Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Does anyone else read those words and think they've outlived their natural era?

Is Lena Dunham in it?

[Incandenza]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Q1: Huh?

Q2: No.

[Gerontophile]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Q1: No idea. kevin Spacey was excellent, but I got bored by Ep 8.

Q2: Whom? Is she the guy with the Arabic puppet?

[Janik]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

In the slight of the advert.

Why not. Season 1 a bit meh. Non-essential.

[garcia]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

i will obey the advert

[anton pulisov]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

I've watched the first episode in Season 2 now. They seem to have thrown out the intelligent side of things and gone for more drama, blood and guts. It's both unpleasant and predictable watching, which is never a great combination.

[Daze]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Q2: I liked the first two seasons of girls a lot more than I like this season of house of cards( I'm very divided over this season so don't ask me for my feelings on it yet).

Finished the full thing yesterday, but really only out of respect for the first season. last year I felt that one of the things that was going for the show was the ability to show all of this crazy operatic political intrigue and still somehow sort of ground it in reality. That goes out the window this season. whereas last season you were supposed to think that Francis was just the worst of the worst, but not unbelievably inhuman, despite the murder. This season you're supposed to essentially believe that world Politics has never seen someone as cunning, ruthless, disgusting, suave and ambitious as Underwood. and not only that, but he might have married someone at least his equal in all those attributes.

This season is way more pulpy and ridiculous, but the story's also a lot slower, and like was said up thread, pretty boring and predictable.

Such a shame. I really liked last season.

[anton pulisov]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

I've watched three of them now, and they are just depressing me. And they are slow, as you say.

I think I'll read the spoilers for the rest of 'em... I'm guessing he's President by the end of this season?

[Reed John]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

I chain-watched Season 2 and while some of it was a bit far-fetched, I was willing to forgive that because it was fun drama.

But now I hear that Season 3 may not happen. Probably not. In that case, it all feels like it was for not. ***spoilers*** Aside from just leaving us with "evil always wins, because good is dumb" outcome, there are a zillion loose ends. What about the journalists who *know* he killed her? What about about that hacker guy? What about the kinda-hot younger representative who has weaseled her way into the House leadership? What is her comeuppance? And what, if any, ramifications will there be for her sleeping with the sketchy lobbiest? And will the rich guy just go to jail and that's that? And what of Clare, who just callously used that poor rape-victim girl for her own political ends and then tossed her aside? Where's the comeuppance? So many uppances must come or it's just a downer with no point and an extraordinarily poor ending to an otherwise well-written and well-acted series.

[Come along, Min]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Pure theatre. Great series, one of the very best. Spacey is out of this word. I wasn't his biggest admirer before HoC, but now I realise he's one of if not the very best actors on screen today.

Expertly balances on a line between serious and ridiculously implausible with ease.

Highly recommended.

[anton pulisov]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Thankfully it got less bloody after the first episode of the second season. Now I am finished watching the second series and I am depressed because of it. I think I'll go drink a hot chocolate.

[garcia]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

i don't think it's meant to be realistic. it's kind of a comic-horror fantasy based around a supervillain duo. i really enjoyed it and spacey and wright are great in it, but it's not what i'd call serious.

reed - i'm sure the next season will be the last and all those uppances will come. it's much more sophisticated and frankly much better than the UK version, but it's following the basic structure quite closely.

my only complaint with this last series was the ludicrous hacker guy, who just didn't do it for me. the "woof woof" scene was a low point.

my wife said that the character i reminded her of was cashew.

[anton pulisov]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

I actually thought the second series was better than the first. Woof woof was a low point, yes, as was the threesome at the dining room table (I was laughing for about three minutes afterwards). But otherwise it was decent enough.

Bit of an inconsistency with hacker dude being allowed to get away with being so cheeky.

[Daze]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Spoilers!!!!

I get it's not supposed to be serious. I was just hoping it was a little more so. The politics in the first season, at least the stuff at the beginning about how they handled their battle for education reform was what I think really drew me in. Is a nationwide teachers strike really possible? no, probably not. But at least I'm not yet being led to believe a murderous supervillain can go from being Whip to president in 18 months. I mean really? We're supposed to believe that the general population is okay with that happening? Nobody is going to ask questions? ...Really?

I don't mind shows that are obviously not based in reality. I deeply enjoy the Pulp Fiction and Sci-Fi genres. I really only care about plausibility when I feel like the show is making me think about if the actions on set show are plausible. That might sound weird or whatever but it's really the only way I can explain it.

a perfect recent example is the third season of Homeland. I absolutely loved the first season. But by the end of the second season it had all become far too ridiculous of a concept to keep going and resulted in the third season being one of the worst pieces of shit to be ever put on TV. America's most wanted terrorist is hiding out less than an hour outside of Langley? And more to the point, you're supposed to have me believe that the general population is supposed to believe that a United States Marine turned sleeper terrorist agent who somehow got into the vice-president's office and killed him using information he found in a NYT article has now murder some 200+ CIA agents? I just find it difficult to watch shows where I feel like my intelligence is regularly being attacked.

