House of Cards is a new and exciting show that can be watched exclusively on netflix.com. It's centered around Francis Underwood (Kevin Spacey) who is a House Majority Whip in the House of Representatives and is planning his revenge for not being chosen for secretary of state after his party won the 2012 presidential election.
personal opinion: I'm delighted that netflix produced a show that can compete with the great tv production of our time in terms of storytelling, production, originality and all other aspects. It's a brilliant and entertaining piece of art, that will hopefully gain the viewership that it deserves.
First of all, thank you (and congrats) for watching all 13 chapters already. That's a big commitment, and we appreciate that you invested so much time into the show so soon after the release.
Secondly, a huge thank you for all these comments. I've read them all. They're incredibly astute and helpful. Fincher and I and the other EPs watched all 13 over two days shortly after we finished post-production. An autopsy viewing of sorts - a very honest, analytical viewing so we could bluntly discuss what we could have done better, and how to improve upon what we did Season 1 as we tackle Season 2.
Many of the issues that you all raised are precisely the things we discussed after our viewing. It's helpful to see that your thinking is often line with ours. But many of you also raised points that are new, that only fresh eyes can provide. That's extremely informative to us, and we're very grateful.
Much to think about from these comments. And I hope they keep rolling in. I'll be sure to check back on this forum regularly.
Thanks again, and I hope you'll binge again when we go live with Season Two!
I watched the entire first season when it was released and wow is it good. The show is sort of like Breaking Bad meets West Wing. I'm really excited to see what they do with the second season. Now for my thoughts on the first + Show Spoiler +
I really love the realtionship that Spacey and Mara had near the beginning of the show. Reminded me a lot of the realtioship that Walt and Jesse first had in Breaking Bad. It also has a great name in Barnwood. I feel that Robin Wright's character and her story arc either needs to be developed a bit more or left alone and not really visited. Most scenes of her are driving me crazy since a few do not seem to add much to the plot.
A netflix exclusive show? Interesting, I wonder if they'll do more stuff like this in the future. It's not like netflix doesn't have the money to do that either lol...
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.
On February 05 2013 11:39 Ettick wrote: A netflix exclusive show? Interesting, I wonder if they'll do more stuff like this in the future. It's not like netflix doesn't have the money to do that either lol...
They'll definitely continue to do more. Imagine the future, right now they are paying the licensing fees to studios so they can have shows for subscribers. Those fees will just continue to get higher and higher so while making a new show costs it's own sum of money they don't have to continually pay licensing fees year after year. They can even sell the rights to networks if they wish after a certain period of time. It really is the future and in their best interest. As long as they produce content people want to watch of course.
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.
Well, I've lost nearly all of whatever appetite I had to try this show. So thanks for that. (Not sarcastic.)
Watch the original. Basically the Labour party has imploded into infighting, factionalism and a crisis of identity and left the country in the grips of what is effectively a one party system at the end of 12 years of hard right politics that have divided the nation into the stakeholders in a new society and the underclass. The challenges faced by the dominant party are how to unify the crumbling country, where to go from there and how to tame the ambition and individualism that is a product of their own ideology. It is a parable that remains rooted in the original context, Francis' character is a metaphor for the triumph of Thatcherite ideals.
They're called House of Cards, To Play the King (about Prince Charles becoming King 20 years ago) and The Final Cut. They can be found easily enough online.
Oh whoa, netflix exclusive hm. I think Kevin Spacey is a fantastic actor and person, definitely really like him!!
From what I've read on the series, it's not merely an adaptation of the series to an American setting. As far as I can tell, it does have some different premises (aside from location etc), and I think they want to go somewhere else with the show.
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
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.
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.
I really liked the show. Frank Underwood is an awesome character and everything he does is done methodically towards his own agenda. Can't wait for season 2.
I didn't even know this was a remake of a British series. Netflix's biggest potential audience is the US so it makes sense to depict the show in US politics. I honestly can't say I would have bothered watching if it wasn't.
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 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.
That's true, the character would have been changed. But that's only an offense if you hold the original as a sacred cow.
Just because the original meant one thing 20 years ago doesn't mean that the basic premise and outline can't be used to tell a different story to different people and it's meaning is a different one. Hell, look at Romeo and Juliet. That shit worked as an old timey geaser musical. Why can't house of cards work for modern day US?
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.
That's true, the character would have been changed. But that's only an offense if you hold the original as a sacred cow.
Just because the original meant one thing 20 years ago doesn't mean that the basic premise and outline can't be used to tell a different story to different people and it's meaning is a different one. Hell, look at Romeo and Juliet. That shit worked as an old timey geaser musical. Why can't house of cards work for modern day US?
Keep an open mind and you might be surprised.
This is basically my sentiment as well. The show seems to do a pretty good job of giving a retelling of the story in a different and still meaningful way.
I didn't know it was a copy of a british series either. I watched all the eps in 2 days and loved the shit out of it. I'll go and find the british version thanks for telling us kwark.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
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 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: 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
just finished it. This is the future of television. Great show, no adds, no waiting week by week and have random breaks due to american holidays.
I'm not sure how it was in the original UK series but I have a problem with one of the plots in the series. Is it really realistic for Clarie to sabotage the water bill like that? Surely thats a plot hole. Personally egos aside she must have known how important the bill was to frank and to sabotage him like that just seems ridiculous for a cold calculating intelligent woman like claire.
On February 08 2013 18:09 sths wrote: just finished it. This is the future of television. Great show, no adds, no waiting week by week and have random breaks due to american holidays.
I'm not sure how it was in the original UK series but I have a problem with one of the plots in the series. Is it really realistic for Clarie to sabotage the water bill like that? Surely thats a plot hole. Personally egos aside she must have known how important the bill was to frank and to sabotage him like that just seems ridiculous for a cold calculating intelligent woman like claire.
Thinking about the background of the old show and also for how this show was moving forward I can actually see this happening. I mean would it happen in our government today? Maybe not but it made the show exciting.
My friend and I just started watching this show and we are blown away with how good it is overall! Highly recommended!
Also, on kind of an aside, Netflix is supposed to do the new Arrested Development, and I'm hoping that House of Cards is an indication of the quality that is to come! I have high hopes!
On February 08 2013 18:09 sths wrote: just finished it. This is the future of television. Great show, no adds, no waiting week by week and have random breaks due to american holidays.
I'm not sure how it was in the original UK series but I have a problem with one of the plots in the series. Is it really realistic for Clarie to sabotage the water bill like that? Surely thats a plot hole. Personally egos aside she must have known how important the bill was to frank and to sabotage him like that just seems ridiculous for a cold calculating intelligent woman like claire.
I didn't think it was a plot hole at all, the writers took much care to show her distaste towards francis' treatment of her and her goals/ambitions, her actions were a clear rebellion to establish some dominance and teach him a lesson. Claire and Francis' interactions this season have been absolutely fascinating to say the least imo.
I've added a review to the op, as well as a response by writer Beau Willimon in the comments of that review. In case you want be to add something else to the op, just tell me.
I'm two episodes in and haven't read much of the thread out of fear of spoiler, but I've been really enjoying it so far. So far it's a good political drama with excellent actors.
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.
That's true, the character would have been changed. But that's only an offense if you hold the original as a sacred cow.
Just because the original meant one thing 20 years ago doesn't mean that the basic premise and outline can't be used to tell a different story to different people and it's meaning is a different one. Hell, look at Romeo and Juliet. That shit worked as an old timey geaser musical. Why can't house of cards work for modern day US?
Keep an open mind and you might be surprised.
Although I agree that Kwark should watch the show before commenting, his point is that if you want to use the same name of the show, indicating that it is a revival of the original, then you should have the show carry the same meaning and structure. And west side story carried over the same message, it was just a modernized version of R&J, so your point doesn't hold up in that regard. Romeo and Juliet had a story that can be carried over time and space, that does not mean that all stories can do that.
Just watched the first episode and I liked more and more every minute. So much <3 for Kevin Spacey. If the rest of the season continues to be the same old stuff I am completely fine with that lol.
Just finished watching first season. Was really good and enjoyable. I'm eager to check out the original British version too now. The man is so ruthless. I'm starting to like Stamper as a character a lot more. Spoilers inside + Show Spoiler +
speculation: -Remy is the father of Claire's ClearWater Partner. When they first met there seemed to be recognition/attraction between them and when the pregnancy by a married man is announced and Claire mentions Remy later it is clear the partner in ClearWater is uncomfortable. I've tried to search for a wedding band on Remy's fingers whenever he is onscreen but it hard to see -Also, am I the only one who thinks that Zoe's new relationship with her former colleague is kinda bland/unnecessary? I dunno, feels pretty forced and contrived but I really enjoy this show so I'll roll with it,
On February 10 2013 14:20 lac29 wrote: I'm into episode 6 right now and while it's good and "edgy", it's kind of becoming the same old stuff. Good tv, but not great tv imo.
That's how I felt about the first half of the season as well but the second half is much better especially Episodes 9-13.
What do people think about the voiceovers? I hated them at first but then I realized that they completely disappear when Underwood is confused or threatened in some way. There are other subtle touches, such as Underwood playing fewer video games as his real-life actions get more and more adrenaline-inducing.
It has potential for sure, and all-time great dramas like The Wire and Breaking Bad didn't have fantastic first seasons either, just solid ones like House of Cards does.
I got hook on this series recently :D. Finished Eps 10 and I gota say i would rate it around 8/10. The first few eps were extremely good until ep 5-6 where the relationship exploded. I was seriously hoping for something like a serious version of jack and liz lemon from 30 rocks Keeping it strictly professional.
At least this show has a consistency in their story line despite the attribute of no cliffhanger. I were speculating something like Seinfeld at first.
Unexpectedly, this show is being criticizing by bad writing research on how politics and journalism systerm works. I thought i should mention that because with the current campaign via netflix, It is pretty hard to find negative reviews on the show to exam it from a different perspective. Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/house-of-cards-good-telev_b_2711080.html
On February 21 2013 14:29 NB wrote: I got hook on this series recently :D. Finished Eps 10 and I gota say i would rate it around 8/10. The first few eps were extremely good until ep 5-6 where the relationship exploded. I was seriously hoping for something like a serious version of jack and liz lemon from 30 rocks Keeping it strictly professional.
At least this show has a consistency in their story line despite the attribute of no cliffhanger. I were speculating something like Seinfeld at first.
Unexpectedly, this show is being criticizing by bad writing research on how politics and journalism systerm works. I thought i should mention that because with the current campaign via netflix, It is pretty hard to find negative reviews on the show to exam it from a different perspective. Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/house-of-cards-good-telev_b_2711080.html
I finally finished Lost last night as was just thinking which show I am going to start up now while waiting for the final seasons of Breaking Bad and Dexter, sounds like this one is good enough to give a shot.
