True Blood: Season 6

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Funny how Mrs. Gazrok ended up next to Alcide. Must have been a total coincidence.

Nothing funny about it, totally planned. She has a pic with just him too... (She also got a pic with the guy who plays Damon on Vampire Diaries, and the guy who played Kal Drogo on Game of Thrones...so she certainly got her celeb crush meetings out of the way)....

My hands were on backs. Arlene is a tiny little thing, but so much prettier than they make her on the show. In person, she's gorgeous (and very sweet).

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Kody27

 

you obviously have a computer. you don't need HBO, it's called Torrents. Get with the program.

The poster ended with "can't wait"....so why wait for torrents? Or the hassle of finding a decent one, not to mention the T&C vs. discussing illegal activity...

If everyone used torrents, there'd be NO True Blood to watch, because there wouldn't be revenue to support it. You should be thanking them for paying for the service, so criminals can watch it for free.....vs. encouraging the activity.

edit on 12-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

Actually it's been proven multiple times that free internet downloading has done nothing but increase revenue sales in the long run. After illegal downloading became popular, iTunes sales actually increased threefold. This is simply due to the opportunity for people all around the world to be exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't be. Free advertising, if you will, is an unseen benefit from illegal downloading. You see, when someone is too poor to have cable TV and buy movies, cd's, video games, programs, etc...yet they aren't so poor as to not have internet, it creates a new potential fan base. Now that person, who would have otherwise never even known about, oh I don't know, let's say Sigur Ros, an icelandic post rock band, has now downloaded all of Sigur Ros's albums for free because they liked Bjork and the googled other icelandic artists. Now that person is a fan, and will continue to buy shirts, posters, concert tickets, new releases and even old releases that they've already downloaded because they're a fan, and they want the artwork and they respect the artist so they go buy their stuff. Illegal internet downloading increases artist exposure and statistically increases their digital downloads as well.

So, to you I say, how can there be a difference in revenue from people who weren't able to afford the product in the first place? What is the difference between me not being able to afford Call of Duty and not playing Call of Duty, and me not being able to afford Call of Duty and playing Call of Duty? Has that video game company somehow lost my money that was never there to begin with? NO! But, now thanks to torrents, I can experience the game for myself on my own free time, become a fan possibly, and increase the potential for that company to have my business.

reply to post by Kody27


Sorry, but can't agree with that logic. It's theft of intellectual property and licensed property. Now, if the producer of the content were to make an installment of their product for free, to generate buzz, that's one thing.

And there are cheaper options, such as Hulu Plus, etc. where you pay an access fee for the content, etc. From the outside looking in, my wife and I appear to be much better off than we are, but we are still paycheck to paycheck, and our expenses are simply higher. I've also been seriously poor in my life (I mean Ramen noodles every day poor), so I get it....but that still does not entitle me to become a thief. I was simply raised differently.

You can use whatever justification you like, but I simply cannot do so. It's against my principles. I don't hold myself any higher or mightier than anyone else, to each his or her own, so don't think that's what it is. It simply isn't an option for me...my decision.

What is the difference between me not being able to afford Call of Duty and not playing Call of Duty, and me not being able to afford Call of Duty and playing Call of Duty? Has that video game company somehow lost my money that was never there to begin with? NO!

Yes. Because if you can get it for free, so can someone who CAN afford it. And yet they don't buy it...ending up in lost revenue. Then there is the other caveat. Ever hear of what X-Box ONE was trying to do? Rest assured, eventually that WILL happen in the industry. Thanks to piracy, eventually video games are going to only be available with verification tech that will prevent the used game market, loaning a game to a friend, or even playing a game on multiple units within your own home (without paying for the license for each). Good job!

But, now thanks to torrents, I can experience the game for myself on my own free time, become a fan possibly, and increase the potential for that company to have my business.

