I recently finished watching season 1 of the new(ish) HBO series True Blood, based on books written by Charlaine Harris, but actually written by Alan Ball. I liked it so much I watched the entire season in one sitting. There are some differences between the books (which I adore, fun fluffy quick reads) and the HBO series, and I am interested if anyone else is minding or liking the changes?

I watched the first 5 minutes and couldn't stand the show. I much prefer the books.

I have read all of the books and seen every episode. I have only minded one change so far. I think the show is great, but season two has me irritated at Anna Paquin's portrayal of Sookie. I am finding her a little too ...floaty? Not really a word, but Sookie is way more realistic about her world in the books. In season two, Sookie seems a teensy bit clueless about how dangerous it all can be. But, with only about 5 episodes in so far, things could change.

The first five minutes was not nearly enough to decide whether or not the show as good. I am assuming you didn't approve of the Tara switch. Tara, to me, was one of the best changes. By about the third episode of season one, I was hooked.

i am in total agreement with what ravyn80(?).My wife and i watched the first 10 minutes(my wife is obsessed with vampires) then turned it of as we thought it was boring.The books are lot more better.

I'm really surprised that anyone could find the show boring! They pack so much into an hour and usually leave it on a cliff-hanger. I have to say I'm proud of myself for introducing my hubby to it, I burned the entire first season for him and mailed it to him while he was in Iraq and he couldn't believe how "scandalous" it was. It is the only show the two of us sit down to watch together, and he's the one who can't wait for the next episodes!

Now if I could just get him hooked on Dexter, Mad Men and Breaking Bad I'd be a happy viewer!