The TV series are almost NOTHING like the books- ain't that frustrates you a tiny bit? I mean honestly...

Ok here is the thing. I have read all the books and amor them so much. I didn't find the books till after season one. And Season one really did a wonderful job of sticking to the books, but adding a little bit of it's own color to it. Half of Season two was ok, but they took a minor plot and made it huge/stupid and decreased the importance of the major plot. Season three is just messing character's family trees, personalities, and story lines all up. I understand the need to change some things, but they are changing too man important things. Sookie wouldn't forgive Bill that easily, especially because it is all out there now instead of later. If you read the books they are also changing the relationships between characters. It doesn't help that Alan has already said who he thinks Sookie should be with, no matter what the books say. I just think they need to get back to the basics and just add color, not completely desimate things.

I'm glad the show doesn't just mimic the books. I haven't read past the first yet, but I fully intend to, and I wouldn't bother if they and the show were identical. I understand people liking the books more, but no matter how good the books are, recreating their story exactly is pointless. That story already exists, if people want to experience it again they can just read the books again. What point or need is there to exactly duplicate an already existing story? I'd quit watching and just have the books if it was just them all over again. An exact recreation can work for a book-to-movie (sometimes) but not for a book-to-tv show in my opinion.

Not to mention that given the amount of books in the series it would be hard for them to do a book a season without ending half way through the story. Most even very successful shows either run out of steam or end por the 10th season, usually earlier, and the books are already 10 with mais to come last I heard. They'd probably have to eventually either cram multiple books into single seasons (which would seem rushed and ruin no geral, global arcs) or simply end before the story did to follow the books.

I think people should judge the show on it's own merits without automatically hating anything changed. Sure, compare, and thinking the books did it better is completely valid, but some write off plots they may otherwise have liked as a knee jerk reaction to change. To me that's like throwing away your season 2 dvd and buying a segundo copy of season 1 if you liked it better. Sure, liking s1 better is completely valid, but that doesn't mean you need it twice.

Though for the record I think there's a difference between changing events and changing message, so things like making Sookie seem mais naive, stupid or quick to forgive Bill than I hear she is in the corresponding book (not up to that book yet), I completely understand fãs being angry, and don't think they should make that sort of change. I'm fine with them changing the events to make a new story, but I do agree with book fãs that changing a character to have them send a worse message is wrong. If Alan Ball wants Bill/Sookie he'd need to remove the 'Bad Bill' plots, rather than just removing Sookie's reaction like he currently seems to be. While I'm fine with changing events I think changing message and weakening the heroine just to serve your liking of a character is wrong, and understandably annoying for fãs of both the show and books. I'm fine with him altering events somewhat, but don't turn Sookie Stackhouse into Bella cisne for heavens sake...Sookie Stackhouse is better.

Not really. Like Asvani (sp?) said, it would get boring after a while. It's not like it's a movie, they've made it into a TV show. The seasons are only twelve episodes long to begin with, if they followed the books to a t, there would be less episodes.

I also like that we get to see what the other characters are doing, not just Sookie. I think it allows you room to grow attached to the others and provides mais drama and suspense. Yes, there are certain things I wish they hadn't changed (making Sookie seem weaker than she really is, for starters). I'm normally one of those people who hate it when something doesn't follow the books it's based off of, but True Blood doesn't bother me that much.

I COULDN'T STAND IT! if the show was exactly like the books. I like the deviation the show provides because it takes the characters I fell in amor with in the books, and puts them into different storylines that I didn't know were coming. Its like Alan Ball said you have to treat the show and the books completely separate. I do this and it makes watching True Blood much mais enjoyable, instead of getting angry when something has been changed (or completely removed) I can just sit back and watch and have a good time.

Now having said that, there are *key* elements that happened in the books, that if removed from the televisão show would be a big mistake for where the characters we loved would be headed. I'm not talking specific scenes and/or scenarios, but character storyline arcs that span several of the books. If removed would make the show version inconsistent since they did set up season 1 very similar to the book, and if they remove the *key* moments in season3+ it would make for some huge plot holes that could be avoided if they simply followed the book series BIG MOMENTS.

I hope that makes sense because it was a giant rambling mess in my head lol.

uh, the series is based on the books not the books as a series...it is delightful to see how the writers weave the tale!

Honestly mais no then yes. Can you imagine the show without Layfette or Jessica? Isn't Russell the best villian to date? Yes I do find Sookie a bit a pushover. But every season she's showing mais spine. Also I wouldn't be watching a show where I know what was going to happen. I couldn't imagine anything mais boring.