On February 21 2013 15:59 Arceus wrote: ok Im not really into politic stuff. Should I give this one a shot? maybe for Kevin Spacey alone :p
There a lot of political things that happen, but I think its not something that you won't get by just putting on subtitles and paying close attention. A lot of is just Kevin Spacey's acting. My friend and I loooooooooooove his monologues he presents to the audience, they're delivered so perfectly.
The show kinda reminds me of Death Note (dont freak out, guys) 'cause of how intimate the audience is to the main character. Also, how almost-sociopathic Underwood is, it's really awesome.
I have to say, I got Nerd Chills™ during the last 2 minutes of episode 10 or whichever episode ended with + Show Spoiler +
Peter dying and Frank and Claire talking to the press
. I love all the converging story elements that occurred during that moment, and the artistic way in which the last sequence was shot and presented!
Comparing this show with Deathnote is quite fair. I love the ruthlessness that the character shown which is also why, as i mentioned before, i quite dislike episode 5-10 where things turn unprofessional. I feel like the only way for people to remain such ruthless is to set out a 'totem' to mark the path they take. If things turn wrong anyhow, those totems will be save points that you could back up and rely upon and by making things unprofessional, the writer loses the fundamentals that created the character from the first place.
The show continues to present many flaws in it research of modern politic and journalism but most of them cant be noticed by people who dont have much field knowledge. The monologues as well as the no cliffhanger thing really separated this show from others. In a way i feel like it drag people into the character, engaging under the person mind set and get surprised by the development which remove the need of cliff hanging element to attract people to watch the show.
On February 22 2013 16:41 NB wrote: Comparing this show with Deathnote is quite fair. I love the ruthlessness that the character shown which is also why, as i mentioned before, i quite dislike episode 5-10 where things turn unprofessional. I feel like the only way for people to remain such ruthless is to set out a 'totem' to mark the path they take. If things turn wrong anyhow, those totems will be save points that you could back up and rely upon and by making things unprofessional, the writer loses the fundamentals that created the character from the first place.
The show continues to present many flaws in it research of modern politic and journalism but most of them cant be noticed by people who dont have much field knowledge. The monologues as well as the no cliffhanger thing really separated this show from others. In a way i feel like it drag people into the character, engaging under the person mind set and get surprised by the development which remove the need of cliff hanging element to attract people to watch the show.
You see, I have to disagree with why you dislike them, I mean im not saying youre wrong, I just dont see eye to eye on that.
I think that those episodes show you HOW he got to be where he is at, and why he is so good at what he does. Yes, he goes through some times of uncertainty and 'everything is not going according to plan', but it's how he gets out of it and how it all culminates as a story on ep10 that makes the whole 'trip' worth it. I really enjoyed how many sides of claire and franks personalities seeped through when times weren't "Business as usual". You get to see and how they got to where they got, the whys about some of the choices they made and how they live with themselves. For instance, Claire's 'trip' really develops her character and you get to see what she is willingly rejecting and what it costs. Same with Frank and how he deals with Zoe during this time.
Something I really loved about the show (the way it's shot) + Show Spoiler +
The scene were Zoe comes into Franks house and tries on Claire's dress and ruins her side of the bed because Zoe feels trapped in a house/life that she doesn't truly have so much control over (spider in jar!). The way the camera focused on Zoe's body and reflection toward Frank while she said her lines was really cool. In general, the camera angles are not show like a soap opera for efficiency of dialogue, it's just done the way the director feels is interesting, I think. And I like the change of pace in that regard.
On February 10 2013 14:20 lac29 wrote: I'm into episode 6 right now and while it's good and "edgy", it's kind of becoming the same old stuff. Good tv, but not great tv imo.
Felt the same - it really tapered off after a really strong start. Too much random bullshit. Still very good tho.
To be honest, even if it didn't have anything else going for it, it would still be worth watching just for the Kevin Spacey monologues.
On February 10 2013 14:20 lac29 wrote: I'm into episode 6 right now and while it's good and "edgy", it's kind of becoming the same old stuff. Good tv, but not great tv imo.
Felt the same - it really tapered off after a really strong start. Too much random bullshit. Still very good tho.
To be honest, even if it didn't have anything else going for it, it would still be worth watching just for the Kevin Spacey monologues.
Haha yes, I'm on Episode 7 and it's a good show but the Spacey monologues are the best part. Small things that bug me are things like Mrs. Underwood's random encounters in the world. First the granny yelling at her, now the bum making origami out of her charity... why? They remind of LOST.. random polar bears in the world that have no real consequence except for creating some drama.
I'm at episode 7 right now and enjoying every second of it. Such a good show! Started watching it after Aaron Paul ("Jesse Pinkman") recommended it on his twitter, got aware of it after an intense Breaking Bad marathon xD
Replace the meth with politics, Heisenberg with Underwood, and that's almost it. Quite dark and intriguing... And yo, Kevin Spacey is the bomb! Bitch!
On February 22 2013 16:41 NB wrote: Comparing this show with Deathnote is quite fair. I love the ruthlessness that the character shown which is also why, as i mentioned before, i quite dislike episode 5-10 where things turn unprofessional. I feel like the only way for people to remain such ruthless is to set out a 'totem' to mark the path they take. If things turn wrong anyhow, those totems will be save points that you could back up and rely upon and by making things unprofessional, the writer loses the fundamentals that created the character from the first place.
The show continues to present many flaws in it research of modern politic and journalism but most of them cant be noticed by people who dont have much field knowledge. The monologues as well as the no cliffhanger thing really separated this show from others. In a way i feel like it drag people into the character, engaging under the person mind set and get surprised by the development which remove the need of cliff hanging element to attract people to watch the show.
You see, I have to disagree with why you dislike them, I mean im not saying youre wrong, I just dont see eye to eye on that.
I think that those episodes show you HOW he got to be where he is at, and why he is so good at what he does. Yes, he goes through some times of uncertainty and 'everything is not going according to plan', but it's how he gets out of it and how it all culminates as a story on ep10 that makes the whole 'trip' worth it. I really enjoyed how many sides of claire and franks personalities seeped through when times weren't "Business as usual". You get to see and how they got to where they got, the whys about some of the choices they made and how they live with themselves. For instance, Claire's 'trip' really develops her character and you get to see what she is willingly rejecting and what it costs. Same with Frank and how he deals with Zoe during this time.
Something I really loved about the show (the way it's shot) + Show Spoiler +
The scene were Zoe comes into Franks house and tries on Claire's dress and ruins her side of the bed because Zoe feels trapped in a house/life that she doesn't truly have so much control over (spider in jar!). The way the camera focused on Zoe's body and reflection toward Frank while she said her lines was really cool. In general, the camera angles are not show like a soap opera for efficiency of dialogue, it's just done the way the director feels is interesting, I think. And I like the change of pace in that regard.
Definitely, the way the story was constructed was to make the character more down to earth. However, by doing such they simply negate such strong start at the beginning of the show, humanizing what supposed to be unique, stand out among the white house leaders.
Around episode 5-10 is the weakness of the show but after that it gracefully got back up to the quality it started with to close out the season. What we saw in the middle eps are simply a traditional good television approach but an extraordinary show that we hoped to see in the beginning of the season.(as someone just mentioned above)
Again, i think bringing back the comparison between House of Cards and Death Note is pure genius. Death Note has the same flow and story telling, it also has the monologue element in order for the viewer to get in the main character shoes. The biggest different, still, is that Death Note characters have their image enlarged to god-tier while House of Cards decided to curve down. I just hate it when the show i really like have to take such curve to fit the traditional TV show approach in order to fit older viewers.
On February 22 2013 16:41 NB wrote: Comparing this show with Deathnote is quite fair. I love the ruthlessness that the character shown which is also why, as i mentioned before, i quite dislike episode 5-10 where things turn unprofessional. I feel like the only way for people to remain such ruthless is to set out a 'totem' to mark the path they take. If things turn wrong anyhow, those totems will be save points that you could back up and rely upon and by making things unprofessional, the writer loses the fundamentals that created the character from the first place.
The show continues to present many flaws in it research of modern politic and journalism but most of them cant be noticed by people who dont have much field knowledge. The monologues as well as the no cliffhanger thing really separated this show from others. In a way i feel like it drag people into the character, engaging under the person mind set and get surprised by the development which remove the need of cliff hanging element to attract people to watch the show.
You see, I have to disagree with why you dislike them, I mean im not saying youre wrong, I just dont see eye to eye on that.
I think that those episodes show you HOW he got to be where he is at, and why he is so good at what he does. Yes, he goes through some times of uncertainty and 'everything is not going according to plan', but it's how he gets out of it and how it all culminates as a story on ep10 that makes the whole 'trip' worth it. I really enjoyed how many sides of claire and franks personalities seeped through when times weren't "Business as usual". You get to see and how they got to where they got, the whys about some of the choices they made and how they live with themselves. For instance, Claire's 'trip' really develops her character and you get to see what she is willingly rejecting and what it costs. Same with Frank and how he deals with Zoe during this time.
Something I really loved about the show (the way it's shot) + Show Spoiler +
The scene were Zoe comes into Franks house and tries on Claire's dress and ruins her side of the bed because Zoe feels trapped in a house/life that she doesn't truly have so much control over (spider in jar!). The way the camera focused on Zoe's body and reflection toward Frank while she said her lines was really cool. In general, the camera angles are not show like a soap opera for efficiency of dialogue, it's just done the way the director feels is interesting, I think. And I like the change of pace in that regard.
Definitely, the way the story was constructed was to make the character more down to earth. However, by doing such they simply negate such strong start at the beginning of the show, humanizing what supposed to be unique, stand out among the white house leaders.
Around episode 5-10 is the weakness of the show but after that it gracefully got back up to the quality it started with to close out the season. What we saw in the middle eps are simply a traditional good television approach but an extraordinary show that we hoped to see in the beginning of the season.(as someone just mentioned above)
Again, i think bringing back the comparison between House of Cards and Death Note is pure genius. Death Note has the same flow and story telling, it also has the monologue element in order for the viewer to get in the main character shoes. The biggest different, still, is that Death Note characters have their image enlarged to god-tier while House of Cards decided to curve down. I just hate it when the show i really like have to take such curve to fit the traditional TV show approach in order to fit older viewers.
I understand that taking the chance to try to humanize such a ruthless character may be unwanted if you are just interested in the plot and how cunning he is. The ruthless behavior he exhibits reminded me of Kira, but yeah, when they take a few episodes to show how he is, I think it brought more depth to the character rather than water it down, or dumb it down for audiences. I think it's to get the viewer to see how the character sleeps with himself at night.
The episode where he goes back to college (lol phrasing) was one of those cases, you get to see more than just the plot. Death Note really never had much of that because Kira was so hellbent and totally revolved his life around his mission and behaved in a much more sociopathic way where he disregarded all possible emotional connections with anyone. Whereas Frank on the other hand, has a bond with Claire and he really does love her in his own way. Likewise with Claire, you get to see that she chooses to disregard the humanized side of herself because her real love is 'the game' and playing it with Frank.
