by Zack Beauchamp
Alyssa Rosenberg has an interesting piece explaining why Game Of Thrones is a better adaptation than True Blood:
It's entirely possible that as future seasons of Game of Thrones tackle Martin's progressively longer and more complicated novels, the show will have to dramatically streamline narratives and make corresponding revisions in plots to tie events together in a plausible way. But thus far, the Game of Thrones showrunners have demonstrated something that the people behind True Blood haven't: a sense of what makes a franchise compelling beyond its basic concepts.
She follows up here. Her argument also usefully explains another problem with True Blood: its thematic incoherence. Alyssa argues (and I hope she's right here, as I haven't read the books) that Alan Ball tries to introduce a lot of thematic content in True Blood that's not in the novels, whereas Game of Thrones sticks to the same general themes as the paper version. Alyssa argues that it caused him to rush through the world-building element, but having to balance the two could conceivably have also left the thematic elements half-baked.
For example, though the show draws numerous parallels between vampires "coming out of the closet" and the struggle for gay equality, Ball denies any attempt to make the vampires into metaphors for gays. If anything, as the embedded clip suggests, they're pretty good stand-ins for meat eaters in a pro-animal rights argument. But the show never explores that issue, stumbling along with incoherent gay-rights undertones and lots of trashy, enjoyable nudity.
P.S. Alan Ball, if you're reading this, I still enjoy your show! Don't give up on naming a character after me!
The Dish 