|
Pinky Artichoke posted:To be fair, you couldn't make a character like Frank a Republican without serious outcry on the part of the manufactured-outrage-based entertainment segment of the media. Instead we're in an alternate reality where apparently pre-Reagan Southern Democrats are still a thing. Besides, a non-ideological centrist Republican becoming as powerful as Frank would strain my suspension of disbelief more than accepting that the 2010 wave didn't happen. Lycus fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Mar 2, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:House of Cards is like if Walter White went through his "I'm the one who knocks" speech every time he was on screen. Characters like McNulty, Tony Sorpano, and Don Draper function based on a relationship and trust built with the audience that is then tested or sometimes severed. While I enjoy the series, there are moments like Russo's death that are supposed to be a big deal or character moment, but my reaction is, "Yeah, Frank's a turd. This makes sense." He stands up in front of a church and tells a grieving family that he's God and they're dumb children just looking for someone to blame in like the third episode. There was never really a slow decline or a building up of sympathy. My brother watched the first episode and described the show as "the main character is Walt but without any of his positive attributes, and everyone else is just regular Walt" and I think that's a pretty good summary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:To be fair, you couldn't make a character like Frank a Republican without serious outcry on the part of the manufactured-outrage-based entertainment segment of the media. Instead we're in an alternate reality where apparently pre-Reagan Southern Democrats are still a thing. They're called "boll weevils" and as someone with family in Tennessee, trust me, they are still very much a thing. poo poo, Frank is very reminiscent of the Governor that Tennessee had for 8 years (Phil Bredesen).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Besides, a non-ideological centrist Republican becoming as powerful as Frank would strain my suspension of disbelief more than accepting that the 2010 wave didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Maybe 2000-2008 was a Gore presidency in HoC. We just don't know and the show won't be discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Maybe in the House of Cards-verse a third party candidate won in 08, or a Republican who was pushing for social issue reform like "free weed for everyone".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:To be fair, for the alternate reality of House of Cards to work then their world would have to deviate pretty heavily from ours in just the fact that Walker is elected in the 2012 election. That means there was a Republican in office between 08-12 which is incredibly hard to believe since as much as the "Do you miss me yet?" crowd likes to rear their head about Bush, 08 was a lock for the Dems. Does the show say that Walker took the White House back from the Republicans? If not, it's possible a Dem was elected in '08 who chose not to run for re-election or (less likely) lost their party's nomination to Walker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they've said absolutely nothing about the 2009-2013 presidency, so it's all guesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Caufman posted:Does the show say that Walker took the White House back from the Republicans? If not, it's possible a Dem was elected in '08 who chose not to run for re-election or (less likely) lost their party's nomination to Walker. But yes, it's not really worth thinking about which is what I originally meant. You can't question stuff like the 2010 wave not happening because there is probablyno Obama and whatever happened, happened differently than our world. And still, that's kind of weird since that means an historical moment of electing our first Black president didn't happen. It's as weird as assuming Gore won because that means Iraq didn't happen. Ultimately while I'm sure that nobody on the show really overthinks this and we as the audience should not overthink this, it is kind of weird once you start thinking about it. But what's funny is that if Walker and Underwood were Republicans then it wouldn't be that weird since you could just assume that Walker beat Obama. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
The question is, what kind of a horrible President could a limp dick like Walker actually beat? Thus, I propose to you that in this world, Palin won in '08.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Yeah my biggest problem with the show is that Walker is such an empty suit that I can't believe him winning anything, billionaire money or no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Just finished season 2. Really enjoyed the binge but not as much as season 1. Felt like things were happening just so things were happening, and the majority of the people who got screwed didn't really deserve it. Not much of a build up/pay off is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