I mean, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, though it might seem like it. I think I shouldn't respond like this anymore 'cause its a matter of perspective and it might come off as argumentative. If I may ask, would you please elaborate on your perspective a bit more? I think it would be beneficial in order to continue a discussion instead of going in circles. Thanks!
Small tangent unrelated to HoC -- about Netflix: + Show Spoiler +
I think that it's awesome that this show came out so great, apparently Spacey and Finchers names were 'searched for' a lot by viewers so that's why they were used. Moreover, this show gives me so much high hopes for the Arrested Development episodes that are supposed to show on Netflix. At first, I was kinda surprised and un-reluctant to believe that they'd have a really good run, but I'm pretty hyped now.
Damn. Just damn. Watching the show now, and the coldness of Spacey. + Show Spoiler +
Just watched the radio spot Russo does, where he's drunk after spending the night with Rachel. Spacey is destroying the man for a threat, nothing more. A real demonstration of making and breaking his own creation. Love it.
And the monologues. 'I really despise children. There. I've said it.'
the various plot holes and filler annoys me but besides that it is well done. As somebody already mentioned, Claire's continual run-ins with things that do not impact the story at all or have any point are very annoying. You think something is going to come out of the women yelling at her, or the origami, or the old bodyguard's confession to her, but it is completely pointless.
The part where the brick is thrown through the window by his own man and claire and him are talking in the car about how "he didn't mean to bring her into this" and she goes along with it after the debate...
then later they reveal that they were both in on it the whole time when they are talking with cigarettes....lol wut?
talk about a gaping plot hole.
If they minimized mistakes like this it could have gone from an above average series to an amazing one, but 8.5 on IMDB would sound about right to me.
Trailer for Season 2 just went on youtube, Season 2 will be available for Netflix on Febuary 14th. I have the same problems as a lot of other people have said in this thread, but it has potential. Spacey is so damn good in it.
Just started watching Season 1...Im only 2 episodes in but I must say I am highly impressed. Seems like a quality show in the likes of HBO etc....does it get better?
On February 10 2014 23:52 Yezzus wrote: Just started watching Season 1...Im only 2 episodes in but I must say I am highly impressed. Seems like a quality show in the likes of HBO etc....does it get better?
I think it gets a lot better with each episode. For me, it took some episodes to get the hang of it. My mother saw episode 1 and then shut it down, but she gave it another shot and now she is almost in love waiting for the next season.
I am personally a bit worried how the season 2 is gonna be like, as I absolutely loved the first season. It had a clear direction without the drama to fill up episodes. Please have the same brutal direction in season 2, dont turn it in to The Boring Dead - Plant vs Zombies easy mode.
The first 8 episodes of S1 (iirc) are absolutely amazing, and then it went downhill (as in comparing relatively to the first 8 episodes) since but still it is overall a good season 1. Hoping they will comeback nicely for season2. Can't wait!
Valentines Day idea: 1.Get your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband/significant other 2. Light some candles or something, put rose petals on the couch, really set the mood you know? 3. Watch all of House of Cards season 2 4. There is no step 4
On February 10 2014 23:52 Yezzus wrote: Just started watching Season 1...Im only 2 episodes in but I must say I am highly impressed. Seems like a quality show in the likes of HBO etc....does it get better?
I think it gets a lot better with each episode. For me, it took some episodes to get the hang of it. My mother saw episode 1 and then shut it down, but she gave it another shot and now she is almost in love waiting for the next season.
I am personally a bit worried how the season 2 is gonna be like, as I absolutely loved the first season. It had a clear direction without the drama to fill up episodes. Please have the same brutal direction in season 2, dont turn it in to The Boring Dead - Plant vs Zombies easy mode.
I really agree with the show getting better the farther you go. I started it twice and only made it to around episode 5. I didn't not like but I wasn't hooked. I started it again this week knowing the new season was coming out. I had heard great things and considering I never thought it was bad might as well finish it. HOLY SHIT its SO good as you go in. Not really sure when it happened but I got hooked. I couldn't look away. The only reason I am not watching season 2 right now is because I want to watch GSL and IEM then get class out of the way so I can just binge watch the whole season in one sitting.
Side not the trailer for the new season looked interesting to say the least. I think it could either end up amazing or awful. But I have faith it will be great based on the first one.
On February 14 2014 18:11 AsnSensation wrote: ok I watched season 1 only back in october ish, but they release THE WHOLE SEASON ON 1 DAY? IS THIS HEAVEN?
Was honestly surprised when I went on Netflix and could access all episodes. Thought it was some bug because of my proxy :D. Still not sure if this good or bad by netflix because I thought I'd look forward to a new episode every week but I know that I'll binge watch this tonight...
(didn't know that Netflix releases whole seasons at once because I didn't watch season 1 until 3 months ago)
MOD EDIT: Put in spoilers (I pesonally have no idea about this, but since one guy reported it and the guy below this post is pissed, I assume there are spoilers inside this)
On February 15 2014 03:19 Takuma wrote: MOD EDIT: Put in spoilers (I pesonally have no idea about this, but since one guy reported it and the guy below this post is pissed, I assume there are spoilers inside this)
Zoe was murdered because Frank thought she was the only one that knew the whole story. after her phone records were "deleted" all the evidence of his dealing with zoe was gone. The only thing left was the people she talked to and thats a short and easy to discredit list.
Holy fuck that live interview was crazy as shit. I've never been on the edge of my seat and flipping my shit out in real time like that. The fucking acting and writing on that whole sequence just changed the game.
What made the murder even more jarring was the pacing of the episode. It started off slow and really tame with political stuff. And I'm sitting here thinking it's just another refresher course on the characters like many first episodes. but NOPE. not at all.
On February 15 2014 07:17 caelym wrote: episode 1 + Show Spoiler +
What made the murder even more jarring was the pacing of the episode. It started off slow and really tame with political stuff. And I'm sitting here thinking it's just another refresher course on the characters like many first episodes. but NOPE. not at all.
The entire episode was built masterfully towards that. Really impressive.
Wow. even freddy is an absolute boss of an actor and can step it the fuck up when he got his episode. He has to sell the joint to pay bail for his son and cut ties with the vice president. Fucking hurt me inside watching that happen.
What a series. I just finished it. Its like you could tasted the power in every shot of the series.
The acting was supreme that any avid viewer could feel the mental pressure of those who were in power. The way they developed Season 1 twist was pleasant and fit while the new elements of Season 2 were a blast. + Show Spoiler +
The 2 words thats imprinted in my mind after have finished this season was "fundamentally deceptive".
I like the reused of characters from season 1 and the casting for season 2 roles was impressive: not too mild to go unnoticed but not too overly attractive to blur over the main storyline, just mid way to easily slip into the flow.
And man, they do know how to make you uncomfortable.
Wow. even freddy is an absolute boss of an actor and can step it the fuck up when he got his episode. He has to sell the joint to pay bail for his son and cut ties with the vice president. Fucking hurt me inside watching that happen.
On February 15 2014 11:17 caelym wrote: Claire fans will like episode 4. You go girl.
Just finished 4p 4 as well. Giggled like a little girl when Claire completely turned her interview around. Robin Wright is so smoooking hot for her age.
binge watched the whole thing last night, I'm slightly disappointed, they completely killed off zoe and her merry band, also russo's friends as well.
I was hoping for Russo's friends and girl coming back with some epic revenge once they discovered how truly evil underwood is but nope. I guess in this show only the bad guy wins.
Come to think about, they probably going to make a third season, there are just so many unfinished story lines.
binge watched the whole thing last night, I'm slightly disappointed, they completely killed off zoe and her merry band, also russo's friends as well.
I was hoping for Russo's friends and girl coming back with some epic revenge once they discovered how truly evil underwood is but nope. I guess in this show only the bad guy wins.
Come to think about, they probably going to make a third season, there are just so many unfinished story lines.
On February 16 2014 02:41 Takuma wrote: Why must they make the president such an obvious retard?
yea, it bothers me as well that the president is so weak and easily manipulated (watched up to episode 7/chapter 20).
i think this was explained in season 1. It was created after Obama's image: young, confident and was voted as a token of HOPE. This means that he gona rely a lot on people around him to get things going: the congress, the senates votes are all driven by senior leaders with credibility and respect.
But with all the excuses, I agree that it was a weak role. I wish they would cut the Rachel part of the story entirely to improve the President role a bit more. Afterall the Rachel+Doug storyline was too separate from the main plot. Some reddit users even suspected that they left her there to get more women watching the show which kinda make sense if you think about it. May be they gona redeem themselves in season 3, who know.
I don't think doug will die. It seems to be a pretty obvious reference to The west wing when leo had a heart attack at camp david but survived.
It did lose a bit of steam in the last couple episodes and it got werid at points but I think that it still had decent enough momentum from the first 9 or so episodes.
Just started season 2. What I always liked about House of Cards is that it's kind of how I imagined the second half of Death Note was supposed to go. Kira just ruining everyone's lives.
The first episode was great but the rest of the season 2 not so much. Less tension and less of the interesting 4th wall breaking. Overall a decent show, especially thanks to the release schedule, but the second season is dragging it down (I don't mind the outcome, just the execution).
On February 16 2014 13:55 Zax19 wrote: The first episode was great but the rest of the season 2 not so much. Less tension and less of the interesting 4th wall breaking. Overall a decent show, especially thanks to the release schedule, but the second season is dragging it down (I don't mind the outcome, just the execution).
in episode one I completely forgot they hadn't done it once till he does it but damn that might be my favorite 4th wall moment ever it was fucking cold blooded
On February 16 2014 13:55 Zax19 wrote: The first episode was great but the rest of the season 2 not so much. Less tension and less of the interesting 4th wall breaking. Overall a decent show, especially thanks to the release schedule, but the second season is dragging it down (I don't mind the outcome, just the execution).
in episode one I completely forgot they hadn't done it once till he does it but damn that might be my favorite 4th wall moment ever it was fucking cold blooded
Yep, it was great. What I meant is that the first season was full of the 4th wall stuff and Spacey made it work really well. Aside from worse execution of the plot It lost a bit of the charm the first season had. It was still good, I'd say first season 8/10 and second season 6/10, just that it's a shame they couldn't keep it up . Now I'm a bit worried they decided to run a third season which wasn't tha plan...
Although it was a little underwhelming at the end, it was more of a wrapping up the hard work that's been done. I kind of appreciate how it slowed down at the end. It also makes it easier to wait for the next season. Season 2 was better, because Frank had a lot more power now, and he had to wield this power a smart way. Frank had a lot more to lose, but he just kept on pushing it. I had no idea this show could be better for me, then the first season.
I have to say that I was disappointed. My biggest criticism is that Frank had too much plot armor and the journey was too easy. Sure the risks were big but you knew he would win and have the perfect riposte to whatever was thrown at him. They showed some of the wounds that Claire suffered which was good but Frank was virtually unscathed.