I mean come on. Lucas's plot line is possibly one of the worst I've ever seen. The guy put's out feelers for light treason on the "dark Internet". He can't even wait to put his request into the text box so he just puts the whole damn thing in the subject line. He uses the "dark internet" the way my Grandmother uses email.

[Come along, Min]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Spoilers. (in the bits I've quoted from Daze)

Daze wrote: Spoilers!!!!

I get it's not supposed to be serious. I was just hoping it was a little more so. The politics in the first season, at least the stuff at the beginning about how they handled their battle for education reform was what I think really drew me in. Is a nationwide teachers strike really possible? no, probably not.

The thing is, the stage-play narrative bits where Spacey speaks to camera are satirical. They allow for a release from that seriousness. Those possibly ridiculous plots become understandable in the sense that they reveal this drama isn't trying to be something that yearns to be a perfect adaptation of real life - like so many dramas aim for and for the most part, miss. By using this technique they can still reveal truths and do it in such a way that feels quite fresh. I don't think they hammer the satirical or dramatic sides too much either.

But at least I'm not yet being led to believe a murderous supervillain go from being Whip to president in 18 months. I mean really? We're supposed to believe that the general population is okay with that happening? Nobody is going to ask questions? ...Really?

The plot mainly works outside the knowledge of the public. It's the Machiavellian point of the show. How things like this could and possibly have happened and aren't revealed because of the weight of power leaning on those who can reveal. Where it does cross over into public knowledge (with the press) is where some conflict and plot in the show appears, again I would say the satirical edge of the show allows for you suspend your need for outright plausibility. Something that (I agree) Homeland completely failed with. I bailed a few episodes into series three with that.

Spacey is having so much fun, it's a real pleasure to watch. The casting, style, photography. None of the Oscar films (that I've seen) come close to it's brilliance. It's all about TV atm, not sure how film can counter it either. A real big shift has been happening for a while now.

[G-Man]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Yeah, I broadly agree with that. The communication with the audience was also used to good effect in the original.

Obviously a drama will require of us to suspend disbelief. That's why it's a drama. Though I think it might have been a lot more plausible had Underwood started out as party leader in the Senate. And the melodrama of the Stamper/Rachel sub-plot was an unnecessary diversion (never mind the ridiculous hacker plot; I never want to see that ham actor again).

The chemistry between Spacey and Wright is just perfect.

Wright especially is very good; she could have played it with Lady Macbeth cool, but she exudes a lot of warmth. The liberal she doubtless was before she became stained by politics is still in there. Her struggle between the good and the ruthless is in the script (the policy she pursues, the moment of self-loathing suggest moments of ruthfullness); Wright communicates it with emotional depth.

The editing is also very good indeed. After each episode I was surprised how quickly it went by.

[Lucia Lanigan]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

CV: there were actually only four episodes of the UK original (that's how we used to roll). It made quite a splash. In adult life, the few brushes I've had with (lower ranking) politicos have given me flashbacks to it; they are not like us. At the time, "You may say that, I couldn't possibly comment" became a popular get-out on Have I Got News For You kind of programmes (a variation on 'allegedly').

I haven't seen the new HoC, and I'm sure it's excellent, but I am starting to miss that concision in TV drama a little. I've enjoyed True Detective more than the other raved-about programmes of recent years partly because it seems more self-contained than the millefeuille monsters we've been consuming. They're flashy and ambitious and smart, but when you boil them down to the core ideas I do wonder how much would be lost if four seasons became four episode. There's something to be said for letting things ring instead of exploring every last facet and implication in detail.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Count me on the meh side.

I think the biggest problem is a lack of real drama. There's essentially only one story: how the despicable veep and his enabling wife fuck over everyone in their drive to the top. That's not enough, especially for a long form series. There needs to be subplots, fully realised characters with their own back-stories, more dimensions and, as Reed said, more consequences. Everything goes in one direction. People are either allies of Frank, and then thrown under the bus, or vice-versa. After thirteen episodes it got monotonous.

The first series was better because a considerable part of it concerned the Penn congressmen and his struggles. They provided dramatic counterpoint. None of the other bits and pieces this time were allowed to do that. Rachel's story should have been bigger. Christina, who's role was substantial in the first series, just faded out of sight with barely any explanation. This season felt as if it was twenty shows long and had to be cut down to thirteen, so only the essential Frank related stuff was left.