fullroundaction posted:Just finished season 2. Really enjoyed the binge but not as much as season 1. Felt like things were happening just so things were happening, and the majority of the people who got screwed didn't really deserve it. Not much of a build up/pay off is what I'm saying. ...Did most of the people who got screwed in season 1 deserve?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Yeah my biggest problem with the show is that Walker is such an empty suit that I can't believe him winning anything, billionaire money or no. Do you remember how close the real election in 2012 was? Because that involved at least 1 empty suit and either was very close to winning or losing. I am curious to see where Doug's death goes. I don't really understand why Doug got so much time other than his job. They tried to develop his character but I think they forgot to tell us what is motivations were. Everyone else on the show we got at least a glimpse into why they are doing what they do. Doug has always just been a loyal dog with no depth. There is one scene where they discuss chances and it alludes to the past and nothing else. I got tired of his presence because he was always such a robot with a daughter fetish. I don't know how closely this series is following its predecessor but I don't see Frank going down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Oh man, if you only knew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Do you remember how close the real election in 2012 was? Because that involved at least 1 empty suit and either was very close to winning or losing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Well, I was inspired to write a great big line about the original House of Cards and how it compared to Season 1's beginning and now I daresay I shall do the same having finally marathoned through Seasons 1 and 2 of House of Cards. Maybe future historians shall take note of my nameless observations and be thus impressed. --- House of Cards being a drawn out show with many episodes per season seemed a strange direction to take considering how quite literally they were adapting the original British miniseries. Down to emulating scenes line-for-line, there was and is a great degree of authenticity and reverence for the original show, so much so that I was surprised that it did not end with the death of Zoe Barnes as the original did with the same character. Granted, her romance with the Underwood comparison is a very different monster in the original, and more poetic and perverse than the American's run with it, although Underhill is a vastly more sexual character than his British predecessor. I wasn't really sure how they were going to fill in Season 2--with the pacing of the original finally met in the seminal first episode and Zoe getting splattered, the show was sort of verging into a virgin territory while also being perpetually stuck in a wheel. It's obvious that Underhill will become President to anyone who has seen the original, because that's what happens. He rises and then, eventually, he falls. And there's just a bloody road of misery going every which way inbetween. So the focus on the supporting cast this season, which was a fantastic menagerie in the first and only grows more impressive and less stable in this season. Proving its lust for utter despair is still unsated, Zoe's poor reporter friends get dispatched with vile gusto, Claire continues to invoke the icy heart of Satan himself in every single scene, somehow continuing her almost mindless trend of being The Most Needlessly Evil Person in the Room.. Claire's character almost steals the middle chunk of this season, being a larger focal point than Frank's, although it's much more fun to see them working together, a pair of rancid spiders playing footsie while weaving webs and tangling up everyone in between. The extra time to flesh out Claire feels all the more wasted when her every day presence continues to produce nothing but abject misery to everyone whom she meets. Her capacity for destroying everyone she meets is all the more baffling when it seems she does such things for no real purpose or gain. She's played up as this tyrannical, goal-driven woman, but her goals are all petty vengeance at best, and her charity is all but a backseat...venture...to everything that Frank is doing. She ooesn't have any real goals, so if they do intend a Season 3, I hope she takes to actually doing something of interest while she is Queen. Kevin Spacey is a brilliant choice for Underhill, and America makes for a far more fitting setpiece to a story of this level of corruption and sleaze. The cruelty and pettiness of the British version seemed fitting enough for any political theater, but to set this show in America, with all the largesse of D.C. set in the backdrop, really creates a dripping world of muck and sleaze that enhances all of the venom brewed by the poisonous couple at the story's core. The show is good, perhaps even better than the original, although I still feel that drawing it out took a bit of the bite from the narrative. Much of the show ends up becoming "business as usual" political faire--lots of talkings, meetings and stuff like that. Lots of Frank scowling at people in his office--yes, he's slowly eating his way into the heart of Washington, and I rather enjoy getting to see the minutae of his meteoric rise, but it takes the horror aspect from it. The end of the UK House of Cards plays out with the grand flourish of a Victorian horror--the curtain is peeled back, the monster is revealed, briefly, takes his dark triumph, and leaves the audience breathless, frightened, and above all--dreadful. The dread for what was to come, the rule of the spider king, that was the ultimate horror at the end of House of