|
Post by moonstruck-me on Jun 28, 2014 3:45:52 GMT -5
Well, I for one am extremely pleased that TPTB from True Blood didn't waste any time in re-writing the storyline they planned for the character, because the original actor had issues in what he had been contracted to perform and replaced him with another actor. Good job True Blood. Yes! Very good job!!
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jun 28, 2014 14:37:05 GMT -5
Well, I for one am extremely pleased that TPTB from True Blood didn't waste any time in re-writing the storyline they planned for the character, because the original actor had issues in what he had been contracted to perform and replaced him with another actor. Good job True Blood. Yes! Very good job!! My opinion: This line of discussion about Luke Grimes's motives behind leaving True Blood bothers me -- it really seems like the material presented in the different articles is hearsay -- and so a much different case then the comments from Brendan Fehr about playing a gay character. Here are comments from Luke's agent: blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2014/06/26/luke-grimes-denies-leaving-true-blood-over-gay-storyline/
|
|
LadyArmand
Full Member
"Fortune favors the bold..." Virgil
Posts: 1,602
|
Post by LadyArmand on Jun 28, 2014 16:12:23 GMT -5
Well, what isn't hearsay is that show said he left because of creative differences and the show stuck by their original statement even after Luke's agent came out with his statement about why Luke left the show. The only difference between this season and last season is that James is sussposed to have an affair with Layffette.
|
|
|
Post by moonstruck-me on Jun 28, 2014 16:47:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't buy the Agent's statement. 'Creative differences' - over what? Like LadyArmand said; the only difference between season 6 and 7 is his story line. I would be surprised if the filming schedule of TB would be vastly different from last year. If he had a contract with TB (I just assume they have some sort of deal or contract), wouldn't it be weird to make other deals to film movies at the same time you should be filming TB? Or not at least be able to work around it? I can understand the need to get a good role in a movie but I just don't buy the statement. I do agree that it's a totally different case from Brendan Fehr, who doesn't hide his repulsion at all, but something seems off...
|
|
|
Post by daleeryohm on Jun 28, 2014 16:53:10 GMT -5
Whatever Luke's reasons were, I think they're valid. I mean, he's the actor who would have had to act this new direction, and if he wasn't comfortable, he shouldn't have to be persecuted for it and for backing out. They recast the role, no harm no foul.
What I will say too is that True Blood has gotten terrible its last few seasons, so it's not like it's anything of any artistic importance he was refusing to go with. I've seen plenty of sentiment angry with this show's gay representation throughout its whole run, and I have to agree. I don't even care anything about Lafayette and James. Why weren't they this serious about love scenes and whatnot when Jesus was around with Lafayette? How trashy is it that they're doing a sex dream with Jason and Eric?
This show isn't worth the controversy. It's garbage.
|
|
LadyArmand
Full Member
"Fortune favors the bold..." Virgil
Posts: 1,602
|
Post by LadyArmand on Jun 28, 2014 18:45:59 GMT -5
Whatever Luke's reasons were, I think they're valid. I mean, he's the actor who would have had to act this new direction, and if he wasn't comfortable, he shouldn't have to be persecuted for it and for backing out. They recast the role, no harm no foul. What I will say too is that True Blood has gotten terrible its last few seasons, so it's not like it's anything of any artistic importance he was refusing to go with. I've seen plenty of sentiment angry with this show's gay representation throughout its whole run, and I have to agree. I don't even care anything about Lafayette and James. Why weren't they this serious about love scenes and whatnot when Jesus was around with Lafayette? How trashy is it that they're doing a sex dream with Jason and Eric? This show isn't worth the controversy. It's garbage. The show being "garbage" is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that this actor isn't being completely honest. If he or his agent had come out and said that for personal reasons Luke was not comfortable with the diretion the writers were taking the character of James that would be one thing. The controversy comes from him through his agent making a statement that contradicts that of the show. He through his agent is saying he left to do movies and the like. Where the show is saying that he left because of creative differences. This leads me to believe that Luke is homophobic but doesn't want to be seen as such. Which to me makes him worse than Brendan, because with Brendan you know what you're getting and you can take him or leave him on that, but Luke seems to be trying to hide or at the very least minimize his true feelings with regards to homosexuality. The show being "garbage" or having no "artisitc importance" doesn't change the fact that his reasons valid or not are shadey at best because there are some people myself included who think he is being blatantly dishonest. Which going forward is going to make some people including people in show business view him differently.