My second biggest criticism is that once Zoe was gone there was no one to fill her role as Frank's foil. Elements of her role was filled by Jackie but she was no where near as big a character as Zoe was. The lack of a "Zoe" makes the show feel imbalanced and adds to my first criticism that Frank is too close to omnipotent.
On February 16 2014 19:53 caelym wrote: Just finished. Thoughts on the whole season. + Show Spoiler +
I have to say that I was disappointed. My biggest criticism is that Frank had too much plot armor and the journey was too easy. Sure the risks were big but you knew he would win and have the perfect riposte to whatever was thrown at him. They showed some of the wounds that Claire suffered which was good but Frank was virtually unscathed.
My second biggest criticism is that once Zoe was gone there was no one to fill her role as Frank's foil. Elements of her role was filled by Jackie but she was no where near as big a character as Zoe was. The lack of a "Zoe" makes the show feel imbalanced and adds to my first criticism that Frank is too close to omnipotent.
This season seemed to portray frank as a lot more vulnerable and less powerful then he was in season 1. Everything in the last episode seemed like one giant joker like plan. I legitimately was wondering what was going to happen up to the very second tusk said that walker knew.
On February 16 2014 19:53 caelym wrote: Just finished. Thoughts on the whole season. + Show Spoiler +
I have to say that I was disappointed. My biggest criticism is that Frank had too much plot armor and the journey was too easy. Sure the risks were big but you knew he would win and have the perfect riposte to whatever was thrown at him. They showed some of the wounds that Claire suffered which was good but Frank was virtually unscathed.
My second biggest criticism is that once Zoe was gone there was no one to fill her role as Frank's foil. Elements of her role was filled by Jackie but she was no where near as big a character as Zoe was. The lack of a "Zoe" makes the show feel imbalanced and adds to my first criticism that Frank is too close to omnipotent.
This season seemed to portray frank as a lot more vulnerable and less powerful then he was in season 1. Everything in the last episode seemed like one giant joker like plan. I legitimately was wondering what was going to happen up to the very second tusk said that walker knew.
I thought the get president impeached plan was obvious towards the end. The only mystery was how he was going to save his own ass, and of course he manipulates the president without any effort and comes out without a scratch. He took bigger risks and consequently the fall was greater, however it didn't seem to me that he had any chance of failing.
On February 16 2014 13:55 Zax19 wrote: The first episode was great but the rest of the season 2 not so much. Less tension and less of the interesting 4th wall breaking. Overall a decent show, especially thanks to the release schedule, but the second season is dragging it down (I don't mind the outcome, just the execution).
Less 4th wall breaking is noticeable but I prefer to think of it as FU became VP so it restricts him from his freedom of communication. The decrease of 4th wall breaking also shows how sacred information are thus increase the mental pressure on the show. Lastly, it makes to story more spread out, giving room for other characters to grow than just focus solely on FU.
Earlier in this thread someone brought up the comparison between House of Cards and Death Note and this is completely identical. In 'arc 2'(where L reveals) of the story in Death Note, you also see the story became much more expansive instead of focusing on the main character alone.
Turns out there is a Director's commentary available for Season 1. You can get to it through the subtitle options. Figured some folks would like to know
I feel like Doug is definitely dead and gone. Luckily there's a new guy there to replace him! I hope they don't spend too much effort on pursuing the Rachel story more, it's seemed to mainly exist for the latter part of the season to show Doug's stepwise mental breakdown.
Of course it's an important link to FU, but compared to all the other shit he's done, it seems like a minor thing to keep in the show.
On February 17 2014 23:22 OrchidThief wrote: I feel like Doug is definitely dead and gone. Luckily there's a new guy there to replace him! I hope they don't spend too much effort on pursuing the Rachel story more, it's seemed to mainly exist for the latter part of the season to show Doug's stepwise mental breakdown.
Of course it's an important link to FU, but compared to all the other shit he's done, it seems like a minor thing to keep in the show.
I guess it depends on whether the writers choose to make Russo's death the cause of FU's eventual downfall. This may be tied to how well received is Rachel's character this season.
I don't think doug will die. It seems to be a pretty obvious reference to The west wing when leo had a heart attack at camp david but survived.
It did lose a bit of steam in the last couple episodes and it got weird at points but I think that it still had decent enough momentum from the first 9 or so episodes.
He looked pretty dead, but I hope you're wrong as well. I also noticed the West Wing reference, even to the point that the president was off at camp, it might have been a little bit overkill.
On February 17 2014 23:22 OrchidThief wrote: I feel like Doug is definitely dead and gone. Luckily there's a new guy there to replace him! I hope they don't spend too much effort on pursuing the Rachel story more, it's seemed to mainly exist for the latter part of the season to show Doug's stepwise mental breakdown.
Of course it's an important link to FU, but compared to all the other shit he's done, it seems like a minor thing to keep in the show.
I guess it depends on whether the writers choose to make Russo's death the cause of FU's eventual downfall. This may be tied to how well received is Rachel's character this season.
I hate that that's a thing. The writers shouldn't be influenced by whether or not people like a character not, they should just write the story they want to write. But you're right, whether they pursue that line or not has to tie in with whether Rachel becomes an important persona again.
Wow! The second season is much much stronger than the first! I disliked how the first season felt obliged to mirror or analog the original series storyline, and I think the writers felt validated and free to explore the theme of how power affects all manner of relationships. Only on episode 11 of season 2 but it feels taut and interesting at all times.
Edit: ok just finished 11 and it's starting to fall off the rails a bit...
The new season ended off kind of weak, which is kind of disappointing since the majority of it was very good and a lot better than the first in terms of pacing, even the season opener was incredibly strong when they killed off + Show Spoiler +
Zoe Barnes
, seemed like the writers were making a statement that they're not fucking around.
I'm hoping this doesn't become a series that drags on too long just for $ and is at least self-aware enough to know when it should end (like Breaking Bad).
On February 17 2014 23:22 OrchidThief wrote: I feel like Doug is definitely dead and gone. Luckily there's a new guy there to replace him! I hope they don't spend too much effort on pursuing the Rachel story more, it's seemed to mainly exist for the latter part of the season to show Doug's stepwise mental breakdown.
Of course it's an important link to FU, but compared to all the other shit he's done, it seems like a minor thing to keep in the show.
I think Rachel's character is of vital importance. Her existence is pretty much the only thing that can bring upon FU's downfall. Although, anyone who knows about her isn't looking for her anymore, and it is pretty hard to conceive how she could actually be used against him. Honestly, + Show Spoiler +
Doug being dead
might be helpful to FU in terms of him being the link to Rachel. Pretty sure + Show Spoiler +
Doug
is dead.
Hmm, just remembered the hacker guy and Doug's conversation. I wonder how that'll work. If hacker guy gets desperate he might need to contact FU directly, but how do you get a hold of someone so high up? Guess he can figure it out.
The hacker guy knows about rachel and will most likely use her to gain leverage to get himself out of his predicament and at the same time screw with Satan Frank Underwood.
I thought the season started off with amazing energy but really slowed down as it went along. I really found myself not caring at all about Tusk/Remy/Jaqy/Doug and their stories after a while. Luckily by the end it tied it all together nicely and got back on track.
In my mind S2 definitely went off the rails towards the end there...I don't remember S1 that well but I felt the show was meant to be 'above' a lot of the stuff it pulled in S2. Still a good show but for me it's no longer up there with the very best shows that have come out.
Seing that I have been a Song of Ice and fire fan forever, and love is eternal, I can not say this is the best show (simply because I love the story too much, no matter how depicted). But seeing that I usually despise political movies/series whatever, this one is certainly en par for my favourite number 1 show of all times. That being said... what will happen to Frank in Season3? I mean, there is virtually no way for him to rise any higher. So I guess...
Gotta be his downfall. At some point the shit has to hit the fan Random thoughts: 3some? wtf? also that erotic asphyxiation scene, so fucking random and that lesbian scene, really unnecessary.
On February 17 2014 23:22 OrchidThief wrote: I feel like Doug is definitely dead and gone. Luckily there's a new guy there to replace him! I hope they don't spend too much effort on pursuing the Rachel story more, it's seemed to mainly exist for the latter part of the season to show Doug's stepwise mental breakdown.
Of course it's an important link to FU, but compared to all the other shit he's done, it seems like a minor thing to keep in the show.
I think Rachel's character is of vital importance. Her existence is pretty much the only thing that can bring upon FU's downfall. Although, anyone who knows about her isn't looking for her anymore, and it is pretty hard to conceive how she could actually be used against him. Honestly, + Show Spoiler +
Doug being dead
might be helpful to FU in terms of him being the link to Rachel. Pretty sure + Show Spoiler +
Doug
is dead.
Hmm, just remembered the hacker guy and Doug's conversation. I wonder how that'll work. If hacker guy gets desperate he might need to contact FU directly, but how do you get a hold of someone so high up? Guess he can figure it out.
Problem is that the Hacker guy also gets burned if something happens.It's painful to the FBI right now but anything touching Frank is too painful for Frank to bear. I think Rachael and the wall street journal reporter will be key to everything collapsing.
My question is what does Frank want now that he's got his bone?
He's Tusk's (and possibly China's) puppet, this seemed to be the point that confused reviewers the most. Walker never had to earn the presidency, he's just there to give Tusk's company that bridge project and the rare earth metals they needed, along with anything else that came up.
Season 2 was vastly inferior to Season 1. Zoe's killing was bad both from a character perspective and from a plot perspective; it was out of character for Frank, who then goes on to feel no remorse. He even feels remorse for Russo despite having a much weaker relationship with him. From the plot perspective, as people have already said it was a great character/storyline to just kill off. The followup storyline with Lucas was very linear and stupid.
The other frustrating thing, going hand-in-hand with Zoe's death, is how incredibly stupid everyone around Frank is. Zoe knew she was in danger, she was warned, yet she meets Frank in a location where she's just asking to be pushed onto the tracks. Lucas plays right into their hands, not watching his back or listening to any of the warnings given to him by the hacker. The president is an idiot, and the first lady even moreso. Almost all of the plot lines feel forced and incongruous, not at all like Season 1.
Lastly I just didn't buy the whole Tusk-as-villain role. He's nowhere in Season 1, yet in Season 2 he shows up in the white house regularly in meetings with other staff members. Also government-vs-business in such an obvious way is just not very interesting.
I got to Episode 8 and stopped. Very disappointed.
On February 22 2014 03:44 Lucumo wrote: The best moments were better and the worst moments were worse than in Season 1.
And there is still too much fucking, also a threesome(seemed totally unreal) and the lesbian scene which was unnecessary. Sigh.
I agree the lesbian scene was just eye candy. However someone on reddit wrote that Frank and Claire always have had some sexual outlet outside of their marriage and because he's under so much surveillance now, it made since for them to find an insider for their needs. It kinda makes sense.
