40 réponses à ce sujet

[leighzard]

Time to speculate on America's greatest power couple (no, not Jay-Z and Beyoncé). 

The Underwoods are coming back on Friday.

 

Will we get the answers we want to burning questions like...

What's on the presidential agenda?

Can Jackie be controlled?

Who will be the next vice president?

How long will it take to find Doug?

And exactly what is going down with Meecham?

 

Here's the place to discuss everyone's favorite magnificent bastard.

 

And, you know, once the show is released probably use spoiler tags for people who have self control and didn't binge watch the whole season in under 24 hours.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

[mousestalker]

I'm just looking forward to marathoning it. That being said, I'm hoping Frank will be knocked on his heels. Kevin Spacey is at his best when Frank is coping with adversity. He does the best 'man under pressure' there is.

Investment tip: Buy stock in popcorn companies just before all the episodes are available.


Edited to add: And I'm all out of likes, again. Sheesh!

[leighzard]

^Seconded.  He can handle a crisis like nobody's business.

Good new for us, I very much doubt that the presidency is going to be all smooth sailing.

 

Wish I'd thought of that popcorn thing earlier.

 

It will surprise no one to learn that I'm looking forward to more Claire.  She drove a lot of the story int he 2nd season. She's so good I don't even know what her plan is until she's already done it sometimes.  In the words of Frank, "I love that woman more than sharks love blood."

[Chewin]

My body is ready.

Been waiting a year for this. I as well am curious over what developments will take place, considering the position we find ourselves in. And gonna echo on Claire being a primary interest for me with this season. If there is favorite OTP in a show, then it is House of Cards.

[Lunch Box1912]

Anyone watch the 90's BBC House of cards?? I'm into season two, it's fun to watch the differences between the two. Netflix released season three of the reboot accidentally for like an hour about a week ago, a few people got to sneak in and watch the first episode. Did anyone here catch a peek?

[mousestalker]

Here's a bit of an appetizer:

[Johnnie Walker]

I watched the 90's House of Cards too, it was good but I'm liking Netflix's HoC a lot. Frank Underwood does not give a fcuk, he is ice cold and do whatever he can to rise to the top of the power list.

 

If someone doesn't like House of Cards then something is severely wrong with them tbh mang.

[Jock Cranley]

I watched the 90's House of Cards too, it was good but I'm liking Netflix's HoC a lot. Frank Underwood does not give a fcuk, he is ice cold and do whatever he can to rise to the top of the power list.

 

If someone doesn't like House of Cards then something is severely wrong with them tbh mang.

I've never watched it

[leighzard]

I've never watched it

Good news: you still have 4 days to marathon the first two seasons!

[leighzard]

Here's a bit of an appetizer:

*snip*

HA!  Frank Underwolf!

"Some people say there's too much pork in this town.  I could not agree more."

Man, that muppet does a mean Kevin Spacey.

 

 

And I also caught the BBC House of Cards.  My dad made me watch it when I was in about 5th grade.  My dad made me watch a lot of things that were over my head.  I remembered the basic idea of the show (and held off on the Netflix version for a while because I knew the broad plot), but very few details.  I should probably rewatch it.

[Johnnie Walker]

I've never watched it

 

Kill yourself. |:

[Jock Cranley]

Kill yourself. |:

 

No.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I like this show a lot.

[Seraphim24]

I checked this out based on this Claire Underwood character...

 

.. I don't want to kill enthusiasm or something but one thing that I'm noticing is that they're all very ruthless and pragmatic and whatever but the goal is the same, obtain higher and higher office or higher and higher power.

 

I feel like crazy people are kind of interesting are sort of ruthless, but also they're not really necessarily on the single track mind. I don't know.. I guess it just seems a bit less diverse than something like Game of Thrones which also deals with ruthless power hungry people but also whose goals in many aspects conflict and overlap with each other.

[Sifr]

Anyone watch the 90's BBC House of cards?? I'm into season two, it's fun to watch the differences between the two. Netflix released season three of the reboot accidentally for like an hour about a week ago, a few people got to sneak in and watch the first episode. Did anyone here catch a peek?

 

I'm a huge fan of the Beeb series and how awesome Ian Richardson was in the role of Urquhart. It's one of the few times I'm glad they changed the ending of the novel, it was far more in-character for him to throw Mattie off the roof after she confronted him over his schemes, rather than have him commit suicide by jumping off the roof himself?

 

The only criticism about the Beeb series I have is why didn't the actress who played Mattie become more famous, she was probably one of the best things about the first series?

 

Definitely need to check out the remake.

[leighzard]

I checked this out based on this Claire Underwood character...

 

.. I don't want to kill enthusiasm or something but one thing that I'm noticing is that they're all very ruthless and pragmatic and whatever but the goal is the same, obtain higher and higher office or higher and higher power.