|
|
|
Post by daleeryohm on Jun 28, 2014 19:56:58 GMT -5
From what I remember, his original statement was that he was in disagreement with the new direction for his character and that he wouldn't be working with Deborah Woll, which was his big reason for taking the part in the first place. And that matches with the show's statement about there having been creative differences.
Why he would have his agent lie for him then. I'm inclined to think his agent just spoke out of turn, which he may have thought was his right as he represents Luke, but I don't think it was Luke himself that lied.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jun 29, 2014 8:16:52 GMT -5
Whatever Luke's reasons were, I think they're valid. I mean, he's the actor who would have had to act this new direction, and if he wasn't comfortable, he shouldn't have to be persecuted for it and for backing out. They recast the role, no harm no foul. What I will say too is that True Blood has gotten terrible its last few seasons, so it's not like it's anything of any artistic importance he was refusing to go with. I've seen plenty of sentiment angry with this show's gay representation throughout its whole run, and I have to agree. I don't even care anything about Lafayette and James. Why weren't they this serious about love scenes and whatnot when Jesus was around with Lafayette? How trashy is it that they're doing a sex dream with Jason and Eric? This show isn't worth the controversy. It's garbage. The show being "garbage" is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that this actor isn't being completely honest. If he or his agent had come out and said that for personal reasons Luke was not comfortable with the diretion the writers were taking the character of James that would be one thing. The controversy comes from him through his agent making a statement that contradicts that of the show. He through his agent is saying he left to do movies and the like. Where the show is saying that he left because of creative differences. This leads me to believe that Luke is homophobic but doesn't want to be seen as such. Which to me makes him worse than Brendan, because with Brendan you know what you're getting and you can take him or leave him on that, but Luke seems to be trying to hide or at the very least minimize his true feelings with regards to homosexuality. The show being "garbage" or having no "artistic importance" doesn't change the fact that his reasons valid or not are shadey at best because there are some people myself included who think he is being blatantly dishonest. Which going forward is going to make some people including people in show business view him differently. I'm puzzled by this need to try and understand why this particular actor suddenly had issues with the direction the show was going to take his character. When actors/actresses audition for shows/series, they should do some research on what the series/shows are about so that they can get a handle on the part they're auditioning for right? Wouldn't that make some sort of sense, so that nobody's going to waste their time on something that they may not agree to participate in regarding the show? This series has been on the air for over 5 years. True Blood is a series that's based in a fantasy genre that is also highly sexualized. The vampires who share their blood with others, are known to cause the other person to have sexual fantasies about them. Sam's dream about Bill. Sookie's dreams about Eric AND Bill. Jason's dreams about the big bad vampire (Warick?!) from last season. Ever since season one, viewers wanted Lafayette to have sexual fantasies about Eric and he was tortured during most of the time he drank from Eric. None of this should have been that damn shocking to this actor. If it really WAS about this actor wanting to have chances at other projects, TPTB of the show wouldn't have had any issues with it. Lots of former True Blood actors/actresses have left the show for other projects and nothing shady came out of it from either that actors/actresses management or TPTB in the aftermath. They wouldn't have felt the need to make it clear that the issues were about the direction they chose to take the character and how the actor wasn't okay with it.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jun 29, 2014 8:30:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't buy the Agent's statement. 'Creative differences' - over what? Like LadyArmand said; the only difference between season 6 and 7 is his story line. I would be surprised if the filming schedule of TB would be vastly different from last year. If he had a contract with TB (I just assume they have some sort of deal or contract), wouldn't it be weird to make other deals to film movies at the same time you should be filming TB? Or not at least be able to work around it?I can understand the need to get a good role in a movie but I just don't buy the statement. I do agree that it's a totally different case from Brendan Fehr, who doesn't hide his repulsion at all, but something seems off... Thank you for bringing up the important legal issue regarding contracts. If it was supposedly about Grimes wanting to do other things, wouldn't that have been specified in the terms of his contract with True Blood? It would have been up to True Blood to agree or not agree with his terms and I don't think they would of had an issue with it. Again, lots of current True Blood actors have done other tv, film and theatre projects while also still being on the series.
