|
On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Francis is a cautionary tale of what could result from a unique set of political and social circumstances, circumstances which simply do not apply to the US in 2012. Turning him into a hybrid of Josh from the West Wing and the guy from Breaking Bad is a travesty.
Oh ya because a heavily divided country, incredible separation of wealth, and a complete overhaul of the existing system is NOT what is happening in America right now
|
On February 05 2013 12:36 deth wrote:
Best original series I have seen in a long time, absolutely loving it so far (finished 3 eps).
David Fincher and Kevin Spacey working together to make sublime television. Nuff said.
also, for the purposes of this thread we should at least treat the UK/US treatments for what they are, largely seperate entities based around some similar themes.
yeah, very separate. but i have to say that the american office was such an improvement over the british series of the same name that i hope this series is a better one as well.
|
Many people didn't think The Office (UK) would translate well into The Office (US) Kwark. I haven't seen it yet but I'm hopeful it will be good. Who cares if it deviates from whatever the original was.
|
|
|
United States42688 Posts
On February 05 2013 12:37 Jkerz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Francis is a cautionary tale of what could result from a unique set of political and social circumstances, circumstances which simply do not apply to the US in 2012. Turning him into a hybrid of Josh from the West Wing and the guy from Breaking Bad is a travesty. Oh ya because a heavily divided country, incredible separation of wealth, and a complete overhaul of the existing system is NOT what is happening in America right now
It's talking about the breakdown of the two party system in the UK from 79-97. You've missed the point somewhat if you think that is in any way applicable to the US. It's not the division, it's the victory of one of them. Now if they'd had the Republican Party fracture into small government libertarians and big spending social conservatives, be completely wiped out as a political force, have their supporters disenfranchised and marginalised and then had a radical, almost fascist takeover by a Democratic demagogue then that would have been a very interesting take on it.
Francis is a left wingers nightmare, an old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples. That could have been very cleverly reversed into a left wing demagogue outlawing gun ownership and using the power of the state ruthlessly against groups who resisted while controlling popular media to present them as survivalist nutjobs, nationalising the businesses of people who got in his way, unraveling the constitution, passing things through popular vote with loaded questions and bribes for the man in the street.
|
On February 05 2013 12:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:22 Ympulse wrote:On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Dat elitism. The show is actually very capably adapted for present-day US. It's not high art, mind you, but it isnt "Useless colonial dribble" which is what you're making it out to be. Watch it before you judge. Imagine I adapted the New Testament for a childrens audience and left out the crucifixion because it was too violent, graphic and gory and instead Jesus just said he had to go away. It might be a very capable adaptation but the point of the character would have been changed somewhat. Francis isn't meant to be a badass, he's meant to be a warning.
Imagine if Jerome Robbins had listened to people that thought as you do back in 1955. From professors of Shakespearean literature to theatre councils to the best of Broadway's actors, he got it from all sides that he would be doing nothing but an utter disservice to the memory of Shakespeare and the very idea of "Romeo and Juliet" by creating a musical in it's image that revolved around choreography and inner city gang relations. Needless to say, West Side Story would go on to pretty much set the tone for modern musical choreography and storytelling, in addition to being a perfect example of how an adaptation can fundamentally change something about a mother piece and still pull it off.
Granted, this show is no West Side Story, but to so blindly insist that there is simply no way an adaptation could work, especially not without giving it a proper viewing and consideration, is to ignore a great deal of very excellent material out there.
|
On February 05 2013 12:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:26 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:22 Ympulse wrote:On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Dat elitism. The show is actually very capably adapted for present-day US. It's not high art, mind you, but it isnt "Useless colonial dribble" which is what you're making it out to be. Watch it before you judge. Imagine I adapted the New Testament for a childrens audience and left out the crucifixion because it was too violent, graphic and gory and instead Jesus just said he had to go away. It might be a very capable adaptation but the point of the character would have been changed somewhat. Francis isn't meant to be a badass, he's meant to be a warning. Imagine if Jerome Robbins had listened to people that thought as you do back in 1955. From professors of Shakespearean literature to theatre councils to the best of Broadway's actors, he got it from all sides that he would be doing nothing but an utter disservice to the memory of Shakespeare and the very idea of "Romeo and Juliet" by creating a musical that revolved around choreography and inner city gang relations. Needless to say, West Side Story would go on to pretty much set the tone for modern musical choreography and storytelling, in addition to being a perfect example of how an adaptation can fundamentally change something about a mother piece and still pull it off. Granted, this show is no West Side Story, but to so blindly insist that there is simply no way an adaptation could work, especially not without giving it a proper viewing and consideration, is to ignore a great deal of very excellent material out there.