[G-Man]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Carnivorous Vulgaris wrote:
I don't know why but I was oddly delighted to discover the original series a few months ago. It was nice to be re-assured that, as good as TV has generally gotten now, there was some top-class stuff being aired way back before TV "got sophisticated".

Only the first mini-series was any good. After hat it was a case of diminishing returns. And having rewatched them not too long ago, there was some pretty bad acting, besides journalist, which I didn't really pick up on the first time around.

[garcia]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

You're right, I assumed the original four-episode run of the UK House Of Cards and its two sequels To Play The King and The Final Cut were all the one series. But according to Wiki they all aired about three years apart from one another and told different stories each time.

they were based on a series of novels - the second and third were only written because of the success of the first, and the drop-off in quality is obvious. but this US show does follow the basic trajectory pretty closely, except that frank underwood takes a bit longer to reach the highest office than francis urquhart.

yeah, i remember now what the worst thing about the second US season was: the president. how did a cabbage like this ever become president?

[Come along, Min]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

I'm not sure Christina felt like that much of a central character in the first series, which makes her lower-key role in the second understandable.

*Spoilers*

In the second she was just a foil to allow the Underwoods to sow doubt and unbalance the President and first lady's relationship and therefore the presidency, which was the central point of the whole second series. Once that was done there was no need for her. I'm not sure her link to the dead character of Peter Russo from the first series cried out for too much plot to be intertwined around her without it taking away from other plotlines.

I mean, they had to wrap up the journalist thing first, so they left (for now) any doubts surrounding Christina-Russo storyline basically unsaid. She was probably only kept around (most likely like Rachael, someone who knows far more regarding the Russo story) to make trouble in the third season.

[Come along, Min]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

garcia wrote: yeah, i remember now what the worst thing about the second US season was: the president. how did a cabbage like this ever become president?

That question could be asked of a real president or two couldn't it?

[Amor de Cosmos]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

In the second she was just a foil to allow the Underwoods to sow doubt and unbalance the President and first lady's relationship and therefore the presidency, which was the central point of the whole second series. Once that was done there was no need for her.

Sure, I understand that. The problem isn't why her character disappeared, it's how it was done within the context of the drama.

This stuff isn't easy to pull off. Stories need to work on an episodic level, then within the season, and also projected over several years. It seems to me that, compared to the best of them, HoC fails because the script-runner hasn't really come to grips with that. Most of the time we only "know" secondary characters in the context of their relationship to the Underwoods and that's not enough.

[Come along, Min]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

Amor de Cosmos wrote: [i]The problem isn't why her character disappeared, it's how it was done within the context of the drama.

It's just that Christina just wasn't that big a character in the first place, not particularly central. What happened to her felt plausible enough. I'm just not sure it's that big a deal atm. The whole premise of HoC doesn't fall down because of it. That feels like a minor criticism, peripheral, whereas your overall point is food for thought.

Looking back your first post on here, I do sort of see what you're getting at. It's a well observed critique about not having the Russo dramatic counterpoint.

Having said that, because the Underwood's really are the whole story, I cant see it unraveling in the way Homeland went down that cul-de-sac it couldn't return from. Not that I saw the remainder of that to speak with too much authority. I'm just assuming based on the increasing silliness of series two and start of series three.

This stuff isn't easy to pull off. Stories need to work on an episodic level, then within the season, and also projected over several years. It seems to me that, compared to the best of them, HoC fails because the script-runner hasn't really come to grips with that. Most of the time we only "know" secondary characters in the context of their relationship to the Underwood's and that's not enough.

We only "know" secondary characters in the context of their relationship to the Underwood's more so in the last series than the first certainly, yes. Interesting points there but I don't agree with those conclusions - "HoC fails because"/"and that's not enough", because I don't think it fails, and it still feels like it is enough.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Don't Miss. House of Cards. Season 2. Netflix.

It certainly hasn't fallen of a cliff the way Homeland did, and in all honesty probably won't. It's a good comparison though, because the two series have similar structures, which makes them difficult choices for long-form serial drama.

Each is dependent on a single dramatic question: Who is Brody working for? (Homeland.) And will the Underwoods gain, and hold, the White House?(HoC.) It's very hard, maybe impossible, to stretch something that direct and simple over twenty-six, or thirty-nine shows. The acknowledged successes in the form never even tried. The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, and Breaking Bad, for example,never had implied, or necessary, conclusions. You stuck with them because you wanted to find out what happened, through character development and incidental storylines.

HoC has another season because we have to see the fall of the Underwoods. We know that's what's coming. Ideally it won't be stretched beyond that because the premise won't take it, and if they try they really will be in Homeland territory.