 

I feel like crazy people are kind of interesting are sort of ruthless, but also they're not really necessarily on the single track mind. I don't know.. I guess it just seems a bit less diverse than something like Game of Thrones which also deals with ruthless power hungry people but also whose goals in many aspects conflict and overlap with each other.

I agree that 16 crazy, ruthless people might be more fun than just 2.   And I love GoT, too.  It was a tough choice between Cersei and Claire for avi.  But what I love about the Underwoods is that they aren't crazy.  They're completely sane.  There's a certain amount of madness underlying most of the GoT characters (Cersei in particular, and I know he's boss, but Stannis is a little off his rocker with his R'hollr business), which makes their actions less predictable.  It also makes them very much susceptible to death.  Claire and Frank are playing the long game.  Even if you don't know why they did something (aforementioned Meecham situation), you can bet they've got a good reason, which will eventually be made clear to you.  Also, even though you know they're not really good people, you want the Underwoods to succeed.  They make you want them to against your better judgment.

Spoiler

Let's be honest, no one was upset to see Joffrey go.

 

I think this season has a lot of promise because Frank has the office now. What will he do with the power he was working toward?  Will his actions be constrained by his new role?  I'm sure there will be a good numbers of challenges to his power this season.  When these situations arise you see Frank and Claire at their best, and you get to see how their relationship works, which is one of my favorite aspects of the show.  It's also going to give some other characters the opportunity to become stronger characters with their own agendas.  I think Jackie is not content being a pawn.  She's may end up being a thorn in Frank's side, which might be her undoing, or maybe she'll find a way to achieve her goals within the Underwood system.  Anyway, I think it will allow for more of the complex overlapping objectives which you're looking for.

[FraQ]

I binge watched 1.5 seasons of House of Cards last summer but I never finished it. I have a feeling I will finish Season 2 and start Season 3 later this year.

 

For now I'm too occupied with Archer, Justified, The Walking Dead, Vikings, and soon Game of Thrones will be starting!

[FlyingSquirrel]

I actually prefer the BBC House of Cards. I think it's a little more realistic (at least up to a point), and it actually has something to say about the politics other than just "what a bunch of corrupt selfish bastards."

 

 

 

 

[major spoilers ahead for the BBC version]

 

 

 

 

Urquhart coming to power in the way he does is at least understandable in the context of early '90s Conservative Party politics. Since all you needed was a majority of Conservative members of parliament, a skilled backroom operator could conceivably pull off what he does in the first series. Underwood is in an equivalent position as House Majority Whip, but that position doesn't carry the same weight in the U.S. system, and his one exposure to the national media was a disastrous interview on CNN where he got turned into an internet meme. For him to be picked as Vice President would be like if Joe Biden resigned and Obama chose Steny Hoyer or Jim Clyburn to replace him.

 

Also, the second series actually gave Urquhart a worthy opponent in the left-leaning British monarch. Urquhart, for all his corruption and nastiness, does have a distinctly right-wing philosophy of governance, and part of the show's appeal for me as a borderline socialist is that it criticizes the outcomes of his policies as well as his personal corruption. Underwood, on the other hand, seems to have no real ideology beyond self-serving opportunism, and his opponents are mostly either ineffective or nearly as corrupt as he is. The writing and acting are consistently good in the American HoC, but I'm not really sure what the point of the show is other than displaying corruption and back-stabbing at its worst.

[TheChris92]

House of Cards plays more or less like an average Fincher thriller -- The fun is in the thrills of the tension, and the characters unpredictable outlook as they strive for more power. Borgen is an authentic political drama, whereas House of Cards more or less represents all the core factors of Fincher's films that make them so incredibly engaging.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Urquhart coming to power in the way he does is at least understandable in the context of early '90s Conservative Party politics. Since all you needed was a majority of Conservative members of parliament, a skilled backroom operator could conceivably pull off what he does in the first series. Underwood is in an equivalent position as House Majority Whip, but that position doesn't carry the same weight in the U.S. system, and his one exposure to the national media was a disastrous interview on CNN where he got turned into an internet meme. For him to be picked as Vice President would be like if Joe Biden resigned and Obama chose Steny Hoyer or Jim Clyburn to replace him.

 

(By which I just mean in terms of position in Congress - Hoyer and Clyburn are the #2 and #3 Democrats in the House. I don't know of either of them having especially bad high-profile interviews.)

[leighzard]

Also, the second series actually gave Urquhart a worthy opponent in the left-leaning British monarch. Urquhart, for all his corruption and nastiness, does have a distinctly right-wing philosophy of governance, and part of the show's appeal for me as a borderline socialist is that it criticizes the outcomes of his policies as well as his personal corruption. Underwood, on the other hand, seems to have no real ideology beyond self-serving opportunism, and his opponents are mostly either ineffective or nearly as corrupt as he is. The writing and acting are consistently good in the American HoC, but I'm not really sure what the point of the show is other than displaying corruption and back-stabbing at its worst.