Well it's just a goddamn TV show.
|
On February 05 2013 12:47 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:45 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2013 12:26 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:22 Ympulse wrote:On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Dat elitism. The show is actually very capably adapted for present-day US. It's not high art, mind you, but it isnt "Useless colonial dribble" which is what you're making it out to be. Watch it before you judge. Imagine I adapted the New Testament for a childrens audience and left out the crucifixion because it was too violent, graphic and gory and instead Jesus just said he had to go away. It might be a very capable adaptation but the point of the character would have been changed somewhat. Francis isn't meant to be a badass, he's meant to be a warning. Imagine if Jerome Robbins had listened to people that thought as you do back in 1955. From professors of Shakespearean literature to theatre councils to the best of Broadway's actors, he got it from all sides that he would be doing nothing but an utter disservice to the memory of Shakespeare and the very idea of "Romeo and Juliet" by creating a musical that revolved around choreography and inner city gang relations. Needless to say, West Side Story would go on to pretty much set the tone for modern musical choreography and storytelling, in addition to being a perfect example of how an adaptation can fundamentally change something about a mother piece and still pull it off. Granted, this show is no West Side Story, but to so blindly insist that there is simply no way an adaptation could work, especially not without giving it a proper viewing and consideration, is to ignore a great deal of very excellent material out there. Well it's just a goddamn TV show.
Oh, have you seen the show MDJ? What do you think about it?
|
I only now noticed the blood on the victory sign.
+ Show Spoiler +More horrified than disgusted at Underwood's priorities (Russo's murder sealed it). Claire takes the "for better or for worse" part of their partnership most seriously, but I somehow suspect she will be left the least scathed if the ending lives up to the title.
|
OP I hate you. I was just about to make this thread but you stole all my glory -.-
Anyways i just binge watched all the episodes and i am impressed. Very good show if u like political shows, reminds me a bit of West Wing. Honestly to anyone that pissed off because it was originally a british show...who cares? Have you even watched this show? Its good all on it's own, no need for comparison and who cares if it was adapted for american audiences? That actually makes alot of sense, and i think Francis' character does a good job of describing what Kwark just said: "old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples". Lol you just described Francis to a tee from i've seen and you haven't even watched this new version so maybe they did do a good job of adapting it and you should give it a shot before trashing it?
I recommend it. 9/10 Go watch it now.
Also, if you guys havent checked out Utopia yet (a new british thriller series), do so asap. 10/10
|
On February 05 2013 12:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 12:37 Jkerz wrote:On February 05 2013 12:20 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2013 12:16 KurtistheTurtle wrote:On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Have you watched it? Sounds like you're just tearing it down because I'm tearing it down because a commentary on the social divisions in post Thatcherite Britain is unlikely to be relevant to 2012 US and it baffles and frustrates me that of all the things that US tv makers chose to gut and regurgitate for a US audience they picked something so utterly inappropriate for it. It's lazy tv making, it lacks any kind of ambition, it meets no need and it assumes that the audience wouldn't understand if you just showed them the story as it was intended. Francis is a cautionary tale of what could result from a unique set of political and social circumstances, circumstances which simply do not apply to the US in 2012. Turning him into a hybrid of Josh from the West Wing and the guy from Breaking Bad is a travesty. Oh ya because a heavily divided country, incredible separation of wealth, and a complete overhaul of the existing system is NOT what is happening in America right now It's talking about the breakdown of the two party system in the UK from 79-97. You've missed the point somewhat if you think that is in any way applicable to the US. It's not the division, it's the victory of one of them. Now if they'd had the Republican Party fracture into small government libertarians and big spending social conservatives, be completely wiped out as a political force, have their supporters disenfranchised and marginalised and then had a radical, almost fascist takeover by a Democratic demagogue then that would have been a very interesting take on it. Francis is a left wingers nightmare, an old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples. That could have been very cleverly reversed into a left wing demagogue outlawing gun ownership and using the power of the state ruthlessly against groups who resisted while controlling popular media to present them as survivalist nutjobs, nationalising the businesses of people who got in his way, unraveling the constitution, passing things through popular vote with loaded questions and bribes for the man in the street.
From your posts thus far you seem to be thinking that a remake needs to address exactly the same political contexts and portray a particular political climate. That's just not the case, at least not here.
It's very different from what you describe - premise aside, the US version of the show is completely rewritten to address present day politics in america - and all the scheming, backstabbing and politicking that goes on.
