Eh, the problem is, it doesnt seem like its a distraction that would gain any traction. They tell the viewer "no totally, this is a legit thing he needs to worry about, it could cost him his seat, trust us!"
But beyond that, a lot of viewers like myself are probably just like "yeah this is stupid, i dont believe for one second any law suit or smear campaign based on this would get off the ground at all"
I mean, maybe its meta in the fact we are annoyed by its pettiness as Francis is, and feel distracted from the main issues by it. But the reason it fails is because it doesnt pass my suspension of disbelief. I dont believe when they tell me the possible consequences of the event. They might as well claim that it will lead to a nuclear war if he doesn't deal with the water tower! It would be just as believable and backed up by facts as the claims that it could lead to him losing his seat or getting bogged down in law suits.
I 100% believe a small town in Gaffney, South Carolina would get pissed about this.
And even if it doesn't cost him his seat, it makes reelection much more difficult (and expensive) than it needs to be given that he could easily fly down and nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand. The townsfolk are clearly pissed off -- regardless of merit -- and so it's an issue whether he likes it or not.
This criticism is also still functioning in the 'the show needs to be believable to be entertaining' bubble.
Look, if the show had an episode where he had to do abandon negotiations on health care, because a midget black woman wearing a name tag that has his name on it robbed a bank in a small town in his district, so he had to fly there to try and undo the damage to his name because his people claimed his seat was at risk cause they blamed him for the robbery, you would think it was a stupid plot and a waste of time, and far too unrealistic.
Now, we disagree on how unrealistic the situation presented was. Thats fair. Personally I think its a joke of a plot and that nobody would blame a congressman because he voted to keep a water tower up because a girl died while texting about said water tower. Like...typing that sentence almost seems dumber to me then the fake joke example I typed above.
But yes, the show needs to be semi realistic for it to work. I think youd agree a show with the fake plot i presented was pretty bad. Hence, I think one with the plot they presented was pretty bad.
You guys can keep saying "Oh no, it totally IS realistic!" but yeah, it doesnt make me think it is. A few people in the town might be dumb enough to make a big deal out of it, but not enough to cause any damage.
And for people bringing up stuff the main stream media focused on about real politicians as some sort of proof, in all those cases, despite the media latching on, those events didnt matter. Fox news may try to link him to the girls death in some stupid way, I dont doubt that, but nobody would care. Thats my point. It wouldnt matter, he wouldnt need to waste his time, like 99% of the dumb stuff fox says.
Look, if the show had an episode where he had to do abandon negotiations on health care, because a midget black woman wearing a name tag that has his name on it robbed a bank in a small town in his district, so he had to fly there to try and undo the damage to his name because his people claimed his seat was at risk cause they blamed him for the robbery, you would think it was a stupid plot and a waste of time, and far too unrealistic.
Now, we disagree on how unrealistic the situation presented was. Thats fair. Personally I think its a joke of a plot and that nobody would blame a congressman because he voted to keep a water tower up because a girl died while texting about said water tower. Like...typing that sentence almost seems dumber to me then the fake joke example I typed above.
But yes, the show needs to be semi realistic for it to work. I think youd agree a show with the fake plot i presented was pretty bad. Hence, I think one with the plot they presented was pretty bad.
You guys can keep saying "Oh no, it totally IS realistic!" but yeah, it doesnt make me think it is. A few people in the town might be dumb enough to make a big deal out of it, but not enough to cause any damage.
And for people bringing up stuff the main stream media focused on about real politicians as some sort of proof, in all those cases, despite the media latching on, those events didnt matter. Fox news may try to link him to the girls death in some stupid way, I dont doubt that, but nobody would care. Thats my point. It wouldnt matter, he wouldnt need to waste his time, like 99% of the dumb stuff fox says.
We could have a larger conversation about the feedback loop effect between media and current events (read: the media finding a relatively minor story that not many people care about, giving it non-stop coverage, and through brute force making it a Big Story). The bottom line is that you think the story is unrealistic, and that lack of realism makes it a poor storyline in your eyes.
I think the show isn't trying to be a hyper-realistic docu-drama of U.S. politics, and is instead both: A) at times lambasting U.S. political culture by taking things that objective do happen in the U.S. and turning them up to eleven; and not that concerned with realism in the first place because it's trying to tell the story of this guy who literally only works on the dimension of power.
We disagree/have conceptions of what the show is trying to do/ought to be for us. I value your two cents.
I had a couple of posts written, but none of them really expressed the point I really want to make. Which is that your response was awesome, polite and makes me want to just agree with you on everything because based on how cordial your disagreement with me was, I would have to be wrong. Nobody that polite is wrong.
I just got finished watching this in its entirety, and I really enjoyed it. It was smart, well made, and existed at an intersection of actors and topics I find interesting (damn you Netflix market data).