 

I agree with you about the show having little to say about the actual politics.  I suspect that's a very deliberate choice in order to appeal to a wider audience.  Underwood is nominally a Democrat, but I don't think the show wants to alienate viewers on either side of the aisle by taking on actual policies of either party.  Which is a shame, there's definitely potential there (Newsroom on HBO dipped their toes in that water retroactively "covering" real stories - the first season of the show wasn't terrible).   Unfortunately, if House of Cards started taking on real political issues, and not the innocuous ones made up for the show, the outrage it would inevitably incite in half of Americans would be overshadowing.  I sort of doubt Netflix wants to have Bills O'Reilly and/or Mahr delivering excoriating monologues or hosting debates on its political positions.  I think their game here is to stick to character drama and the supposed processes behind politics.

 

But apparently Borgen is good if that's more of what you're looking for.  I might have to check that out. Thanks thechris!

[mousestalker]

Also, if the show tackles real issues, then it will date quickly. That's the peril of politics, the issues are generally ephemeral. A tv show these days aims at replay value, so that the income stream remains after the first year or so.

I'd bet dollars to donuts the producers are aware of and familiar with "Yes Minister/Yes, Prime Minister". House of Cards is a great deal darker than that show, but it handled politics in a similar fashion.

 

Does anyone else get an LBJ vibe off of F.U. (And by the way, mad props to the original show for using those particular initials)?

[Chewin]

I checked this out based on this Claire Underwood character...

 

.. I don't want to kill enthusiasm or something but one thing that I'm noticing is that they're all very ruthless and pragmatic and whatever but the goal is the same, obtain higher and higher office or higher and higher power.

 

I feel like crazy people are kind of interesting are sort of ruthless, but also they're not really necessarily on the single track mind. I don't know.. I guess it just seems a bit less diverse than something like Game of Thrones which also deals with ruthless power hungry people but also whose goals in many aspects conflict and overlap with each other.

 

Pretty much. Admittedly both Claire and Frank are 'monsters' though in different shapes, but ultimately it is the character exploration on them both as individuals and as a unit that makes the show for me so entertaining to watch. Especially since their portrayal as a rather villainous couple is surprisingly healthy and their bond with each other is pretty damn unbreakable. Problems exist for sure, just like in any relationship, but their is genuine love and respect for each other in the series.

 

My only complaint on the show is the rather mediocre cast of side characters, since more often then not they get overshadowed by Frank and Claire. Most fill their role just fine, though personally I think they largely exist to either hinder or aid Frank and / or Claire, and certain characters could have had more screen time to be developed upon further.

 

Season 3 aired today, and it will be awhile before I can finally watch the show, though hopefully I can experience the show as soon as possible. 

[Seraphim24]

I agree that 16 crazy, ruthless people might be more fun than just 2.   And I love GoT, too.  It was a tough choice between Cersei and Claire for avi.  But what I love about the Underwoods is that they aren't crazy.  They're completely sane.  There's a certain amount of madness underlying most of the GoT characters (Cersei in particular, and I know he's boss, but Stannis is a little off his rocker with his R'hollr business), which makes their actions less predictable.  It also makes them very much susceptible to death.  Claire and Frank are playing the long game.  Even if you don't know why they did something (aforementioned Meecham situation), you can bet they've got a good reason, which will eventually be made clear to you.  Also, even though you know they're not really good people, you want the Underwoods to succeed.  They make you want them to against your better judgment.

Spoiler

Let's be honest, no one was upset to see Joffrey go.

 

I think this season has a lot of promise because Frank has the office now. What will he do with the power he was working toward?  Will his actions be constrained by his new role?  I'm sure there will be a good numbers of challenges to his power this season.  When these situations arise you see Frank and Claire at their best, and you get to see how their relationship works, which is one of my favorite aspects of the show.  It's also going to give some other characters the opportunity to become stronger characters with their own agendas.  I think Jackie is not content being a pawn.  She's may end up being a thorn in Frank's side, which might be her undoing, or maybe she'll find a way to achieve her goals within the Underwood system.  Anyway, I think it will allow for more of the complex overlapping objectives which you're looking for.

 

I guess I just liked Game of Thrones so much when this came along it felt like a little bit American copyism at work also. Oh? Ok, watch us do sex, power, mongering, and the brutality at work, we can do be edgy too. Having seen some I can say it is still viable to make it more interesting than most shows.

 

I just feel like Game of Thrones, is really about the game, and power, and chaos, but also relationships, forgiveness, respect, romance. Yes there is a lot of sex, perversion, silliness, violence, but it feels largely incidental to the collisions between characters and competing goals. Is it even really a violent series at it's heart? It almost just seems to be about momentary pleasures and concerns as much as anything, and oftentimes There are dozens of scenes of just people talking about their exceedingly simple trials and tribulations. It seems quintessentially American to take diverse subject matter and make it about the one almighty goal in order to drag everyone into their struggle.

 

That said though I see the validity of the show vis-a-vis all the other crap on TV that I never really watched at all anyway, so I can see the part where people get into it.