|
|
|
Post by moonstruck-me on Jun 29, 2014 15:18:24 GMT -5
The show being "garbage" is your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that doesn't negate the simple fact that this actor isn't being completely honest. If he or his agent had come out and said that for personal reasons Luke was not comfortable with the diretion the writers were taking the character of James that would be one thing. The controversy comes from him through his agent making a statement that contradicts that of the show. He through his agent is saying he left to do movies and the like. Where the show is saying that he left because of creative differences. This leads me to believe that Luke is homophobic but doesn't want to be seen as such. Which to me makes him worse than Brendan, because with Brendan you know what you're getting and you can take him or leave him on that, but Luke seems to be trying to hide or at the very least minimize his true feelings with regards to homosexuality. The show being "garbage" or having no "artistic importance" doesn't change the fact that his reasons valid or not are shadey at best because there are some people myself included who think he is being blatantly dishonest. Which going forward is going to make some people including people in show business view him differently. I'm puzzled by this need to try and understand why this particular actor suddenly had issues with the direction the show was going to take his character. When actors/actresses audition for shows/series, they should do some research on what the series/shows are about so that they can get a handle on the part they're auditioning for right? Wouldn't that make some sort of sense, so that nobody's going to waste their time on something that they may not agree to participate in regarding the show? This series has been on the air for over 5 years.
True Blood is a series that's based in a fantasy genre that is also highly sexualized. The vampires who share their blood with others, are known to cause the other person to have sexual fantasies about them. Sam's dream about Bill. Sookie's dreams about Eric AND Bill. Jason's dreams about the big bad vampire (Warick?!) from last season. Ever since season one, viewers wanted Lafayette to have sexual fantasies about Eric and he was tortured during most of the time he drank from Eric. None of this should have been that damn shocking to this actor. If it really WAS about this actor wanting to have chances at other projects, TPTB of the show wouldn't have had any issues with it. Lots of former True Blood actors/actresses have left the show for other projects and nothing shady came out of it from either that actors/actresses management or TPTB in the aftermath. They wouldn't have felt the need to make it clear that the issues were about the direction they chose to take the character and how the actor wasn't okay with it. Exactly. It's True Blood! I don't know what he thought he was getting himself into when he auditioned for the show but he couldn't have been watching the show before his audition - that's for sure! Yeah, I don't buy the Agent's statement. 'Creative differences' - over what? Like LadyArmand said; the only difference between season 6 and 7 is his story line. I would be surprised if the filming schedule of TB would be vastly different from last year. If he had a contract with TB (I just assume they have some sort of deal or contract), wouldn't it be weird to make other deals to film movies at the same time you should be filming TB? Or not at least be able to work around it?I can understand the need to get a good role in a movie but I just don't buy the statement. I do agree that it's a totally different case from Brendan Fehr, who doesn't hide his repulsion at all, but something seems off... Thank you for bringing up the important legal issue regarding contracts. If it was supposedly about Grimes wanting to do other things, wouldn't that have been specified in the terms of his contract with True Blood? It would have been up to True Blood to agree or not agree with his terms and I don't think they would of had an issue with it. Again, lots of current True Blood actors have done other tv, film and theatre projects while also still being on the series. You're welcome. I don't believe it was because he had scheduling conflicts either. Like you said, a lot of the other actors are able to work around the filming of TB and do other stuff, so it's really just a bad excuse imo.
|
|
|
Post by moonstruck-me on Jun 30, 2014 10:25:45 GMT -5
I can't be the only one who have waited a long time for this??