The episode with the peach initially caught me off guard with how ridiculous it felt. The more I thought about it, though, the more I appreciated its inclusion in the series. As someone from a large city who's spent time living in small-town country, I am amazed at how myopic and petty local politics can be. For a lot of people who are uneducated, don't follow politics, and/or are disconnected from larger urban centers, what's "important" about their politicians to them can seem irrelevant to us. I thought the episode was a great reminder how even though we view congressmen as their personas on the national stage, even the most important and influential have to answer to a small town somewhere if that happens to be where their district falls.
Also, I feel the need to comment on the plot line where
Underwood's campaign absolutely ruins Russo. Not just letting him lose, but ruining his sobriety, trashing his relationship, ending his career, and then killing him.
Holy fuck was that cold. I mean, up until that point you see Underwood as a relatively amoral man, but you don't appreciate the level of cruelty and disregard for others that he is comfortable with. It was brilliantly done, but I was in disbelief as it unfolded because I just couldn't believe that anyone could be that ruthless.
It was all the worse because I genuinely liked Russo as a character. He had depth, but he came off a good-hearted guy who was really trying to fight through some heinous stuff he'd let himself get mixed up in. When all was said and done, I felt floored, but in a good way.
rndmhero on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I just got finished watching this in its entirety, and I really enjoyed it. It was smart, well made, and existed at an intersection of actors and topics I find interesting (damn you Netflix market data).
The episode with the peach initially caught me off guard with how ridiculous it felt. The more I thought about it, though, the more I appreciated its inclusion in the series. As someone from a large city who's spent time living in small-town country, I am amazed at how myopic and petty local politics can be. For a lot of people who are uneducated, don't follow politics, and/or are disconnected from larger urban centers, what's "important" about their politicians to them can seem irrelevant to us. I thought the episode was a great reminder how even though we view congressmen as their personas on the national stage, even the most important and influential have to answer to a small town somewhere if that happens to be where their district falls.
Also, I feel the need to comment on the plot line where
Underwood's campaign absolutely ruins Russo. Not just letting him lose, but ruining his sobriety, trashing his relationship, ending his career, and then killing him.
Holy fuck was that cold. I mean, up until that point you see Underwood as a relatively amoral man, but you don't appreciate the level of cruelty and disregard for others that he is comfortable with. It was brilliantly done, but I was in disbelief as it unfolded because I just couldn't believe that anyone could be that ruthless.
It was all the worse because I genuinely liked Russo as a character. He had depth, but he came off a good-hearted guy who was really trying to fight through some heinous stuff he'd let himself get mixed up in. When all was said and done, I felt floored, but in a good way.
I liked that plotline too
largely because it's an example of both Frank's longterm planning and his ability to adapt. I doubt it was part of the original plan to kill Peter, but Frank had to deal with the danger that he'd just spill his guts, the same way that Peter probably wasn't supposed to self-destruct that early but Frank was ready when it happened.
I also liked the fact that Frank told Claire he killed Peter (and the relatively non-expository way they revealed that). Their relationship is one of the most interesting parts of the show for me.
Edit: I also agree about Russo - he was an appealing tragic hero; seeing his hometown and family and everything really built up how he got into politics to help people (maybe one of the only people we've seen who that's true for). In another show, he could have been the protagonist.
I actually spent the next few scenes thinking "Oh, he intentionally screwed up the debate, I wonder where he's going with that." I refused to believe that the whole thing was an honest fuck-up, because it was so out of character.
I actually spent the next few scenes thinking "Oh, he intentionally screwed up the debate, I wonder where he's going with that." I refused to believe that the whole thing was an honest fuck-up, because it was so out of character.
I can't help but feel...
...it was the fact that Spinella (?) turned the wife ploy around on Underwood. Maybe it was a contingency he hadn't planned for?
I actually spent the next few scenes thinking "Oh, he intentionally screwed up the debate, I wonder where he's going with that." I refused to believe that the whole thing was an honest fuck-up, because it was so out of character.
I can't help but feel...
...it was the fact that Spinella (?) turned the wife ploy around on Underwood. Maybe it was a contingency he hadn't planned for?
I'm sure it was a contingency he hadn't planned for. It was a reversal of a plan he came up with on the fly, so we're two layers of improv deep. The thing is, the entire series up to that point has shown him as being unfailingly cool under pressure. Even when he's caught by surprise, he's been able to adapt in ways that serve his purpose. With the character presented so far, the worst I would have expected would have been an "um", maybe an "excuse me, you may have a point." Being reduced to this blubbering moron was weirdly out of character, and it doesn't jive with Underwood as presented any time before or after that episode.
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
re: episode 6
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
This.
As the show goes on, his narrations to the audience become more and more unreliable compared to his on-screen actions and outward emotions. He imagines himself as unstoppable, but the premise of the show is very much that he got dropped from a position he was certain he was going to get.
