Alester Florent Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 As a veteran of the British series, I have found the US version of House of Cards a bit mechanical. I don't mind the apparent inevitability of the conclusion, just the time it takes in getting there. I don't mind either that Frank isn't being given worthy adversaries; in fact what's frustrated me is the near-constant tease that this next adversary might be the one to match him when you already know they won't be. It's false tension and just prolongs the running time. And while I'm sure it's not an accurate or detailed depiction of the US political process I still feel like I'm seeing too much of the nuts-and-bolts stuff. I'm not really interested in the chugging process of the legislature; the interesting stuff is the scheming and backstabbing, and the rest can be implied. It feels like there's a lot of padding. I also feel this way a little about some of the side-plots, including almost everything to do with Claire. In fact her stories so far have tended to have more satisfactory narrative arcs than Frank's, but it also feels like a distraction from the main event. I don't dislike it; it's still fairly compelling viewing, but I don't get much joy out of the experience, as much as anything because the tone is so monotonously bleak and dark throughout with very little light relief. Underwood doesn't have the charm of Urquhart - that feeling of "oh you scamp" as he murders and blackmails his way up the ladder with a cheeky wink and a "who-me?" - and which made the original House of Cards so special - is almost completely absent. That's not a criticism of Spacey, mind, who is superb (as is much of the cast); I just feel the material is falling a bit short of what it's aspiring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durckad Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I liked season one a bit better. I felt is was a bit smaller and meaner, and I liked that. But that's just me. I agree that some of the political maneuverings were too simplistic, but I'd put a lot of what the Underwoods did in that same catagory. I was surprised at how often Frank's Plan A was nothing more than to sweet talk his rabid enemy. I was surprised at how often this worked, and I was surprised at how shocked Frank seemed to be when it didn't. The reporters storyline being just dropped/wrapped up so early also felt strange to me; almost like the writers hit a wall with it and just said fuck it, we'll cut that shit out. Let's hope Hammerschmidt makes a comeback in season three. Rachel's story takes up way too much time and matters way too little, but I really liked their treatment of Stamper; he's believable as an ex-addict whose world is coming apart. And I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure he's dead. His eyes are open in the final shot of him laying in the forest. Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by the lazy plotting. Frank isn't so much a calculating genius as his foes are just supremely inept so his mediocre efforts look so good in comparison. Granted, I think his plotting was a bit better in the first season but man, some of those middle of the season episodes were just toeing the line of boring. Season 2 never had that problem with me, even during the heights of the Posner Plot. I figured Stamper was dead. That's too bad though. Despite being the irredeemable scumbag that he was, he was one of the more interesting characters on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 This show is the best-produced piece of garbage on television (well, Netflix at least). The politics and political machinations are totally asinine, and it really could be quite the entertaining melodrama, except it takes itself so freaking seriously and the main characters continue to be total ciphers two full seasons in. I really feel like the creators think they're undertaking some serious character study here, and just never figured out that they're not producing high drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baelor Swyft Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Loved the heck out of it, definitely better than season one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Visenya Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 This show is the best-produced piece of garbage on television And yet you say that with a Mad Men avatar :rofl:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 And yet you say that with a Mad Men avatar :rofl:. You should watch what you say to people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Visenya Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 You should watch what you say to people. :rofl: Again with the humour, are you here all week?. Mad Men is the most over rated pile of garbage on television, it truly is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 :rofl: Again with the humour, are you here all week?. Mad Men is the most over rated pile of garbage on television, it truly is terrible. That was a Bob Benson quote. I was testing you and you failed. As to Mad Men, we're just going to have to agree to disagree that any disagreement as to the exceptional quality of Mad Men is objectively wrong and you're a poopy head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I agree that it is trashy, but it is also entertaining. I have never seen Scandal but people have told me HoC is similar,it's just that the higherr production values and A-List cast give it more gravitas. Frank Underwood is a cartoon character, completely one-dimesional Eeeeevvviiiiilll, but Spacey clearly has a lot of fun chewing the scenery. The plot twist are faily silly, I