On February 22 2014 03:44 Lucumo wrote: The best moments were better and the worst moments were worse than in Season 1.
And there is still too much fucking, also a threesome(seemed totally unreal) and the lesbian scene which was unnecessary. Sigh.
I agree the lesbian scene was just eye candy. However someone on reddit wrote that Frank and Claire always have had some sexual outlet outside of their marriage and because he's under so much surveillance now, it made since for them to find an insider for their needs. It kinda makes sense.
Where is it mentioned that they "always" had some? Only Zoey and Adam are shown and the latter seemed more like an exception, not the rule. If it's true, it does make sense...except for Meechum to join so easily(even with being drunk).
On February 22 2014 03:44 Lucumo wrote: The best moments were better and the worst moments were worse than in Season 1.
And there is still too much fucking, also a threesome(seemed totally unreal) and the lesbian scene which was unnecessary. Sigh.
Too much fucking? what? There were hardly any sex scenes in the entire season 2.
"Too much" doesn't imply how many. Even one sex scene can be "too much". But we had Zoey, Feng, Jacqueline 2 times(?) and the lesbian one, add to that the threesome, nude photos and nude in the shower, meh. Typical Hollywood.
All of those except Feng were clearly necessary to plot. Just saying. And really, in terms of titillation, nothing to write home about. Can't believe people ragging on the lesbian scene or the threechum. Both clearly very important to, respectively, Doug and Edward.
On February 23 2014 04:54 Yoav wrote: All of those except Feng were clearly necessary to plot. Just saying. And really, in terms of titillation, nothing to write home about. Can't believe people ragging on the lesbian scene or the threechum. Both clearly very important to, respectively, Doug and Edward.
Why would I watch something when I can read it? Also, I normally stay away from any TV stuff because it's mostly the same. If season 3 is really about Francis' downfall, then it has already failed, in my opinion.
On February 23 2014 07:44 Lucumo wrote: Why would I watch something when I can read it? Also, I normally stay away from any TV stuff because it's mostly the same. If season 3 is really about Francis' downfall, then it has already failed, in my opinion.
why would you play video games when you can watch streams?
kinda agree with a guy at the previous page, they made walker really retarded i mean i felt it was too easy for underwood to downgrade the president, he opposed no resistance at all until the last moment .. also poor doug, the devoted one, killed before being able to witness underwood as a president (feel a bit sad,doug was one of my favorite character) also wtf the threechum, i paused like WTF HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? at the end, like everyone i guess, a part of me wanted to see underwood fail, that's why i wonder like others here what they are going to do with a season 3 ? resisting against an other impeachment ?
On February 23 2014 07:44 Lucumo wrote: Why would I watch something when I can read it? Also, I normally stay away from any TV stuff because it's mostly the same. If season 3 is really about Francis' downfall, then it has already failed, in my opinion.
why would you play video games when you can watch streams?
Why be a king when you can be a god? Actually why listen to music when you can read poetry?
Anyway, I liked this season too. They were originally signed for 26 episodes so there was a lot of consistency, I guess. I dont know what' they're going to do now that Francis is + Show Spoiler +
the motherfucking President of the United States of America. If he was getting shit done as a Majority Whip, I can't imagine what he'll do as President of the United States. The good moments in the series were realllyyy salient (threechum/zoe/how claire threw McGinnis under the bus on national TV) A nation, Under Wood. 8D
I liked how they allowed a Redditor to explain the darknet (joke, for you Romanians) haha. That was really amusing. The chinese guy's sex stuff was something unexpected, but I hope it comes back later to leverage him or something. Poor Doge, he woulda been promoted most likely underUnderwood's presidency. Let's see, Christina was just used to sew doubt in the president's wife, that was gdlk. The small moments in the show were tight.But yeah, I KINDA DONT WANT to see S3 as Francis' downfall -- if anything, I want to get 1 season of him PREVENTING people from throwing him down, and another season where he steps back or something. If this show has taught me anything is that he's fucking vicious and squeezes the most he can out of his position of power -- and now that he's POTUS, I can't see him getting played.
The only thing that really annoys me in this series so far (I'm in the middle of S1) is that 99.9% of electronic devices people use bear the Apple logo... I know about product placement, but this is beyond ridiculous (thank the gods for one black dude who used a Toshiba laptop in this series).
On February 23 2014 07:44 Lucumo wrote: Why would I watch something when I can read it? Also, I normally stay away from any TV stuff because it's mostly the same. If season 3 is really about Francis' downfall, then it has already failed, in my opinion.
why would you play video games when you can watch streams?
It should be the other way around.
On February 26 2014 20:26 Manit0u wrote: The only thing that really annoys me in this series so far (I'm in the middle of S1) is that 99.9% of electronic devices people use bear the Apple logo... I know about product placement, but this is beyond ridiculous (thank the gods for one black dude who used a Toshiba laptop in this series).
Yep, noticed that(obviously) as well. So it's no surprise they are either evil or stupid
On February 26 2014 20:26 Manit0u wrote: The only thing that really annoys me in this series so far (I'm in the middle of S1) is that 99.9% of electronic devices people use bear the Apple logo... I know about product placement, but this is beyond ridiculous (thank the gods for one black dude who used a Toshiba laptop in this series).
i had the exact same thought but then there will be less placement product, but still, like LG, nokia
The Chinese's guy sex stuff is explained later by himself during the scene where he talks to Frank in the battlefield at night. Essentially he says that death motivates him and pushes him to accomplish as much as he can. The writers could have had him parachuting off an airplane instead, but I guess the sex fetish thing fits better the darker theme of the whole series.
Frank values power above all... Why is never mentioned what he wants to do with said power? Being president for being presidents sake? I fear in S3 we also will go on with "defend/fall against scandal" and not into stuff he actually does with all his power except covering up his crimes...
On February 27 2014 19:54 Velr wrote: I liked S1 more.. Way more but S2 wasn't bad.
My biggest Problem is:
Frank values power above all... Why is never mentioned what he wants to do with said power? Being president for being presidents sake?
That's because you're not a power hungry psychopath. Normal people want think you attain power to achieve some goal but these are not normal people. Power for them is the goal, its not a means to an end it is the end.
Then why would he become president? That means after 8 years (at most) he loses most of his power again... Him wanting to become president/being powerhungry is a plot device that is not explained enough for me. The whole plot is based upon this and there seems to be no reason for it aside from him being a narcistic, power hungry Psychopath... Which i think is a bit "easy".
S1 felt like it was full of cleverness and awesomeness, and I couldnt wait for more. Then S2 came, and it felt like it was full of "SHIT JUST HIT THE FAN" moments, over and over again. I enjoyed S1 more. And there was also the trademark Kevin Spacey weirdness, with the threesome and whatnot, I guess I had to expect it.
Saddest moment was when Freddy had his bbq joint closed down. He was my favorite character. Unflinching loyalty to frank, only to get thrown to the wolves when he needed him the most.
Also, Jackie Sharp has to be one of the most hottest woman ever. Seriously. So fucking hot. O_O
On February 27 2014 23:43 Velr wrote: Then why would he become president? That means after 8 years (at most) he loses most of his power again... Him wanting to become president/being powerhungry is a plot device that is not explained enough for me. The whole plot is based upon this and there seems to be no reason for it aside from him being a narcistic, power hungry Psychopath... Which i think is a bit "easy".
I think that, as a plot device, being a power hungry sociopath has actually been quite effective and powerful. I never thought that + Show Spoiler +
Zoe would die so early
, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. His narcissim has been quite a burden to himself and at times I marvel at how difficult it must be to write for such a character. To me, it's realistic. Some people just want power for the sake of having it. Tusk is another case in point. The guy could literally buy anything he wants and never have to work another day in his life, and yet he presses on. Why? Because he loves power. It's a very common theme in the show. Power for the sake of power. I simply disagree that it's an easy "out" for the writers.
On February 27 2014 23:43 Velr wrote: Then why would he become president? That means after 8 years (at most) he loses most of his power again... Him wanting to become president/being powerhungry is a plot device that is not explained enough for me. The whole plot is based upon this and there seems to be no reason for it aside from him being a narcistic, power hungry Psychopath... Which i think is a bit "easy".
I think about this sometimes. Obviously, a part of this is just pathological. There are also other ways of hanging on to power. If he catapults his wife into a good political position, she could very well be positioned for high political office as well. Have an intervening malleable former VP as president for a while, and allow for the other party to win a handful of elections, and he could well hold onto power, either in the supreme or in the oppositional form, for the rest of his life.
Or the show was originally imagined to take place in England, where Prime Ministers can stick around as they keep folks liking them.
Or it's not so subtlely playing with Greek/Shakespearean themes, (cough Macbeth cough) and the assumption is of a lifetime of power... until one's inevitable untimely demise.
On February 26 2015 08:08 Emnjay808 wrote: Wow they release it as 10 eps?? Thats crazy.
Im gonna binge so hard lol.
It sucks because you watch the whole season the day it comes out and then you have to wait another year for the next season.
A good point but kind of a "grass is greener" statement, since it drives me crazy to watch one episode and then have to wait a week for the next one...
On February 28 2015 07:42 nkr wrote: first episode had not enough frank
Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't care about doug whatsoever. He was cool at first when he was a cold-hearted enforcer but now he's just a mopey bitch with abandonment issues. That said, I've only seen EP 1.
So far season3 is still maintained as a good quality show but it definitely lacks of some tensions moments like in season1 and 2, basically it is now more 'pure politics' than being a 'dramatic politicians-related' show.
It is rather disappointing to see the powerful (and/or extremely power hunger) Claire turned into such an ordinary woman, she was so damn sexy because of that and now she lost all of that. I am pretty sure they will get back together in the next season and dominate the universe in progress but goddamn it they are now dragging this show.
And Frank is also being a retard in multiple instances throughout the show, he was so much more flexible and charming back then but now he is just a pure tyrant, and his ideals are rather empty, i find it hard to believe that being a president with very few allies can get him this far lol.
Alot of characters have some rather forceful development either.
Russian president role however is cool, he is the highlight of this season.
This season is worthy for a watch but it severely lacks of tensions in it, the show is going downhill if you judged it solely based on that. 'Power' used to such a turn on in season1/2 as well.
I'm not sure if i hate or pity Doug. Doing shitty things because you're a power hungry narcissist can be understood but Doug just wants Franks approval/friendship whatever but seems like he knows that he doesn't give two shits about him.
^Meh, Claire turned into Skylar. :/ The first episode kinda sucked hard, but after thatit picked up so much. I'm really disappointed that the last couple episodes were this weak.
^Meh, Claire turned into Skylar. :/ The first episode kinda sucked hard, but after thatit picked up so much. I'm really disappointed that the last couple episodes were this weak.
