With all of the episodic reviewing I am doing for TV Fanatic, I have found little time to catch up on shows that I have not watched, let alone write about them here on the blog. The Vampire Diaries has changed that. I have plowed through the first season of 22 episodes over the past couple of weeks, and this post's purpose is to influence you to do the same. I'm sure very few of my readers watch the show, and I'm fairly certain that no Poolie voters have seen any of it, so I am here to convince you all to start - It's that good.
There will be no spoilers below, simply reasons as to why I think The Vampire Diaries is a show that gets unfairly categorized because of its material and the network it is on. This is not your ordinary Vampire show, nor is it like the rest of what is on The CW. Sure it has supernatural elements, but just like Lost, The Vampire Diaries is about the characters and the story. And like other CW mainstays, most of TVD's main characters are teenagers, unlike 90210, GG and the like, this show has good writing and good acting.
In a current society where critics and fans rave over shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, it is only appropriate to begin my argument with the fact that the first season of The Vampire Diaries has never a dull moment. At some point they may run out of story lines, but throughout the first 22 episodes there were a myriad of twists and turns, cliffhangers upon cliffhangers, and a multitude of surprising reveals. Breaking Bad will have something completely ridiculous and awesome occur for five minutes every third episode or so. The Vampire Diaries has moments of that nature three or four times per ep. It's an exciting show, and in my mind, that makes for great television.
Unlike some other fantasy shows or movies, The Vampire Diaries benefits from being somewhat based in reality. Like The Walking Dead with their zombies, I feel like the world of TVD could actually be happening. It's not dissimilar to what Pixar had going with Toy Story, A Bug's Life, and Monsters Inc., before they ruined their "this could be happening around you and you just don't know it theme" with the ridiculousness of Ratatouille and Cars. True Blood, on the other hand, has never felt like anything remotely close to the real world. Even in its better days of story telling, the HBO vamper was extremely difficult to get lost in, because it was much easier to "look at" rather than "watch." I "watch" The Vampire Diaries, which makes it much easier to escape into.
I hate to continue to compare TVD to True Blood, because the former is in a pennant race and the latter is attempting to make the playoffs in Triple A, but they are both shows focusing on vampires so it's going to happen. Diaries has a ton of likable characters, which True Blood has never had. I can name the people I like on that show on one finger, and his name is Eric. Okay, that isn't true. I liked Lafayette at one point, and I enjoy Jessica from time to time. If the red-headed vampire were on TVD? She'd probably be my fourth or fifth favorite female. I have even enjoyed the characters I came in expecting to dislike, mainly the lead male and female (my MO).
While each and every minor character brings something to the table, the main draw here is Ian Somerhalder as Damon Salvatore. He's mean, he's evil, he's conniving, but he's charming. He will drain the ladies dry of all their blood, but he will also weaken them at the knees. He's a jerk, which is always good, but like any great villain, there is a glimmer of hope that he does the right thing in the end. A truly fantastic character through one season of the series.
While Damon, Stefan and Elena are the focus of the series, this truly is an ensemble drama, which at times can be difficult. I will compare TVD to Lost in the way it works its large cast so well. There will be times when some minor characters take one or two episodes off so that the story can build on other plots. This gives the show the ability to go into depth in certain areas in a given episode, in the same way Lost did when it focused mainly on one character during their flashback episodes. In a contrasting style, True Blood attempts to show you what is going on with every single character in every single episode, making it hard to get involved in any one of the plots going on in an episode. At the end of the day, a focused structure is key to a good show.
And my final point to what made the first season of Vampire Diaries so good, as well as what could make it great in the future, is that there is a deep history to this world. Dexter's first season was its best for many reasons, one being that it had all of Dexter's back story as a child to get out to the audience. Similarly, The Vampire Diaries did a great job showing the audience a back story for its main characters, and then relating that to current times by having ancestors of the human characters in the vampire flashbacks. The difference between TVD and Dexter, is that unlike the Showtime drama, Diaries has not run out of back story. These vamps have been alive for over a hundred years, and have gone through so much, that I can picture many more relevant flashbacks in the future. But just like in Dexter's first season, season one of TVD also was great at bring all of the history to the forefront of the ending to the season.
In closing, I'd like to say that no matter who you are, you should give this show a whirl, because I'm pretty sure you will enjoy it. As a caveat, I must admit that watching a series marathon style does help to exaggerate your feelings towards it, so my current love for the show may be a bit higher than it should be, but not enough to prevent me from wanting everyone to watch it.