Cards, and by pushing Zoe's murder into Season 2, they really eliminate that last bite to Frank's power-grab. Now that he's become President and nobody died, it feels like a slightly lesser version of his original triumph, although the final, mocking shot of Spacey's smirking face and his dramatic tap of his new ring of power was eminently satisfting, moreso than the rolling shot of two middle-aged adults jogging in a park. Doug Stamper steals the show for a few episodes, although he seems to have only the beginnings of a character arc before he's ultimately dealt aside. His obsession with Rachel doesn't really come from anything and only leads to his death, a fine set-up for Francis to be surrounded by people he cannot trust--the worst situation for a king to be in. Remy's character also gets the appearance of a character arc, and his romance with the new whip is an interesting development that also seems to end much sooner than it needs to. Jacqueline Sharp is a fun character and it's interesting to see her go toe-to-toe with Frank. I like her spunk and I hope she is one of the larger threats to his regime he must face in teh coming season, although in true show fashion, she may end up being axed within the second episode. Nobody else seems to survive long enough to really warrant much analysis. The show's obsession with ensuring misery for everyone who encounters its main characters continues, and this whole season seemed to exist largely to destroy every single survivor of the previous season, Underwoods excluded. This complete, the third season--which i suspect would be the final one--will be Frank's Presidency ultimatly crashing in flames around him, although they may try to drag this out and actually make him campaign. Spacey could do a campaign, something I don't think the sinister-eyed UK actor could ever be expected to do. Spacey's portrayal of Underhill as this sexually charged, sinister Asmodeus-like figure is an inspired and natural evolution of the sexual overtones laid out in Season 1, although it does make the show live in the awkward situation where Kevin Spacey is perhaps its biggest sexpot. Fantastic show, nevertheless. Netflix came out swinging and does not disappoint with the follow-up. If they keep these runs limited and know when to end the show right and how, this version of House of Cards may yet be heralded as the premiere of them all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
So uh...I read up on Lyndon B Johnson... Why didn't anyone tell me that Frank Underwood basically existed in real life  And First Lady Claire is going to be terrifying. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:So uh...I read up on Lyndon B Johnson... If FU literally waved his dong at people, there would be too many complaints about it being unrealistic. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I just watched the first couple of episodes of S1 with my folks and there is no way it made any sense to have Russo go talk to the druggy college classmate of Kern instead of having Stamper or some other errand boy do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I just watched the first couple of episodes of S1 with my folks and there is no way it made any sense to have Russo go talk to the druggy college classmate of Kern instead of having Stamper or some other errand boy do it. Wasn't it just insulation? Russo was not really affiliated with Underwood, so he could go do things that would otherwise risk his reputation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Yeah but was it necessary to send a U.S. Congressman to talk to some stoner? Instead of say tipping Zoe off about the guy and letting her dig around and get a workable story out of it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
I just saw it as a way for Frank to start using his power over him after the DUI/hooker bust. All part of the long term plan or whatever
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:4% ain't close. Yes, it is  a majority of presidential elections had a larger margin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Yes, it is The recent average (edit:mean) is around 5.5% since Reagan left in the 80s. Drifter fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Wasn't it just insulation? Russo was not really affiliated with Underwood, so he could go do things that would otherwise risk his reputation. I feel a part of Frank's MO is to chaotically force people into destabilizing positions because he's better at exploiting that chaos. He'll involve himself deeply in the chaos because he's going to drown his adversaries in the consequences. Sure it makes no sense to send Russo out there. But half (all?) the time the people around Frank are telling him his ideas make no sense. They're right. He's just devilishly good at using that to his advantage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
collin the weak posted:I feel a part of Frank's MO is to chaotically force people into destabilizing positions because he's better at exploiting that chaos. He'll involve himself deeply in the chaos because he's going to drown his adversaries in the consequences. It's the problem with Underhill that doesn't come up with the British counterpart. In the UK version , Urquhart has clear politics and policies he wants to pursue--with Frank, all we've seen for two seasons is him working solely for the purposes of vengeance, with huge consequences for everyone but him. It's quite unclear as to how he'll actually put his power into effect now that he has office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