I don't know why you would say that. Reason why people hated Skylar was because everyone was still seeing Walter as a good guy who just wanted best for his family, but Skylar was having some kind of midlife crisis or her actions seemed a bit irrational. Frank is and has been a manipulative asshole the whole time and turned even more ruthless as time passed and Claire clearly still has some morals and is in the relationship because that's what is supposed of her/them and it's best for the campaign etc.
The reason why i thought Claire might pursue something of her own is because when she visited that woman in her house she said she would vote for her if she was the one running and Claire seemed to have some kind of moment of clarity. Also people liked her more than Frank and she was the one winning the race for him. In the last episode she also opened up and was upset that THEY were doing things that HE would get all credit.
^Meh, Claire turned into Skylar. :/ The first episode kinda sucked hard, but after thatit picked up so much. I'm really disappointed that the last couple episodes were this weak.
I don't know why you would say that. Reason why people hated Skylar was because everyone was still seeing Walter as a good guy who just wanted best for his family, but Skylar was having some kind of midlife crisis or her actions seemed a bit irrational. Frank is and has been a manipulative asshole the whole time and turned even more ruthless as time passed and Claire clearly still has some morals and is in the relationship because that's what is supposed of her/them and it's best for the campaign etc.
The reason why i thought Claire might pursue something of her own is because when she visited that woman in her house she said she would vote for her if she was the one running and Claire seemed to have some kind of moment of clarity. Also people liked her more than Frank and she was the one winning the race for him. In the last episode she also opened up and was upset that THEY were doing things that HE would get all credit.
But Claire has proven time and time again in previous seasons that she has a very similar outlook on life as Francis. Iirc there even are occasions during which she appears as the more ruthless one of the couple, edging Frank on to continue down their chosen path.
They also state repeatedly that Frank becoming president was one of their goals. It appears to me that she's simply jealous of him because in the end, he wields the power. Which she knew might happen 30 some years ago when they started making plans. It's just the writers fishing for some easily created crisis. :/
^Meh, Claire turned into Skylar. :/ The first episode kinda sucked hard, but after thatit picked up so much. I'm really disappointed that the last couple episodes were this weak.
I don't know why you would say that. Reason why people hated Skylar was because everyone was still seeing Walter as a good guy who just wanted best for his family, but Skylar was having some kind of midlife crisis or her actions seemed a bit irrational. Frank is and has been a manipulative asshole the whole time and turned even more ruthless as time passed and Claire clearly still has some morals and is in the relationship because that's what is supposed of her/them and it's best for the campaign etc.
The reason why i thought Claire might pursue something of her own is because when she visited that woman in her house she said she would vote for her if she was the one running and Claire seemed to have some kind of moment of clarity. Also people liked her more than Frank and she was the one winning the race for him. In the last episode she also opened up and was upset that THEY were doing things that HE would get all credit.
But Claire has proven time and time again in previous seasons that she has a very similar outlook on life as Francis. Iirc there even are occasions during which she appears as the more ruthless one of the couple, edging Frank on to continue down their chosen path.
They also state repeatedly that Frank becoming president was one of their goals. It appears to me that she's simply jealous of him because in the end, he wields the power. Which she knew might happen 30 some years ago when they started making plans. It's just the writers fishing for some easily created crisis. :/
Well, they were fighting over who gets to "win" from day one, what I hated is that it took her 13 episodes to say she's leaving and even then we're left with no resolution.
I think its pretty obvious that claire is going to end up being the vice president as a form of resolution. The show keeps saying that everyone loves her PLUS the spot is conveniently open at the end of the season after the other vice president girl who sleeps with the black guy betrayed francis
I think its pretty obvious that claire is going to end up being the vice president as a form of resolution. The show keeps saying that everyone loves her PLUS the spot is conveniently open at the end of the season after the other vice president girl who sleeps with the black guy betrayed francis
And we could have an ending where Claire *gets rid of* Francis to become POTUS, bringing us a "full circle" and a pretty bad ass conclusion to the show. One can hope, would make for good tv. Personally I agree with people who thought that S3 was weaker than 1/2. Mostly I found the decision to put the Claire/Francis relationship to the forefront to have been a slight mistake, as it didn't feel "right" for me, as far as character behavior goes. Also the whole Doug storyline really should have been wrapped up by mid-season or thereabouts, as it felt dragged out. I also really dig Put.. I mean Petrov, and I hope that he is in their future plans.
Well, I was starting to believe Doug was a changed man after not working for Frank for an extended period of time. In the end, his goal was to get back with him all along.
I haven't finished the season yet but this relationship melodrama is pissing me off. I watch house of cards to get away from shitty serial soap operas that all focus on marriage and the inherent problems with it. I watch house of cards to see some dark politics. It seems like the writers have run out of ideas and are adding fluff by creating a "rift" between Frank and Claire. And what the hell is it with Frank and turning into a sniveling child? This guy is a ruthless, Machiavellian motherfucker, not some depressed bag of tears. First they did it to that cool bald senator and now they're doing it to Frank. Even Claire is more emotional now. The pussification of characters in this show is real.
How do you guys feel about pussy riot? They are a real controversial punk band from Russia. They are known to be feminists and are pro lgbt community. They made an appearance at the dinner where they dump their drinks after the unhearted toast to then from The Russian president his name I cannot recall at the moment. Here is their wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot. Honestly I like that there is real controversial subjects in the show and I hope it continues.
When Claire had a chance to prove herself, she failed mega hard in the UN. I feel like she's being resentful and jealous without much cause. Frank's argument that she knew what she was getting into made sense.
On March 03 2015 12:19 reps)squishy wrote: This question attains to episode 3 + Show Spoiler +
How do you guys feel about pussy riot? They are a real controversial punk band from Russia. They are known to be feminists and are pro lgbt community. They made an appearance at the dinner where they dump their drinks after the unhearted toast to then from The Russian president his name I cannot recall at the moment. Here is their wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot. Honestly I like that there is real controversial subjects in the show and I hope it continues.
On March 03 2015 12:19 reps)squishy wrote: This question attains to episode 3 + Show Spoiler +
How do you guys feel about pussy riot? They are a real controversial punk band from Russia. They are known to be feminists and are pro lgbt community. They made an appearance at the dinner where they dump their drinks after the unhearted toast to then from The Russian president his name I cannot recall at the moment. Here is their wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot. Honestly I like that there is real controversial subjects in the show and I hope it continues.
They were clearly a IRL political wink, but I thought they came across as incredibly immature and embarrassing in the context of the series. Which I suppose is reflected that they were a big diplomatic flub that made a lot of trouble and accomplished nothing.
It was cool and everything but this is the second time the show gives us blue balls this massive. First watershed and now amworks. Let's hope Frank's campaign doesn't end in suicide. I would much rather had him not sign the bill and dealt with the fallout of a natural disaster of this scale. I want the writers to take the gloves off. Hurricane deaths, war with russia, political assassinations. I am enjoying the show as it is now but I feel like it can be so much more if there was some more chaos thrown into the mix.
I can't believe what happened with Russo. I understand "tying up loose ends" but man was that a cruel thing to do. I feel terrible for Christina and his children. God the last few episodes have been so heavy. Underwood struck me as a likeable Machiavellian before, but the way Russo was treated makes me sick. Ugh I don't know what to feel.
This is an underwhelming season... Still watching it and enjoying it but I'm more than a bit disheartened.
The Cathedral scene (episode 3 or 5 was it) was so much weaker than the original West Wing scene it obviously attempted to copy.... I couldn't help cringing while watching it bumble through the motions.
I think that's a fair point. This season seemed to be trying much harder than the others to copy West Wing. Which they failed at because they aren't West Wing. This was shown in a lot of ways, from how policy was handled to the fact that morality and duty entered the picture to the way the press corps participated to, yes, the Cathedral scene. But it was weaker across the board. Francis has no crisis of faith. He doesn't ever really seem to have believed in God, and the show repeatedly hints at/suggests that Francis has a deal (literal or metaphorical) with the devil. (Who else do you think those asides are directed at?) As opposed to the West Wing episode, where he has a crisis of faith before deciding to + Show Spoiler +
believe
.
Honestly, my problem with this season was mostly that it was the negative trends from S2 carried further. Why were there basically any knowing asides to the camera? Why was the entire season about his relationship? Where was the Machiavellian maneuvering?
All that being said, Putin was predictably awesome.
glad they ended it, it was filler for most of season 2 as well, doug was a pretty good character in season 1 and should be back on the front lines for season 4
so far the show seems to follow the path of Gerald Ford, although Frank is not Gerald Ford, he's a combination of the guy from the British show and LBJ.
-becomes VP in 2013 (Ford became VP in 1973) -president resigns in disgrace in 2014, making Frank president (Watergate was 1974) -tough primary challenge from Reagan/+ Show Spoiler +
Dunbar
-wins primary but loses general? this would wrap the show up in 4 seasons
This season was so shit. I am so disappointed with the ending. Frank driving everyone away was the most hamfisted thing I've seen in a long time. Jackie, Remy, Claire. Explain to me how they have been allies for so long and they all just happen to leave eachother at the last second. Clearly Frank has better people skills if he can stay on the senate for 20 years. All this god damn relationship drama - honestly it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Claire leaving was completely out of character. Frank talking to his wife like that was out of character. So many god damn characters were butchered for "plot progression" which is a horrible tradeoff considering I saw fucking none of it. There was no plot this season. How do I know that? Because nothing actually happened. Some UN legislation was passed and then it failed. Claire became ambassador and then she resigned. Some characters were introduced and then they left. Doug hit rock bottom and then recovered completely. America Works was created and then destroyed. Remy was hired and then quit. Jackie Sharp ran for president and then she stopped. Some writer tried to write a book and then he didn't. Frank is still president. He is still running for president in 2016 as he always going to. Nobody has won the primaries. Nothing happened. The only thing that could be counted as plot is now Claire hates Francis. 13 episodes for Claire hating Francis. 28 years of marriage and now over the span of a couple months Claire has decided she hates her husband. I don't watch this shit for relationship drama. I watch this shit for the same reason I watch GoT - political drama. It's too bad there was almost none this season.
edit: I lied there was one redeemable quality this season: Hollywood Putin. I fucking loved that guy.
Was watching my friend as she began to watch S1 of House fo Cards, and does anybody remember the scene with the old woman yelling at Claire not to run in the graveyard, only for Claire to see a teenage couple making out there?
Been bothering me how I can't figure out what that scene is supposed to mean or symbolize (if anything).
