only reason to care about her is her involvement with a bloodsucker. Edward Cullen isn’t any deeper. He’s perfecting that whole “stay away from me ’cause I’m dangerous” vibe. He’s a fantastic tree climber, but we don’t know much about him except that he had Spanish influenza in 1918. Bella’s father, Charlie, is interesting. He’s uncomfortable in the dad role, but he strives to do better and genuinely cares about Bella. There’s a man-wolf, Jacob Black, running around too. And guess what? He likes Bella.

True Blood is loaded with oddball characters. Sookie (Anna Paquin) is a strong-willed girl who has witnessed plenty of heartache. Her telepathic abilities rival those of Edward Cullen’s. They both can read other people’s thoughts. However, not being able to read their love interest’s thoughts only fuels their attractions. Unlike Bella, Sookie’s love for Bill isn’t of the blind variety. She questions her feelings and even considers playing it safe and hooking up with best pal Sam. There are many facets to Sookie, which makes her unpredictable and anything but one note.

Bill does nothing for me as a leading man. Is it a prerequisite for hunky vamps to be dull? At least Angel had a sense of humor to go along with his brooding.

More on Sam. I find it ironic that he shape-shifts into a dog. His loyalty to Sookie resembles that of a dog for its master. Then there’s Sookie’s train wreck brother, Jason. He bangs countless broads and finds himself embroiled in all sorts of predicaments. Eric the vampire king is beyond cool. His desire to “have” Sookie puts underling Bill in a weird spot. Lafayette Reynolds — who is likely dead — provides plenty of flare and laughs as a drug-dealing male escort.

The winner is:

The similarities between the two manifestations are many. That being said, True Blood wins this battle in a landslide. While both Twilight and True Blood are, for the most part, grounded in reality, I prefer my vampires with a little more skank. The bayou has greater appeal than the dreary northwest. The TV series features various subplots besides the central romance angle. The world is full of sleaze and intrigue and the characters are diverse.

Granted, True Blood has 12 hour-long episodes to develop its arcs compared to a two-hour runtime for Twilight, but the Harry Potter flicks have little trouble maintaining adventure within big screen time restraints. New Moon has a lot of ground to make up for me to change my tune.

Who do you like in this titanic tussle?

twilighttrueblood

fright-night

buffy-the-vampire-slayer

Photo Credit: Summit Entertainment, HBO

Categories: | Clack | Columns | Features | General | True Blood | TV Shows |

7 Responses to “TV in the Movies – Twilight vs. True Blood”

June 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM

For me, it’s about the female leads. Spunky vs morose. No thanks on the morose – which can be found in Twilight. Kristen Stewart is not a gal for emotion, and you find none in Twilight.

I’ll keep drinking my True Blood, thanks!

June 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM

True Blood seems to be a show better suited for both sexes. Twilight is a violent chick flick. True Blood also has actors that can actually act. I swear Kristen Stewart is the most bland actress in Hollywood, her speaking puts me asleep.

June 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Kristen Stewart looks depressed even when she smiles. Could be all the pot she reportedly smokes ;)

June 2, 2009 at 8:49 PM

I’m about halfway through Twilight the book (already saw the movie) and the casting of Kristen Stewart is spot on. Bella really is that bland. She’s such a weak character, I cannot fathom how the Twilight phenomenon even exists… although I’m not a 13 year old girl.

June 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM

I was surprised to find Twilight interesting (haven’t read either book series, btw) for the first few minutes, but it never went anywhere good and I was bored to tears way before the end. I think the more the vamps were revealed, the less interested I was. Perhaps it would have just been best as a colorless movie with no vamps at all. Degrassi: Field Trip to Forks.

True Blood is a rollicking adventure with some great characters.

June 11, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I’ve read all the Twilight books and most of the Stackhouse books, and I must say, the stackhouse series outshines the twilight saga by far. Don’t get me wrong, the writing for both series was quite captivating. But Meyer has walked us through an over-the-top vampire world, while the stackhouse series has made vampires and the human characters more relatable, and likeable. Sookie Stackhouse is a great character with self-made confidence, integrity, and that “wow” factor. Bella was so passive in the book and in the film, sometimes I found myself forgetting that the series was about her.
And I apologize to all deep-rooted fans, but in my opinion both the Twilight movie and the series fall a bit short-Twilight falling very, very short. But which one gives us the best “vampire” world?
True Blood, all the way.

June 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM

I absolutely agree with the above post. I read the twilight series a year ago, and I thought the story was very good. I’ve never read about vampire love stories before and they weren’t something I had interest in, but I did enjoy it. It was easy to follow with many impossibilities and fantasy elements, nothing you read was relatable in any way, their love was relatable though in some way. Although I think she loved him for all the wrong reasons at the beginning, it’s easy to love a pretty face – he had the right reasons… and I am certain even the most boring person in the world could be the most amazing one to someone. I also just watched the entire TrueBlood season 1 on the weekend. I was curious and read many great reviews. I thought I was done with the vampire novel scene… but to my surprise the whole time I watched, I was thinking of everything TrueBlood is that Twilight is not… I understand the audience is different… but, in terms of the novel being adapted into script for film/tv series, TrueBlood did so well, I’ve never read the books, but I think I will now… if I didn’t read the twilight series before the movie, the movie would have been an utter turn off from ever wanting to… TrueBlood is the better choice for my demographic I’d say.

Powered By OneLink