How? When you'll simply illegally download Call of Duty 2? Yay! You're a fan! I'm sure that'll help pay one of the programmer's mortgage payments, eh?

reply to post by Gazrok


Everyone, regardless of income level up to a certain point (millionaires) lives paycheck to paycheck. Your life will adjust to whatever income bracket you move into. Your standard of living will increase with your paycheck. You will always live paycheck to paycheck, even if you try otherwise. Saving money is a skill.

Anyway, as much as your opinions sounds morally cushiony, it's wrong. You can't deny statistics. Digital sales and exposure has done nothing but rise since the popularity of internet downloading increased. What you're denying is an entire global network of potential fans. What you're talking about with Xbox ONE is completely wrong, not that it's not correct, but it is morally wrong. Nothing should be censored or withheld from the consumer, nothing should be monopolized. What does Microsoft think we are communist Russia? Oh wait, I forgot, the government set specific monopoly laws in place FOR THE SOLE REASON OF MICROSOFT'S EXISTENCE. Doesn't surprise me that they are applying that concept on a micro level within their consoles. The internet is free, information is free, and yes, even products are free. Guess what? The artists that have their music downloaded the MOST, suffer the LEAST. Think about that for awhile, will you?

The artist whose music is illegally downloaded the MOST, suffers the LEAST. Does it make sense to you yet?

reply to post by Kody27

You can't deny statistics.

Sure I can. Have you ever done statistical analysis? Even a halfway decent statistician can generate statistics to back any position they like based on who they survey, what is asked, how it is asked, which numbers are included, which aren't, etc. That's why there is a saying that statistics = lies, damn lies.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the morality of it. What IS a fact, is the illegality of it.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Kody27

 

You can't deny statistics.

Sure I can. Have you ever done statistical analysis? Even a halfway decent statistician can generate statistics to back any position they like based on who they survey, what is asked, how it is asked, which numbers are included, which aren't, etc. That's why there is a saying that statistics = lies, damn lies.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the morality of it. What IS a fact, is the illegality of it.

Alcohol is legal and kills more people each year than all illegal drugs combined. Same with tobacco. Point being, the legality of something means absolutely DlCK.

Plus you're wrong, downloading torrents from the plrate bay is NOT illegal, as it is based in Sweden, and now North Korea I think, which is a hilarious slap in the face to the Supreme Court. The laws in those countries allow for torrent sharing. So no, it's not illegal.

And your pathetic attempt at justifying your point with the weak "some statistics are biased" argument is irrelevant. As iTunes itself released the digital download statistics, and why would they want to lie about them having more digital downloads in relation to illegal downloading? You'd think, that if the truth of the matter was that illegal downloading hurt iTunes sales, that iTunes would report their low sales honestly and try everything in their power to thwart illegal downloading. But they haven't, and do you know why? There can be only one reason.....Because their sales have gone UP. And no, in no way can you refute that fact. Period. There is no biased reporting going on there.

reply to post by Kody27


Just because sales have gone up (so has population, so has the demographic, and so have prices), it does not mean illegal downloads have helped here.

Pathetic attempt? There is at least one logical fallacy (I can point them out and classify them, if you like) in each paragraph of the above post. I ask again, have you ever done statistical analysis, or even had a stats class? If you have, then you'd certainly realize how easy it is. Since you feel it is irrelevant, let's just see an example.

For example, lets look at sales. Sales as what? As units, as dollars? If I sold 10K copies of a product at $10 each a year ago ($100,000), but then sold only 9K copies since then, at $12 each ($108,000)...did my sales really go up? Sure, I made $8000 more, but I sold 10% less copies! So you see, yes, statistics and numbers can lie. (and that's just off the top of my head). It's all about how you present the information.

Our sales increased by 8%! (Yay!) - (based on sales dollars)
Our sales decreased by 10% (Crap!) - (based on units sold)

Both statements are true. It's all in how it is PRESENTED....
Statistics = lies, damn lies.
Whether you agree or disagree, the next time you hear a statistic like this, I hope you remember this post, and ask yourself just how they got to that percentage....

For my investors and the public, I'm going to want to go with the first statement (and I'd be "truthful", but it would be a half-truth).

