Question of the day: what is the deal with True Blood?

Okay, I'm a day late and a dollar short. Literally. Or make that a year late, because our only TV is Netflix, which means we get TV shows a year later than everyone else unless I make my mom record them for me. We just finished the second season of Mad Men, we're about to watch last year's season of Dexter, and last night we started True Blood.

I guess my question, having just watched episode #1, is this: How do people like it? Does it evolve and improve? I'm sure it must when Eric comes on. But I bet he doesn't have that much screen time. Or does he?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Sookie series, and I so want to like the show, and so does Mr. Crane, and we're sticking with it, but neither of us are so sure. It's possible we are terribly spoiled by shows like, oh, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.

Which brings me to my next item: last year there was this link on Marta Acosta's Vampire Wire to an interview where Alan Ball seemed to boast that he never watched Buffy. (Uh! I couldn't find it! But here's a link to an interview with another mention of comment.)

To Mark and me, Alan Ball deciding not to taint himself by watching Buffy is like a writer saying she wants to write a great classic novel, but not wanting to taint herself by reading Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Jane Austen, Graham Greene, etc. In fact, that's barely a metaphor--it's exactly what Joss Whedon is to TV. (Mr. Crane feels even more strongly about this.)

Does Sookie evolve into somebody to somewhat admire?

Part of me liked Ball's choice to make Sookie a goofy wacky girl, but it robs the show of a shining moral center, like Buffy. In fact, in the books, Sookie is a shining moral center of sorts. I know Sookie can't be Buffy, but does Sookie evolve into somebody to somewhat admire?

Do adaptations have less excuse for not finding character sweet spots right away?

A lot of series that go on to greatness start annoyingly at first. A good example here is Star Trek: The Next Generation. I wanted to throw the toaster at the TV whenever Data would come on the screen with his lack of understanding of idioms, and Number One with his whole schtick, but that series became its own glorious animal once these characters got their right footing. Ball, however, is adapting a high-quality, character-rich series, so why did this pilot feel flat? Pat of me cuts Alan Ball less slack, because he started with ready made characters. Is that unfair?

Anticipation

One of my prime measures of the goodness of TV, movies or books is fun stuff to look forward to--a character to understand, a struggle I'm invested in resolved, a mystery solved, somebody realizing something fun, a couple united. Are people feeling it?

OMG, how tedious of me posting on this!! But now I have the benefit of everybody's experience.

A few random notes:

• Okay, finally I see why everyone is so annoyed by Tara.
• It is sort of weird to know what is going to happen. When the dog came around, I really wanted to tell Mark, Hey, guess what, that's really the bar owner, Sam! But I had to keep my lips zipped.
• I see Alan Ball saw fit to keep Bill every bit the lame hero as he is in the series. Oh, of ALL the things to be true to, why that one?
• The moments I liked Bill were when he was being really old fashioned.
• Again, I was pleasantly surprised that Sookie came off as a bit of a wacky girl. I thought that was a great choice. From the pictures of the show, I totally thought she'd just be the neighborhood bombshell telepath.

Please advise!!