sometimes feel like I am watching 24 without all the action, watching the flip side to what Bauer was up to , all the over the top machinations of the politicians. They do have to make everyone really stupid to have their strings pulled by Frank though, the only way Garret could be more of an idiot, would be if he were in a vegetative state (Coma President, coming soon to NBC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I agree that it is trashy, but it is also entertaining. I have never seen Scandal but people have told me HoC is similar,it's just that the higherr production values and A-List cast give it more gravitas. Frank Underwood is a cartoon character, completely one-dimesional Eeeeevvviiiiilll, but Spacey clearly has a lot of fun chewing the scenery. The plot twist are faily silly, I sometimes feel like I am watching 24 without all the action, watching the flip side to what Bauer was up to , all the over the top machinations of the politicians. They do have to make everyone really stupid to have their strings pulled by Frank though, the only way Garret could be more of an idiot, would be if he were in a vegetative state (Coma President, coming soon to NBC). Well, that and Scandal is completely ridiculous with zero grounding in any kind of reality. Fun, pulp stuff mostly but holy shit is it stupid. Significantly worse than House of Cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martini Sigil Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Episode 1 of season 2 jumped the shark a little bit for me... if you've seen it, you know what I'm refferring to... But it's recovered nicely... seeing Alma Garrett & George Hurst in the cast is kind of a hoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Episode 1 of season 2 jumped the shark a little bit for me... if you've seen it, you know what I'm refferring to... This was something I think the US series cocked up a bit. It's obviously a turning-point in the show and for Frank's character development. While it's not the first time he's killed someone, it's a murder of radically different character to the earlier one, where effectively he just gave his victim's pre-existing self-destructive urges a nudge. This was brutal and cold-blooded. But the way it was played it didn't have quite the right effect. In the original (show; the book had a different, eventually retconned ending), the killing takes place at the end of the first series, rather than at the start of the second. This immediately changes the character of it; originally it was the moment Francis turned before our eyes from the jovial rogue who we're kind of rooting for (even his killing of his underling earlier had been presented fairly light-heartedly) into an outright villain; moreover, the placing meant that it was the last thing we saw with the future uncertain. It was chilling. By contrast, in the US version it looks like a bit of a stunt, something done for shock value to get people talking on release of the new series, and the plot moves on apace leaving it in its wake. It's just another instance on the sliding scale of Frank's descent into monstrosity rather than a volte-face in tone, and can even give the impression that the writers are running out of ideas (which I've seen people claim; an unfair criticism since it's a key moment in the source material, but suggests it's been badly played). Moreover the relationship between Francis and Matty was always closer than that between Frank and Zoe, making the killing of Matty more personal and cold-blooded, a moral point of no return, and was opportunistic, whereas Frank's relationship with Zoe had largely disintegrated before the (otherwise unremarkable) meeting, and looked premeditated, like tying up a loose end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 7 episodes into season two. It's great to binge watch this show.It's not deeply interesting, but I do really enjoy watching it. I disagreew with those who say Underwood hardly has any opposition, he's had more setbacks this season than I recall from last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Some hilarious life-imitating-art right in art's face going on here. Members of the Maryland House of Delegates are still stewing over a threat from the “House of Cards” producers to leave the state if they don’t get millions more dollars in tax credits. So on Thursday afternoon, delegates issued a threat of their own: Sure, go ahead, leave this beautiful place that’s brimming with dedicated workers. But if you do that, state officials might use eminent domain to purchase, condemn or somehow seize your sets, equipment and other property. The threat was proposed by Del. C. William “Bill” Frick (D-Montgomery) and was quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote. “I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this?” said Frick, referring to the the show’s lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. “Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 I haven't seen the third miniseries yet ("The Final Cut"), but To Play the King was a huge letdown. Really contrived storymaking. The first miniseries is good, but I find the American far superior. You can really tell how much more attention they put on direction and cinematography on television productions after 2000. It's baffling how cheap-looking most TV shows from before that year look when you see them now (that does for productions from any country, including the US). Golden Age of Television indeed. To be fair, I don't think I've ever seen a UK show match the production values of the cream of the crop of American shows. But you're right that there's a huge gap just in style and