_______________________

Regardless of a host nation's law, if YOU are in the US (or another nation that respects those copyrights) and downloading it, then yes, YOU are committing a crime. (and I'm sure you're well aware of that).

But they haven't, and do you know why? There can be only one reason.....Because their sales have gone UP

There could be plenty of reasons, such as the complete inability to hold nations that don't respect copyrights accountable. Perhaps that is the reason? You yourself made mention of this... It is certainly a more plausible reason. Since when has any company ever just ignored lost revenue because they were still making a profit? They are still going to go after it.

Again, we're going to have to just agree to disagree here, as this is really WAY off-topic from the thread anyhow. I'm cool debating it in another thread if you like (oddly enough, I even did a college paper on this once), but I suppose until Sunday's new episode, won't be much new True Blood info to discuss.

I don't have HBO anymore so can't watch it until it comes out on Amazon or dvd/blueray. But I didn't care much for last season I liked the Pam back story and as always thought she got the best lines on each episode. It dragged on but seemed to end well and Bill being evil might be interesting.

What are everyones opinions on the season so far? Is it better than last season, worth waiting for?

I was a huge Sookie fan please tell me she is back to being her cutsey sundressey southern smartmouthed self. Always a fan of Jasons too how is his story line going?

reply to post by brandiwine14
So far I haven't been much impressed with the new season, other than the fact that Rutger Hauer has joined the cast as Sookie's "Fairy Grandfather". The end of the last season left us thinking that Bill had become some sort of evil vampire god/demon, but at this point they have added too many hints as to his true nature that it's impossible to figure out exactly what the heck is going on with him. Alcide seems to have let the position of "pack master" override his previous loyalties, Sookie has met a new half-faerie man who may or may not become a new love interest, they've somehow managed to make Jason into an even bigger idiot and Eric seems to have lost his ability to side with caution and reason over impulse and emotional reaction.

I can only hope that the story line will improve as it gets deeper into the season, but I'm afraid there have been added too many tangents that detract from the main character's story lines- and it keeps becoming increasingly ridiculous. I'm afraid that rather than stick to the things that attracted their audience in the beginning they have strayed into the area of trying to encompass the "everything but the kitchen sink" method of scripting which results in information overload.

reply to post by littled16

but at this point they have added too many hints as to his true nature that it's impossible to figure out exactly what the heck is going on with him.

Seems like he's basically an "avatar" of Lilith. He has some of her abilities, and she works through him, but he still retains his "self" for now.

Alcide seems to have let the position of "pack master" override his previous loyalties,

He's never been Sam's biggest fan. To be honest, the kid is probably better off with fellow wolves anyhow.

Sookie has met a new half-faerie man who may or may not become a new love interest

Yep, I'm sure you're right there. She's such a ho.

they've somehow managed to make Jason into an even bigger idiot

Yeah, kind of disappointed there. Just when he was growing up too.... Like a 180.

and Eric seems to have lost his ability to side with caution and reason over impulse and emotional reaction

Thank goodness! Nice to see the old Eric back. He's a Viking dammit, not a poet.

Don't forget others... Jessica is wrestling with the fact that she's facing a crisis of faith (Lilith is more REAL than the God she grew up fearing). The humans have nasty anti-vamp weapons. Lafayette and Sam are no doubt going to try and get the wolf kid back (I still doubt her mom's dead). Andy is dealing with 4 fae kids. A lot going on....

reply to post by brandiwine14

Always a fan of Jasons too how is his story line going

He's become very anti-vampire, and is on the outs with Sookie over it. At the same time, when gramps showed up, he tells him one of the oldest vamps (Marlowe) is out for Sookie, and gramps doesn't think Jason is up to the challenge (and he's right). Here's to hoping Jason gets hold of some of that new anti-vamp tech before he meets him (contacts to negate glamor, UV LED silver bullets, that kind of thing).

reply to post by Gazrok
Exactly, there is too much going on! I see them taking on the trend of what has led to the death of many an otherwise outstanding series, and that is going from a handful of main characters and many supporting characters to making a huge portion of the cast into main characters with not enough supporting characters. I have to wonder if it's because after a few successful seasons some of the actors demanded bigger roles or they leave or if the producers can't agree on which direction to take the main story.