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jun 30, 2014 17:53:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jun 30, 2014 21:08:35 GMT -5
I can't be the only one who have waited a long time for this?? I love it. Jason falling off the pew. Jason, in his dream being the seducer of Alex. Yee. Yes. Yes!!
|
|
|
Post by moonstruck-me on Jul 1, 2014 1:20:17 GMT -5
Thank you kevvoi! Ryan Kwanten <3 *swoon*
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jul 1, 2014 8:17:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jul 1, 2014 11:37:57 GMT -5
New clip courtesy of cjordan1262:
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jul 1, 2014 17:09:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jul 2, 2014 6:25:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. As much as I loved the fantasy scene between Eric and Jason, I have to say that it's absolutely straight up BS that the show felt it wouldn't "fit" to have the scene of Pam mourning the loss of Tara aired. I know that reporters and interviewers in the entertainment industry have to straddle a very fine line in how they approach TPTB (writers, executive producers, directors, tv/film makers) with questions about how and why they chose to make decisions on what actually gets written, filmed, produced and aired for their shows, but I've grown excessively tired of the lack of direct calling out of BS on things that make no sense to a particular character's role in a storyline. Especially how it has already been established in canon with other characters on the show. Pam is Tara's maker. Yet, it wasn't needed to show Pam feeling the loss of her death? Would the show say the same thing if Bill lost Jessica? I don't really think so. Or the numerous losses that Eric has experienced (and we got to see on the show).
|
|
LadyArmand
Full Member
"Fortune favors the bold..." Virgil
Posts: 1,602
|
Post by LadyArmand on Jul 2, 2014 7:20:27 GMT -5
What interested me about that interview was the way in which the question about how the show panders to the gay community and yet practically all of the relationship's on the show of any import have beeen the straight parings. While the gay Lafayette's lover get brutally killed by a possessed Lafayette.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jul 2, 2014 9:36:10 GMT -5
What interested me about that interview was the way in which the question about how the show panders to the gay community and yet practically all of the relationship's on the show of any import have beeen the straight parings. While the gay Lafayette's lover get brutally killed by a possessed Lafayette. Very true. Sookie and Bill. Sookie and Eric. Jason and Jessica. Jessica and Hoyt. Eric and Pam. I know that there are "themes" that are supposed to relate to GLTB situations, but if you really looked at the show and their storylines, sadly Lafayette and Tara have really gotten the end of the short stick. Even Pam, Sam and Alcide get more storyline and that's due to who their characters are connected to: Sookie and Eric.
|
|
LadyArmand
Full Member
"Fortune favors the bold..." Virgil
Posts: 1,602
|
Post by LadyArmand on Jul 2, 2014 11:17:01 GMT -5
Well if I were paranoid about it all I would also point out that the two characters who get the least development in their storylines are both African American, so you have two double minorities in a show that are underdeveloped as well as used as fodder for the other characters developement. I mean Tara and Lafayette could be seen as the helpful negroes on the show, much like Will Smith was the "magical negro" in The Legend of Bagger Vance. I could point that out if you know I were paranoid and all...
Diva, to your point about the storylines based on connections to certain characters, one would think this would have held true for Tara since she was supposed to be Sookie's BFF. Unfortunately, that was not to be her lot as she de-evolved into an unlikeable character that most people (from the some of the comments I have read elsewhere and in TV guide)are finally glad to be rid of her.
|
|
|
Post by daleeryohm on Jul 2, 2014 11:31:59 GMT -5
Why is Angela going on about this idea the writers had to return to making life feel important on the show and that the deaths matter, only for Tara to be killed off offscreen and for the fallout to be a non-event, and the 'Pam grieves' scene to be seen as too weird for the episode and so it was cut?