execution between 1990 and 2014. The Underwoods are pure evil, but I don't think the HoC admirers in the DC ruling class see them that way. To them it is a confirmation and reflection of how their world works. They are all powerful doing needful things in a world they own, no matter what it takes. It is a confirmation of their power and abilities. They do not consider it evil just real, maybe to be admired. That seems like a stretch. :rofl: Again with the humour, are you here all week?. Mad Men is the most over rated pile of garbage on television, it truly is terrible. To quote a character in the otherwise mediocre movie "This is 40" about Mad Men: "It's just people sitting in a room, smoking! It's stupid!" I just finished season two tonight. I think my only real complaint is that the pacing got a bit slow in the last couple episodes. I don't think the complaints about "realism" really make sense - I have never seen a scripted television show that accurately portrays anything completely or successfully, but HoC provides an atmosphere and style that feels real. So maybe that's it. To take another example, no one working in a hospital would ever identify with anything that happens on Grey's Anatomy, but Scrubs is another matter entirely. I feel like Stamper's death will leave a big hole in Frank's, ahem, administration. Despite his distractions, there's never any real doubt about his loyalties. And there's something off about Seth Grayson, but I just can't quite figure out what it is. Overall this show is more about watching Spacey and Wright perform in a modern Macbeth, though who will end up as Banquo's ghost is anyone's guess. At this point, Underwood has nowhere to go but down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted March 30, 2014 Share Posted March 30, 2014 So I'm watching the British version of the series, which consists of three miniseries with four episodes each. The American version of the show is clearly adapted from the first miniseries ("House of Cards") in the main plot elements, but when we reach the second miniseries ("To Play the King"), the plot deviates completely from its American counterpart. A few elements remain, like Frank's relationship with his main assistant deteriorating, but otherwise the American version has gone on a completely separate track. I haven't seen the third miniseries yet ("The Final Cut"), but To Play the King was a huge letdown. Really contrived storymaking. The first miniseries is good, but I find the American far superior. You can really tell how much more attention they put on direction and cinematography on television productions after 2000. It's baffling how cheap-looking most TV shows from before that year look when you see them now (that does for productions from any country, including the US). Golden Age of Television indeed. "To Play the King" was never going to translate particularly well, of course, since the corresponding structures don't really exist in the US, so I'm not too surprised that they didn't bother. I guess there are slight shades of that with taking on the head of state and an unelected rival, just not the same person, but even so. In fact I thought To Play the King was one of the stronger parts of the original series: the story was tighter and the characters better-defined than in House of Cards and less preposterous than The Final Cut. I think it's easy to forget now, but To Play the King would have looked very credible at the time. A popular, liberal-minded, youngish monarch (clearly Prince Charles, who prior to Diana's death was rather more popular than seems likely now); a weak, discredited and divided political opposition (the Labour party, on the receiving end of four consecutive electoral defeats, and at that point in transition between the Kinnock and Smith eras, while the Lib Dems were still in their infancy and had only twenty seats at Westminster) and an out of touch Conservative government enacting reactionary and populist hearth-and-home measures in the face of widening inequality and economic turbulence. Far from being far-fetched, it wouldn't have taken much in the way of imagination in 1993 to envisage events playing out roughly as they did. My main problem with it was the way the scandals from the first series were covered up at the end, but then To Play the King is the middle act of a three-act piece, showing Urquhart at the peak of his powers, before decline in The Final Cut, so narratively it made a degree of sense too. But where House of Cards turned out to be little short of prophetic (which I think is why it enjoys such a lofty reputation) real life events rather inconsiderately didn't intervene and so To Play the King took things off in a different direction to reality. I still think it's very strong, though. The Final Cut isn't as good, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 a fun short video, EconPop discusses House of Cards and how it illustrates public choice theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerol Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 We've got two episodes left to go in season two but man, this season it really is a soap with A-list stars and direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellus Explorer Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 I've been blown seen the very beginning..... I don't know what to expect anymore!! Oh, and peeping Doug's aren't cool -_- (I thought he was a decent, weird.... But decent guy until that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghjhero Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-vetoes-house-cards-un-184806251.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.