reply to post by littled16


I'm sure that is part of it. Lafayette died in the first book, for example. Glad he didn't though.
They need to weed out some though. Maybe consult GRR Martin. He'll tell them how to kill them off!

reply to post by littled16


I've felt the same way the last two seasons. Too much of anything can be bad and there are too many story lines it's hard to keep them straight. I honestly dont care for Alcide at all, I don't know i'm over it I guess. Love Sam though...that man sure knows how to wear a pair of jeans.

Rutguer Hauer...fairy grandfather, hmm that might be interesting.

Thanks for the feedback!

reply to post by brandiwine14


There are a lot of women though (my wife included) who simply melt for Joe (the guy who plays Alcide). At a Con, during a panel, he was asked to growl, and when he did, I swear to God every woman within hearing distance ovulated.....

So far, I think this season is more promising than the last one. Putting the humans on even footing is an interesting twist (that never occurred in the books). Time will tell on the Marlowe thing, but that is my only hangup so far, that and Jason (and them making him an idiot).

reply to post by Gazrok


That's why I like Jason...he's so utterly human with all the faults that come along with being one.

I think it's a shame when he and Sookie are on the outs as brother and sister they fit well and I usually enjoy their sibling interations.

Yeah I too hope he does what is needed of him and doesn't wind up dead.....as in off the show.


Hopefully HBO will quit being so stingy and let Amazon have a crack at the episodes and soon.


Haha.... yes I can clearly see that Alcide is kinda yummy but it's over the top, like he belongs on a romance novel cover.. I think truthfully that the whole cast is probably the best looking cast of any show.
My mind changes every season as to who makes me giggle..first season Bill like to the point my husband would look at me funny. Then Eric, still like Eric but I always favor Jason and Sam not just for looks though. I actually like their story lines more than the others, usually anyhow. Those are the only two characters I would completely stop watching over if they left If alcide leaves I think that would give the writers more time to put some quality into the other characters storylines.



Thanks for the feedback.

SPOILERS


Ok, Jessica on last night's episode.... WOW! (schoolgirl getup)

Did anything else happen? Can't remember......

So Bill's not a god (burned up a bit when trying to see the sun).... Seems he has a plan to use the scientist who devised True Blood, to make a synthetic faery blood (so vamps can walk in the sun). Good idea. Looks like he's abandoned the idea of using Sookie's blood and may use Andy's 1/2 faery girls instead (who are now tweens, and likely teens in the next episode).

Sam got Luna back (and rescued the only surviving member of the Vamp friendly organization trying to expose the other supes). Hipsters die by werewolf....oh that is just good TV....

Eric kidnapped the Mayor's daughter, but then Tara kidnapped her away from Eric when the troops were closing in.

Seems Eric's sister knows about Marlowe, and is also hunting for him.

The other half-fae (some guy) teems up with Sookie's grandpa to help fight Marlowe...and Jason seems to be back from la-la land. (I'm still expecting the new guy and Sookie to heat up, looks like next week).

So far, I think this season is going back to some of the roots, and having a lot more action...so I'm glad for that.

reply to post by Gazrok
I'm starting to wonder if Ben is somehow Marlowe in disguise, or is working for him. Strange how he just happens to be at particular places at just the right time. I'm suspicious.

reply to post by littled16


I've been wondering that, but then he was also walking in the sun, and I think Nial would sense it.

No, my guess is that he is an AGENT of Marlowe, of course. HE was able to escape from this ancient vampire with minor injuries (according to his story), and yet a whole FULL Fae bar was taken out? C'mon....are we idiots? Is Nial? He must be. He just happens to show up with Marlowe in the picture? Please.....

Originally posted by Gazrok
C'mon....are we idiots? Is Nial? He must be.

Remeber that Nial lied when 'Ben' asked if there were any survivors. I think he is supsicious as well.

I also cast my vote as him being Marlowe.