On March 05 2015 11:32 Hyperbola wrote: Huge mega rant incoming. Beware of spoilers. + Show Spoiler +
This season was so shit. I am so disappointed with the ending. Frank driving everyone away was the most hamfisted thing I've seen in a long time. Jackie, Remy, Claire. Explain to me how they have been allies for so long and they all just happen to leave eachother at the last second. Clearly Frank has better people skills if he can stay on the senate for 20 years. All this god damn relationship drama - honestly it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Claire leaving was completely out of character. Frank talking to his wife like that was out of character. So many god damn characters were butchered for "plot progression" which is a horrible tradeoff considering I saw fucking none of it. There was no plot this season. How do I know that? Because nothing actually happened. Some UN legislation was passed and then it failed. Claire became ambassador and then she resigned. Some characters were introduced and then they left. Doug hit rock bottom and then recovered completely. America Works was created and then destroyed. Remy was hired and then quit. Jackie Sharp ran for president and then she stopped. Some writer tried to write a book and then he didn't. Frank is still president. He is still running for president in 2016 as he always going to. Nobody has won the primaries. Nothing happened. The only thing that could be counted as plot is now Claire hates Francis. 13 episodes for Claire hating Francis. 28 years of marriage and now over the span of a couple months Claire has decided she hates her husband. I don't watch this shit for relationship drama. I watch this shit for the same reason I watch GoT - political drama. It's too bad there was almost none this season.
edit: I lied there was one redeemable quality this season: Hollywood Putin. I fucking loved that guy.
It only gets made if it turns out someone has been weaving a giant web next season to isolate Frank in the same way that he did to President Walker. It all went pretty bad for Walker pretty quickly in season 2.
On March 06 2015 07:28 sung_moon wrote: Was watching my friend as she began to watch S1 of House fo Cards, and does anybody remember the scene with the old woman yelling at Claire not to run in the graveyard, only for Claire to see a teenage couple making out there?
Been bothering me how I can't figure out what that scene is supposed to mean or symbolize (if anything).
I thought it was an age thing, that she admires the young couple throwing away social conventions to make out in a cemetery (who DOES that, btw) and can't figure out the old woman telling her it's disrespectful.
I also thought it might parallel the funny hypocrisy that the show lionizes Frank for his affair while Claire's affair is a sign of weakness and a sort of betrayal.
What a joke. Why did they even bother making this season? Everyone would have been happier with "Soon(tm)" and actual quality whenever it was finished. Filler, pointless, character rape. So bad, extremely few redeeming factors.
I hate, hate, hate what they did to Claire this season. Seriously, her writing was so refreshing and different from the way a lot of other females are written on television; she was like this stone-cold sociopath who gave approximately 1 - 2 fucks about anything other than Francis.
The beginning of Season 3 seemed like more of the same, and then she's like: "YO, MR. RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, HOLD UP. I GOT...FEELINGS." After that she just goes downhill, and she turns into the typical wife character. She wasn't the force that she was in Season 1 and 2, now the writers are just using her character to drag the show into more relationship drama. Like, come on.
Fake Putin was a boss. Maybe they should make House of Kremlin instead.
I had to re-watch the last episode, I couldn't remember how it ended. I remembered the overall "story" but not the last couple of scenes, like what happened, who said what and why. It had escaped my mind. It wasn't even that long ago I watched it. That can't be a good sign.
Season was meh. Doug/Rachel storyline was super filler and lackluster, ending in a terribly quick way for what the season was hyping it up to be. Characters are coming in and out, intentions are blurred, and nothing is clear cut, which is good, but they seem so flimsy and prone to manipulation that even Frank looks weak. Idk, not much action or suspense during the season, and + Show Spoiler +
Claire leaving
imho was not the best way to end the season.
I really like the Russian president though. He is great.
Frank using the hypocrisy card vs jackie sharp on the confrontation, was the old and awesome frank we learned to love from the previous seasons
On March 10 2015 00:39 vult wrote: Season was meh. Doug/Rachel storyline was super filler and lackluster, ending in a terribly quick way for what the season was hyping it up to be. Characters are coming in and out, intentions are blurred, and nothing is clear cut, which is good, but they seem so flimsy and prone to manipulation that even Frank looks weak. Idk, not much action or suspense during the season, and + Show Spoiler +
Claire leaving
imho was not the best way to end the season.
I really like the Russian president though. He is great.
Literally the debate bit and anything Petrov were my favorite parts of S3.
Wasn't really feeling Doug's storyline while it was playing out, and I absolutely hated the ending to it. + Show Spoiler +
Poor Rachel. Maybe I get easily sympathetic with the "hard life" stories such as her's.
Lol. I came in here to complain about S3 and the utterly pointless season finale, and see that everybody has already done that. So yeah, I'm on that bandwagon.
Most of this season reminded me of a badly done westwing mixed with relationship drama. Doug's entire storyline was unbelievable and filler. The hacker is completely 1-dimensional and had already served his purpose, why give him so much screentime?
And finally, I agree with the rest of you that every scene with Petrov was awesome.
It's probably been mentioned already but enjoyed that one of the characters in the show could hear Frank when he speaks to the audience. I believe it was a person with a mental illness + Show Spoiler +
(was it the Justice with Alzheimers?)
who asked "Are you speaking to me?" during an aside in Frank's office. I'm not sure if there was a deeper meaning behind it or it was simply a gag, but it made me chuckle.
On topic, I agree with the criticisms of Season 3. Too many dominoes toppled over at once as Frank took his authority to an extreme. Claire has always been unlikable in my opinion and now Frank has alienated the audience as well as everybody else. Here's hoping Season 4 reins it back in.
i found the scene between frank and his russian counterpart too long for nothing, sometimes i just wanted to skip it, even if the quality of the dialogue was good
the relation between frank and his wife throughout the season was handled really badly imo
i know that considering he was at the top the only option left was to going down, but still overall it's meh
however i liked the scene with doug, even if sometimes it was also too much
So watching bad-West-Wing this season had me grumpy, and I decided to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. I started rewatching the old West Wing.
On March 12 2015 02:16 Yoav wrote: So watching bad-West-Wing this season had me grumpy, and I decided to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. I started rewatching the old West Wing.
God is that show great.
That show totally makes me wax nostalgic for the days when politicians could at least pretend to work together. Oh well, those days are gone. Thanks Karl Rove.
The length of plotlines this season seemed awfully short as well. Every episode felt, for lack of a better word, episodic when compared to the longer lines of previous seasons.
Feel really bad for Walker. Though he was weak mentally, I really enjoyed his character.
Fuck the writers for fucking Freddy over. What the fuck was the random Meachem 3some with Frank and Claire? Quite possibly the most unnecessary scene ever.
On March 12 2015 05:55 Emnjay808 wrote: Like everyone else, I also really enjoyed the Petrov scenes.
Only thing that got me, "wtf!" was when he revealed that he and his ambassador manipulated Claire.
I honestly saw that coming. Never trust the Russians. They're always scheming, always looking to take advantage of you. They're all KGB members that are trained to be cunning and ruthless. Petrov and Alexi alike.
I thought season 3 was terrible overall. Petrov was brilliant, but the rest was lackluster. I thought the last episode of season 2 should have ended the show and call it a miniseries. Doug stamper wasn't at Underwoods side which was hugely disappointing. The separation of Frank and Claire is a huge mistake as they were a power couple. Also amworks just died instantly and there wasn't enough scheming to get it in the house. Honestly, everything in season 3 from Frank seemed like a documentary of a real president instead of some one brilliantly ruthless. He didn't manipulate anyone effectively and that disappoint s me.
Everyone has either gone full R or completely forgot what their character was all about. Jackie Sharpe suddenly has a change of heart, drops out of the race and supports Dunbar, after being a cruel pragmatist in S2. (I know Frank fucked her over in the debate, but I felt unsatisfied with how she barely seemed to care afterwards). We have Doug who's super fucking obsessed with a girl he's treated like absolute shit, who obviously doesn't want anything more than to be left alone. So he almost does the right thing, then decides to be an asshole and run her over.
Though I agree that Frank wasn't as clever and shit in this season, half of that was because of how awful Claire was in every single facet of the season. She absolutely blew as an ambassador, as a first lady, as a ruthless pragmatist. Then Frank puts her in the place she deserves to be with his last episode tirade on the hypocrisy of her bullshit dilemmas. It's like Frank couldn't even fathom the dumb ass writing decisions they gave Claire. I never liked her much-- she always seemed fake (both on the campaign trail and in person), where as Kevin Spacey plays a very likable and folksy politician-- even if he's a grade A asshole behind the scenes.
Thank god for Frank vs. Petrov, because by the end of the season even I didn't want AmericaWorks to work. Good job to Remy Danton for getting out of the limelight while the rest of the show devolved into a relationship drama with an unrealistic ending.
Sigh. This season started out decently and just got less and less unique and more like a stock soap opera drama.
Claire becomes a lot more likable if you consider her perspective from a changing America. She grew up in a time of patriarchy so thirty years ago when she was scheming, her only out was a strong man who would do anything. She rides the Frank train for awhile, but the feminist movement is in full swing. She can have a political future and wants to realize her full potential. She will have no legacy because anything her and Frank accomplish will only be attributed to Frank. She definitely bit off more than she could handle this season, but I think people calling her Skylar is just ridiculous. She isn't supposed to be liked, but I think you can feel sorry for her situation a bit more if you think about the climate she grew up in and how America has changed in the past thirty years. She is having a crisis of conscience about what she has accomplished in her life and it is causing her to make different decisions.
I agree that the writing wasn't as good as the previous seasons, but I can live with the direction the show is going. Claire kills Frank and becomes president in season 4 might be an interesting storyline as well.
Claire becomes a lot more likable if you consider her perspective from a changing America. She grew up in a time of patriarchy so thirty years ago when she was scheming, her only out was a strong man who would do anything. She rides the Frank train for awhile, but the feminist movement is in full swing. She can have a political future and wants to realize her full potential. She will have no legacy because anything her and Frank accomplish will only be attributed to Frank. She definitely bit off more than she could handle this season, but I think people calling her Skylar is just ridiculous. She isn't supposed to be liked, but I think you can feel sorry for her situation a bit more if you think about the climate she grew up in and how America has changed in the past thirty years. She is having a crisis of conscience about what she has accomplished in her life and it is causing her to make different decisions.
I agree that the writing wasn't as good as the previous seasons, but I can live with the direction the show is going. Claire kills Frank and becomes president in season 4 might be an interesting storyline as well.
She might have a political future if she were actually good at anything. I mean seriously, the only time she displayed any sort of cleverness was with the watershed bill in S1. They didn't even really show HOW she got that general assembly bill passed in S3; only the "yea Israel we just gave Zimbabwe $50mill more than you haha!!!" which showed no behind the scenes action. Her "shame on you Petrov" speech and her inability to be anything close to a memorable UN ambassador makes me seriously doubt she would have any lasting political role in S4, unless they just say fuck the plot line. Just think about how badly Frank has hit Dunbar for being under qualified-- it's not like Claire has had experience being a solicitor general let alone a politician.
I admit, I have never watched any series. Yesterday I started to watch one, this here. I am quite surprised that so many "cinema persons" are doing series (too). Yes I have heard from friends about gossip girl, game of throws etc but I never watched a single episode.
