• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

True Blood 3x10 - I Smell a Rat (spoilers)

How much did you love this week?


  • Total voters
    15
yeah that Sam flashback was really... unecessary.:vulcan: Im ok with the theiving but the killing? Im not a fan of every major character on a tv show needing some dark baggagge tacked on to them to make them viable somehow.

anyway I loved Hoyt owning Tommy & then Jess tossing him away like a stuffed toy, lol!
 
Why are you saying it was tacked on? It's just explaining who he is now. We know he had a dark, criminal past, we know he was kind of a simple and repugnant person, and we know he obviously went through something that caused him to change his ways and become a good, honest man. Now we're just learning what those events were.

Hell, it explains why he's so adamant about helping Tommy.
 
Killing the girl by accident/self defense, is a dark side, him being a thief is a dark side, him killing a defenseless person in cold blood is pretty much irredeemable, and I think they ruined the character.
 
Killing the girl by accident/self defense, is a dark side, him being a thief is a dark side, him killing a defenseless person in cold blood is pretty much irredeemable, and I think they ruined the character.

I don't think he's any less redeemable than anyone else on the show. Bill killed any number of people when he was with Lorena and almost killed Sookie a few weeks ago. Nobody really comes up clean on this show.
 
^well , thats primarily the reason why for me at least, despite this latest reveal he's still my favorite character on the show(& hasnt been ruined for me like he has for paudemge.) But, I'd had prefered this killing business not had happenned at all.
 
Killing the girl by accident/self defense, is a dark side, him being a thief is a dark side, him killing a defenseless person in cold blood is pretty much irredeemable, and I think they ruined the character.
Maybe that's why he's so dark and brooding all the time. Why he keeps his past tightly hidden. Why he goes out of his way to try to be a good man now. And why, despite that, he's still obviously haunted by something in his past and willing to drop everything to escape at a moment's notice.

It's funny how people get up in arms when good storytelling is going on, simply because they've imagined some badly written background in their heads. "Oh golly gosh gee, Sam's a sweetheart! Nicest guy around, he is! He'd never do anything bad, cause I loves the big lug! Gosh golly gee!" :rolleyes:
 
Sam had no good reason to shoot that man. It's something different to kill in order to survive like vampires have done it in the past or to shoot someone by accident like it happened to Sam and the woman. But the man was already on the ground and defenceless. Killing him was not necassary IMO. Sam could still be a dark and brooding character even without the killing. I believe being abandoned by the biological parents and then being abandoned again by the adoptive parents at the age of 15 (?) plus being a shifter and a thief pretty much does the trick. Making him a murderer was unnecessary. The point was already made.

Edited to add: Vampires who still kill in cold blood should be hold responsible. The only reason why they are not, is that they are too powerfull.
 
Guns with wooden bullets and wooden swords, body armor lined with silver. Silver handcuffs for retention. Thats all you need.

Weaponry's not the issue. Speed and strength would be the issue.

And they could do the raid in the daylight but a vamp is not automatically asleep in the day - as long as they're out of the sun they ought to be okay.
 
Sam had no good reason to shoot that man. It's something different to kill in order to survive like vampires have done it in the past or to shoot someone by accident like it happened to Sam and the woman. But the man was already on the ground and defenceless. Killing him was not necassary IMO. Sam could still be a dark and brooding character even without the killing. I believe being abandoned by the biological parents and then being abandoned again by the adoptive parents at the age of 15 (?) plus being a shifter and a thief pretty much does the trick. Making him a murderer was unnecessary. The point was already made.

Edited to add: Vampires who still kill in cold blood should be hold responsible. The only reason why they are not, is that they are too powerfull.
Sam killed the guy in a fit of rage. He clearly had feelings for the girl, even though she betrayed him. It was completely irrational and bestial. Consider Sam's a shifter who barely understands who and what he is, it makes complete sense that he'd snap and shoot the person responsible for making him shoot the girl -- in his mind at the time, anyway.

Annnd again, this is clearly why Sam is who he is now. He knows he did a bad, bad thing. It still haunts him to this day. And he still has a bit of that dark beast inside him, as shown when he beat the crap out of Crystal's dad.

Crying on and on about Sam shooting the guy is just kind of dumb, really. It's a catalyst for his change from a simple-minded, sleazy crook into the good, honest man he is now. The scene wasn't showing us Sam is a scumbag, it's showing us why he isn't a scumbag anymore.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top