It's "Underwood", not "Underhill".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Fiished season 2. Pfft... Eh, I dunno. Zoe's death aside I found it rather disappointing and quite frankly it was almost always incredibly boring, with the occasional interesting moment. Mainly it's hugely uninteresting how prescient and omnipresent Frank Underwood is, able to predict to a ridiculous degree exactly how situations will pan out, somehow knowing how to do some incredibly shady/downright illegal poo poo without getting caught and knowing to the letter what anyone's reaction will be to any situation. This is pure Mary Sue territory and the only thing that makes Underwood compelling is Spacey's performance, as a character he's very flat. I'm a fan of the original British trilogy, and while I am aware that a lot of these criticisms can be levelled at Frances Urquhart, the difference is that the tone of the story made it very clear that this man is pure, straight-up evil and what he's doing is utterly horrifying, rather than the US version which seems to revel in how badass Underwood is. Plus, in the second and particularly third series, it was made clear that Urquhart is simply not up to the job once he actually gets it, and is ridiculously in over his head once he gets the ultimate power. Maybe the makers of the US version have something similar in mind (and certainly seem to be hinting at it in the final episodes, which make it clear that Underwood's skill is in whipping votes), but considering that Underwood simply became even more all-knowing once he became Vice President, I kind of doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
precision posted:It's "Underwood", not "Underhill". I will never not perpetually make this mistake. Adrianics posted:Fiished season 2. Is Urquhart supposed to be seen as incompetent? I'm finally watching through Series 2 and 3 of the UK version and he seems chillingly effective and, well, basically just a hardcore conservative. He's just a few steps short of a fascist and a tyrant. I don't really understand a lot of the British subtleties of the show, but Urquhart basically wins...two decades worth of power? It's unclear, but he's PM for a long time, and in the process manages to force the abdication of the King of England, commit multiple (and increasingly flashy) murders and get away with it. He's certainly horrifying. The British series is significantly more depressing than the U.S. version, even if Spacey's Underwood may actually be much more dangerous than Urquhart is in the power position and the time period he exists in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I don't really understand a lot of the British subtleties of the show, but Urquhart basically wins...two decades worth of power? It's unclear, but he's PM for a long time, and in the process manages to force the abdication of the King of England, commit multiple (and increasingly flashy) murders and get away with it. He's certainly horrifying. The British series is significantly more depressing than the U.S. version, even if Spacey's Underwood may actually be much more dangerous than Urquhart is in the power position and the time period he exists in. Over the 3 series Urqhart's Conservative Party maintains a majority of seats in the House of Commons. In our parliamentary system the Prime Minister (Head of Government) is chosen by simple majority vote of MPs. In the 3rd series he starts losing the confidence of his party who want to replace him with someone new, and so he puppetmasters things to secure his legacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
If any of you missed the Oscars you should at least check out Kevin Spaceys speech - there's a little ode to Underwood at the start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Is Urquhart supposed to be seen as incompetent? I'm finally watching through Series 2 and 3 of the UK version and he seems chillingly effective and, well, basically just a hardcore conservative. He's just a few steps short of a fascist and a tyrant. I don't really understand a lot of the British subtleties of the show, but Urquhart basically wins...two decades worth of power? One day longer than Margaret Thatcher would put him at about 11 and a half years (which would technically mean that The Final Cut occurs in about 2002, which requires a little mental gymnastics but isn't that unreasonable). As to his competency as prime minster, he wins at least two general elections while he's in power (he says to the King "I had been thinking of going to the country again, which implies he's done that before) and basically bends the entire party to his will, just like Thatcher did; and the legislation he was passing certainly would reshape the country, for