At the very least you should bother to watch what you seem to be arguing so vehemently against first.
|
On February 05 2013 13:10 HeavenS wrote:
OP I hate you. I was just about to make this thread but you stole all my glory -.-
I'm sorry! But i was shocked to see no thread for this yet and had to change that immediately. I like you though, for liking a excellent show!
|
im on episode 3 and this show is fucking amazing. yet another great series 
|
United States42688 Posts
On February 05 2013 13:10 HeavenS wrote:
i think Francis' character does a good job of describing what Kwark just said: "old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples". Lol you just described Francis to a tee
Which is exactly what the issue I'm taking with it is. They have lifted a character that was both a product and a critique of a particular political, historical and social context and put him somewhere else where his character loses all meaning and instead just wanders around being a dick to people. The context is an intrinsic part of the character and understanding why it matters, without the context it's just a political circus.
|
On February 05 2013 21:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 13:10 HeavenS wrote:
i think Francis' character does a good job of describing what Kwark just said: "old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples". Lol you just described Francis to a tee Which is exactly what the issue I'm taking with it is. They have lifted a character that was both a product and a critique of a particular political, historical and social context and put him somewhere else where his character loses all meaning and instead just wanders around being a dick to people. The context is an intrinsic part of the character and understanding why it matters, without the context it's just a political circus.
I understand what you're describing in this thread many times, but as a psycholigist i'm familiar with the concept that people see what they want to see, so i guess it's possible that you see the character for what he's not, based on your knowledge about a different show of a different time, history and geography. But people who don't have your background can find other depth in this Francis Underwood, based on different historical background and a different political system.
So i criticize your approach of disrespecting the show for translating the original series into something that is not exactly the same, instead of praising the original show for what it offers. Meaning why don't you create a thread for the original series, i'm sure many people would actually find easy access now, after seeing the netflix show, instead of trying to convince people that House of Cards is bad and superficial?
|
On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded.
Sorta like the movie version of V for Vendetta.
They Americanize things to make em popular. Americans couldn't give a fuck less about UK politics.
|
On February 07 2013 16:57 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 11:42 KwarK wrote:
It can't possibly compete with the original because the themes in the original, post Thatcherite Britain, the legacy of the class wars of the 70s and the system it is framed in can't be translated. I am a big fan of House of Cards but it remains a fundamentally British series and an attempt to translate it for an American audience cannot avoid removing some of the key themes that explain the character of Francis. It is ultimately redundant unless you assume that Americans wouldn't watch anything that wasn't set in their country and that it is better to show them a debased copy than none at all. It is a commentary on the social and political background of 80s and 90s Britain and on the social divisions and the divisions between the people and an aloof group of politicians. God knows what they're going to do in the sequel in which he deals with the constitutional threat from the monarchy. It's not just that you're stealing bits of my culture, it's that you're stealing bits that are perfectly functional and capable of being digested by the average American so they can be degraded. Sorta like the movie version of V for Vendetta. They Americanize things to make em popular. Americans couldn't give a fuck less about UK politics.
That's true. I'm American and literally couldn't give a fuck less.
|
On February 05 2013 21:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 13:10 HeavenS wrote:
i think Francis' character does a good job of describing what Kwark just said: "old establishment man with a sociopathic disregard for "the people" and an ideological crusade fueled by relentless ambition and a complete lack of scruples". Lol you just described Francis to a tee Which is exactly what the issue I'm taking with it is. They have lifted a character that was both a product and a critique of a particular political, historical and social context and put him somewhere else where his character loses all meaning and instead just wanders around being a dick to people. The context is an intrinsic part of the character and understanding why it matters, without the context it's just a political circus.
Ok Kwark we all really appreciate your input haha. I will agree with you that after watching the whole series I have my own ideas about the show and how good it is.
+ Show Spoiler + I think that the show is pretty damn good. There are tons of new shows lately and it doesn't rank in the top 5 for some of the reasons that Kwark described. It feels pretty weak that they snagged an old idea that wasn't for this period and plopped him down into a new US setting. The acting and script sometimes feels out of place and forced. Overall though I really like the character development of the show and the shooting is freaking amazing. I wonder if people would have had the same reserves about the show if they based it around the British show but had a new guy and had a snappier US story. I think they could have made a different person besides francis here.
Overall I think that the show is pretty well done. I have some gripes but I loved watching it. They casted the show really freaking well and the cinematography is great.
|
Just watched the first episode tonight. So excited for this series, but midterms are coming up soon.
|
On February 07 2013 17:23 Bauzzy wrote:
Just watched the first episode tonight. So excited for this series, but midterms are coming up soon.
I would fucking watch every episode as soon as possible. I have this problem sometimes and it destroys my chance of studying well when it gets closer to midterms hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