I have watched the first two episodes from season 1 and I really like this serie. Netflix doesnt offer Game of throws, so I think I have to borrow it from a local shop (0,50€ per day) after I am done with House of Cards.
They are a ruthless and merciless power couple who will happily carry out grossly immoral and illegal things in order to further their own agenda. This does make for some compelling watching, I really enjoyed season 1 and 2 but I have to agree something was missing from this one.
In season 1 Claire was running a charity, she fired all of her staff, hired a women, promising to let her run things. When she didnt obey, Claire then threatened to forcibly abort her unborn child and sterilise her so she could never become pregnant again. This season she seems to have feelings and actually care about other people, she is lady macbeth that has grown a conscience. After hungering after power whatever the cost, she fails when given responsibility and then decides she doesnt want it. Of course there is the question of what happens next, if she doesnt want to be 'in the shadow' of Frank is she going to run for president herself? is that even possible? If Frank is elected president does Claire become his most vocal critic and nemesis? It feels like this whole season was just building up for the next one though I am still interested to see where they take it.
Extra spoilers, the netflix version is different but if you have any intention of watching the original british version or want to avoid hints at where the netflix one might go dont click this. + Show Spoiler +
The main character introduces conscription and has military law in effect at one point. Which is where I thought AM works was going. There is no more unemployment, everyone has been conscripted.. There was that line from Kevin spacey saying the only thing stopping him from murdering Petrov was that it would start a world war. The british version never got that far but imagine if the show went there.
Also events from franks past, some that we never saw that happened before the series started, begin to catch up with him. He spirals out of control and his wife along with the bodyguard she is sleeping with have him assasinated. His wife does not have as central a role as the netflix version but I am really interested to keep watching to see where they take it.
I think the real danger is if they just keep the show going and going without a planned ending, it will just become some relationship soap.
I read a review saying that basically the first 4 episodes of Season 4 are basically an apology letter for how bad Season 3 was, and then from episode 5 the show gets good again. I wasn't planning on watching since Season 3 was so bad but I might give it a shot.
I realized I shouldnt watch a politicial season within few days, I forgot 90% of the story that happened in s3. I watched s3 last month. I only remember very good that s3 isn't good compared to first two seasons.
edit: Not sure about other countries. Amazon will show s4 before netflix in Germany -.-
The ending was stupid though. Not sure how you can justify declaring all out war in the Middle East because some lonewolf crazy kids in Tennessee killed a guy.
The ending was stupid though. Not sure how you can justify declaring all out war in the Middle East because some lonewolf crazy kids in Tennessee killed a guy.
That was probably the most believable part of the series in terms of political maneuvers, + Show Spoiler +
much more plausible than Claire as VP nomination. The action at the end is basically what happened during the Bush years though not saying it is orchestrated.
It is analogous in that an act of terror created conditions where a President could push military action without a formal declaration of war. You could say something similar about the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam and that was pretty much dubious interactions reported from both sides that created the justification for the US going to war without a formal declaration again.
I see what you mean with this one incident being on a much smaller scale and not necessarily warranting such a response were Underwood not such a sociopath.
S4 is alright really, a much worthy season than S3. Overall some flaws here and there, it ended well, and the greatest thing of S4 is that they managed to drive back to the right track after the disastrous S3 lol.
I do miss the power and the sexiness in power in S1 so much, the ending of S4 reminds me of that.
terrorists are fucking stupid. I mean, why would you release the mother and child first so that all leverage is gone? They should have released the father first, then mother, and kept the child as the final card. The plot is so conveniently bullshit. I also hate the PC crap how they felt the need to show the Muslim Iman saying that not all Muslims are like that - that minute in the show served absolutely no purpose other than tokenism.
What I really enjoy is Claire and Francis, how they are both so alike and boost each other up. You get this team feeling which easily makes at least me very happy to watch. And of course that they are very "evil". Claire is a rare rare breed in a tv show, a woman who is not weak, yet not a bitch? And how she gave this war idea to Francis, I just loved it.
What I really enjoy is Claire and Francis, how they are both so alike and boost each other up. You get this team feeling which easily makes at least me very happy to watch. And of course that they are very "evil". Claire is a rare rare breed in a tv show, a woman who is not weak, yet not a bitch? And how she gave this war idea to Francis, I just loved it.
Watch season 3. She is a massive bitch, especially after the Russian homo incident.
Season 4 was much better than season three, so I'm really happy about that. I really like + Show Spoiler +
Tom Hammerschmidt and his investigation culminating at the end with the story being released. Also, the ammonia dream sequence was fucking amazing. I loved that whole couple of episodes.
.
Overall ill rate the season 7/10, with season 1 being a 8/10, 2 being a 9/10, and 3 being a 3/10.
Miles ahead of season 3, but far behind seasons 1 and 2. Episodes 1-6 were incredibly good. The finale was okay. The rest was filler; at times interesting, at times just tedious.
i liked it, i expected them to go the fearmonger route in 1-2 seasons and possibly ending the whole series with underwood slowly dismantling democracy in his last year of presidency
much more plausible than Claire as VP nomination. T
I agree. That was so unrealistic in multiple ways and was the worst part of the season (which overall was very good). It seemed that the writers just wanted a way to get the Underwood partnership back on track.
really nice season! im still thinking what's the ending of the show gonna be. will frank crash and burn? or be the greatest president ever? idk but im hyped!
On March 17 2016 11:57 icystorage wrote: really nice season! im still thinking what's the ending of the show gonna be. will frank crash and burn? or be the greatest president ever? idk but im hyped!
My honest guess is he wins the election and it ends at his inauguration, double tap on the podium with his ring like when he deposed Walker.
After finally finishing the latest season, I gotta say that the show has gotten a lot better since season 3. It's still not as good as the first two seasons because it lacks the same kind of concrete end point of destroying walker and company (which was basically the entire point of the show). Frank does much better when he's trying to win the throne and sabotaging everyone than when he's already in power and trying to stay there.But hey, I guess he couldn't have been the underdog forever. Definitely looking forward to the next season to see how it all ends. I don't believe that the show will go on after his re-election since there is no real goal after that. Don't get impeached? Maybe, but it's still a weak motivation. Putting Claire into the presidency? Still not going to work with Frank being the main character. The worst case scenario will be if they decide to extend the general election story arc into multiple seasons since it would kill the pacing. I guess we'll have to see.
I think the show has been at its best when it involves congress and congressional activities. I think thats what made the first season such fire and caused a lot of the drawling mehness of the middle seasons. Season 5 picking up with that congressional scene gives me hope.
was really happy with this season until the end I think it went off the rails when frank pushed the secretary of state down the stairs. The new male and female staffers tge republican and the woman who is supposed to have foreign contacts were both black holes of time.
The last episode was utter shit. Frank underworld resigning the president was an interesting twist but is dumb as shit and comes off as a senile rant that doesn't make sense at all. Burning the flag pissed me off repeating the Obama raid and following speech about Osama was lame. Claire not pardoning frank at the end I don't even know anymore. Claire doesn't have interesting things happen with her and now the show is about her. I honestly have less respect for the show then after seasons 3. Rip house of cards you could have been something great.
I was really confused about the strongly suggested gay affair of Frank with that history guy/his trainer / Frank Underwood being gay/bisexual. That has to come up in some way in the future/next season, right? Because unless I missed something, it didn't had any effect so far and felt really unnecessary and I highly disliked it. Even if they manage to make it relevant somehow, they really have to convince me it was necessary/worth it. There were already implications for a gay affair between frank and his friend who got lost and him feeling up a dude in the white house with all that was going on just doesn’t fit his character. It is a very sloppy mistake and the scene gave me an annoyed feeling of either scoring scandal points or really obvious writing with the sole purpose of blatantly opening a plot line later on. And if they try to open another plot, to justify all the further scenes with the history guy, they somehow have to make him relevant to all of is and I just don't feel like his character is enough to support that.
I also didn’t really liked the pushing down stair scene. With all the allegations against Frank, her wanting to testify etc. this just seems far too obvious and should have created more of an outcry, and seems way to dodgy for a Underwood-move. I could be wrong though, maybe this is about laying out the groundwork for Frank’s final fall. He painted himself more and more in a corner, stuck in more extreme positions which could justify his reactions becoming more extreme and sloppy until he loses control and gets finally defeated.
One thing that I can't help to feel about season 5 is that it feels like the writers did not have a clear vision of the story beyond the high-level concept. It almost feels like there was no showrunner(s) for this season. But all in all, I liked the season. Great acting and cinematography as always
One thing that surprised me at first was the fact that Francis was leaking information about himself to Tom. But after hearing his reasoning why, it all made sense to me
I remember reading somewhere that the story for S5 was made before the most recent US Presidential election. S6 will certainly be interesting
People might still be going through the whole season we shouldn't expect people to binge the entirety of it. + Show Spoiler +
Frank leaking information to tom is just dumb though. even if he didn't see the opportunity to leak fake information with some that couldn't incriminate him the whole thing is just jumping the shark level of dumb when he resigns because of it. The whole show is cool because frank survives the shitty situation that hes in and keeps living until the next day. As things keep piling up one after another hes still able to keep it going until the whole thing collapses like a
wait for it
house of cards. The whole twist of him resigning goes against the fundamental appeal of the show. If they really want to explore a Hillary presidency they should make a shitty drama on network television so it can get canceled after a season because its shit like it should.
On June 05 2017 03:25 CorsairHero wrote: we still need spoilers for a show that has the entire season released?
I binged season 5 with friends over the last few days, and since the season is new, I would say so. And it is not really a big effort to mark your text and hit that spoiler-button, so yeah.
I stopped watching this in season 3-4 so I don't know how close it stayed to the British version but it's a shame it got cut short. As bad as Spacey is turning out to be I thought he played Underwood well.
On November 04 2017 23:55 sick-strings wrote: Exactly, nobody considers the REAL victims in all of this. The TV audience.
Well whether you agree with it or not, there would be a lot of people that stop watching because they don't want to support a known sex offender. Being violated like that is a traumatic experience, and it's something that's very hard to talk about and stand up against, which only makes the situation worse for the victims.
I enjoyed the show, and his acting in it was exquisite, but I'd have my reservations about it too. I don't think it's very considerate to claim you're the victim here.
Just finished watching the latest season. It was actually a lot better than I had expected it to be. However, there were a bunch of plot twists that seemed weird or forced (like the woman Doug was sleeping with was 'fucking him because she hated him'?) That makes no sense to me.
It's a shame that Spacey won't be in the final season that's coming up. I guess Claire won't pardon Francis after all? They resolved so many plot points this season that it seems like they were almost preparing for cancellation.
Also, here's a teaser if y'all haven't seen it yet.
EPT![[image loading]](http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/510aa1b2ecad04fe12000008-673-960-300-/house-of-cards-poster.jpg)
Keeping it strictly professional.