And yet I'm supposed to be falling all over myself that they pandered with an awkward and entirely pointless soft-core gay wet dream. Isn't Eric supposed to be bisexual though? Why not have just given him a male love interest or even a fling in any of the 7 seasons of this show? Did Pam and Tara even kiss more than once? And why is the new James all over Jessica in her video blog if he's in for such an epic romance with Lafayette?
*EYE ROLL*
|
|
LadyArmand
Full Member
"Fortune favors the bold..." Virgil
Posts: 1,602
|
Post by LadyArmand on Jul 2, 2014 12:19:00 GMT -5
Why is Angela going on about this idea the writers had to return to making life feel important on the show and that the deaths matter, only for Tara to be killed off offscreen and for the fallout to be a non-event, and the 'Pam grieves' scene to be seen as too weird for the episode and so it was cut? And yet I'm supposed to be falling all over myself that they pandered with an awkward and entirely pointless soft-core gay wet dream. Isn't Eric supposed to be bisexual though? Why not have just given him a male love interest or even a fling in any of the 7 seasons of this show? Did Pam and Tara even kiss more than once? And why is the new James all over Jessica in her video blog if he's in for such an epic romance with Lafayette? *EYE ROLL* Didin't you know that pandering is the new way of making a difference in art and entertainment. I mean come on, why not show two characters that have no use for each other(because in the all the years the show has been on the amount of time that Jasson and Eric have spent on screen together can be counted on one hand using three or four fingers) and no chemistry together having fantasy sex, when the show could have developed the gay character they actually have. The one they saved from death because in the books Lafayette dies at the end of the first book. So the writers of the show saved him for seven years of what exactly? They finally give him a lover only to have him in a possesed stake murder him. They say he is a medium only form that I have seen have that go nowhere fast. And knowing this show the "epic love" that developes between Lafayette and James will be develope off screen while we get more wet dream from Jason only this time with Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Difficult Diva on Jul 3, 2014 6:52:48 GMT -5
Well if I were paranoid about it all I would also point out that the two characters who get the least development in their storylines are both African American, so you have two double minorities in a show that are underdeveloped as well as used as fodder for the other characters developement. I mean Tara and Lafayette could be seen as the helpful negroes on the show, much like Will Smith was the "magical negro" in The Legend of Bagger Vance. I could point that out if you know I were paranoid and all... Diva, to your point about the storylines based on connections to certain characters, one would think this would have held true for Tara since she was supposed to be Sookie's BFF. Unfortunately, that was not to be her lot as she de-evolved into an unlikeable character that most people (from the some of the comments I have read elsewhere and in TV guide)are finally glad to be rid of her.I noticed that some viewers totally turned sour on Tara and I just never could quite understand it to be honest. Tara's life (before AND after she was turned - not by her own wishes mind you) had been a living hell. Growing up with her crazy and addicted mom. Living in that town. Her unrequited feelings for Jason. She finally meets someone else, Eggs and he's killed. She becomes the obsession of a psychotic vampire, who kidnaps her. She tries to protect Sookie from someone else, who hates her and she's shot in the head. Sookie, takes it upon herself to "save" Tara by having her turned into a vampire and Tara's not supposed to be pissed off? Even a little bit annoyed? I think folks wanted Tara to embrace her new life, in the way that Jessica had when she was changed by Bill. I think Tara had the most "human" way of dealing with her new life: being pissed off about it. She had no say in it. Sookie's the one I'm annoyed and done with from the show, because she's not at all the same version of Sookie from the books.
|
|
|
Post by kevvoi on Jul 7, 2014 16:22:44 GMT -5
New clip courtesy of cjordan1261:
|
|