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:I have a question: Why the gently caress is Netflix's tagline still "Evil. For a greater good." It's pretty clear Frank gives absolutely zero shits about the greater good, and is only interested in - as he says - ruthless pragmatism. I don't think this show lasts past the 3rd season. Not because it isn't good, but because the story would get watered down. The seasons are broken down pretty easily: Season 1 is first implementing his plan and achieving the Vice Presidency. Season 2 is getting the President to resign/get impeached (I don't really think he had a preference either way). Season 3 will be him trying to hold on to the Presidency while everything crumbles around him. I think losing Doug will be a blow he can't overcome. Doug was incredibly loyal and a fantastic fixer. Frank trusted him with everything, and had supreme confidence in him. Now the closest he's got is Meechum, but Meechum doesn't have the skillset that Doug did. Doug would have been able to keep a lid on things. But now Rachel is out there doing god knows what, and all it takes is one person to dig enough and it'll blow up bigger than Watergate. Ultimately, I see a Watergate parallel. A president was brought down by two intrepid journalists following up on a hotel break-in and being diligent. All it takes is someone to investigate the Russo arrest and then everything starts to unravel. Without someone as competent and trustworthy as Doug by his side, it's going to be incredibly hard for Frank to keep a lid on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:I think losing Doug will be a blow he can't overcome. Doug was incredibly loyal and a fantastic fixer. Frank trusted him with everything, and had supreme confidence in him. Now the closest he's got is Meechum, but Meechum doesn't have the skillset that Doug did. Doug would have been able to keep a lid on things. But now Rachel is out there doing god knows what, and all it takes is one person to dig enough and it'll blow up bigger than Watergate. I agree. I just don't get the people who are like "he doesn't NEED Doug anymore, see? He's the PRESIDENT!" A lot of stuff Frank has done has been between borderline to downright illegal. Just because you have immense power and resources doesn't mean you aren't surrounded by people who might put an end to you by exposing or blackmailing you at the first hint of your asking them to do something improper, or them seeing you do it, as if they can't understand what the immense value of a totally loyal fixer on your team would be. I also agree that the show is set up for 3 seasons. It's already a little padded at its current pace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I agree. I just don't get the people who are like "he doesn't NEED Doug anymore, see? He's the PRESIDENT!" A lot of stuff Frank has done has been between borderline to downright illegal. Just because you have immense power and resources doesn't mean you aren't surrounded by people who might put an end to you by exposing or blackmailing you at the first hint of your asking them to do something improper, or them seeing you do it, as if they can't understand what the immense value of a totally loyal fixer on your team would be. Exactly. We don't see Frank worried at the end of the season 2 finale because he has no reason to think Doug is dead. Once he finds out, he's going to poo poo bricks and scramble to cover his tracks, but without someone like Doug out there in the field getting his hands dirty, he's going to be seriously limited as to what he can contain. Season 3 is where everything goes to hell. Maybe Janine changes her mind or Lucas gets sprung somehow, or the other journalist dude who investigated and wrote the article for Lucas while he was in prison (I forget his name) gets tipped off and then takes Frank down. Realistically, all you would need to do is leak one piece of damning evidence of a cover up to the national media, and then you can't contain it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Started watching this show a few days ago and just finished the season 2 finale. Good god, how do you end a season like that?!  Begin and end, really. I mean the season premiere had a giant loving shocker in it and there was one in the finale too. I have to wait a year to find out what happens next?! e: I just remembered one of my favorite moments from the last couple episodes. When Frank is talking to Tusk at the opera and Tusk says to him (paraphrasing) "When they put you in that box only slightly bigger than a coffin, at least you can remember how beautiful the music was tonight. You can take some solace in that." and Frank responds "Pagliacci's not my sort of thing. I prefer something more uplifting." and starts humming Hail to the Chief as he walks away from the conversation 
Rageaholic fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:Now the closest he's got is Meechum, but Meechum doesn't have the skillset that Doug did. I feel like Seth is the closest thing to Doug now, though. Meechum is just his guard detail. Practically, he can't go off to fix things; he's under a command structure and needs to be adjacent to the Underwoods at all times. Seth already handled fixer poo poo, like stealing Claire's OBGYN's records, so it seems like he'd be next in line to do more of it. The problem is, he's already proven he's an opportunist and turncoat. He was hired to implicate the Underwoods and decided to turn on his employers, so there's no reason to believe he wouldn't do the same thing again if a better option comes along. Which could be an interesting facet to season 3: Frank needs someone to get their hands dirty, but he can't trust anyone as much as he trusted Doug, and probably for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Are we supposed to believe that Frank killed Zoe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
WYA posted:Are we supposed to believe that Frank killed Zoe? We actually saw Frank kill Zoe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 03:05
|
|