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
Yeah. If Frank hadn't have badly underestimated Spinella (twice), he wouldn't have put himself into the position of literally goading the guy into punching him in order to come out as the winner. Frank's good, but it's not like the debate was the first thing he screwed up.
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
Yeah. If Frank hadn't have badly underestimated Spinella (twice), he wouldn't have put himself into the position of literally goading the guy into punching him in order to come out as the winner. Frank's good, but it's not like the debate was the first thing he screwed up.
But were there any other instances that he screwed up this badly? Everything else I remember was more minor, such as people lying to him or events not playing out as he predicted. I can't think of another time where he, personally, dropped the ball so completely.
Man, I was really hoping that Underwood and Zoe were not going to end up fucking. This guy was a helluva lot more interesting when it was painted that he really did love his wife and while he may be a total scumbag in getting his politics achieved he at least was solid with his wife. I really liked the dynamic of a power couple where they both were not cheating on each other constantly as in other dramas.
I am in the business of saving lives.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Man, I was really hoping that Underwood and Zoe were not going to end up fucking. This guy was a helluva lot more interesting when it was painted that he really did love his wife and while he may be a total scumbag in getting his politics achieved he at least was solid with his wife. I really liked the dynamic of a power couple where they both were not cheating on each other constantly as in other dramas.
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
Yeah. If Frank hadn't have badly underestimated Spinella (twice), he wouldn't have put himself into the position of literally goading the guy into punching him in order to come out as the winner. Frank's good, but it's not like the debate was the first thing he screwed up.
But were there any other instances that he screwed up this badly? Everything else I remember was more minor, such as people lying to him or events not playing out as he predicted. I can't think of another time where he, personally, dropped the ball so completely.
Also, even if he
hadn't screwed up, his approach to the debate seemed uncharacteristic. He doesn't normally come up with cute turns of phrase to win arguments.
Maybe we can chalk it up to him not being great on TV, but the lobbyist seemed convinced that Frank was a master at this sort of thing.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Feels like most of the other characters got pretty decent establishing character moments, but with her it was just a "let's have a scene where we talk about what you're like, your past, and your goals!"
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
This.
As the show goes on, his narrations to the audience become more and more unreliable compared to his on-screen actions and outward emotions. He imagines himself as unstoppable, but the premise of the show is very much that he got dropped from a position he was certain he was going to get.
Francis's narrations and Claire are the two most interesting things about the show.
Show was great. I will probably watch the BBC series since Netflix has it as well.
Frank is not as competent as he thinks he is. He fucks up frequently and invents post hoc justifications for his fuck-ups. He's an extremely effective politician, don't get me wrong, but he's not superhuman.
I think he's exactly as competent as he thinks he is, but he also underestimates a lot of people. He underestimated the President, Spinella, Zoe, and Remy, to name just a few. He's incredibly adept at focusing on an issue and solving it, but yeah, he can't see every angle at once, and he's not immune to situations outside of his control, like the water tower thing, or the state department not coming through for Claire, or her power trip over her charity.
There were several asides in the lead up to the debate that pretty heavy-handedly showed that Frank was O-verconfident and U-nderestimated Spinella.
The brick, wife and vowel gambits during the debate were still ridiculous and out of character.
There were several asides in the lead up to the debate that pretty heavy-handedly showed that Frank was O-verconfident and U-nderestimated Spinella.
The brick, wife and vowel gambits during the debate were still ridiculous and out of character.
Yeah, I'd have preferred it if
Spinella had actually won the debate on the strength of his argument rather than because Frank dropped the ball.
I dunno. I think the aim there was to make Frank less one-dimension and omniscient, but even I have to admit that it was a little heavy-handed in retrospect. Like, I hate public speaking (though I get that I don't do it for a living) and get tripped up sometimes, but the kind of verbal diarrhea that was going on there was pretty over-the-top for someone as normally collected as Frank. Guess Spinella turning around the wife thing really threw him off his game.
As an aside... what're the ground rules gonna be for spoilers in this thread? I mean, given that the entire show is up and available for watching.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I think just to be safe, spoiler specific events and tag with the episode number.
Maybe we don't have to spoiler tag stuff from episode 1?
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Have to wonder if that's more than the number of people who won't start watching a show mid-season because they don't want to start in the middle, having missed the beginning.
machiavellian porn, all day erry day
Thank you sir, may I please have some more?
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
If you're releasing a show all at once, on a streaming service, why even divide it into traditional episodes? It frees you up to consider new models for a series. Really the issue is making it viewable in discrete chunks for the viewer, much in the same way that novels have chapters. Maybe episodes of varying lengths, or movie length episodes, etc. It gives them a lot of flexibility.
Although I suppose if they plan to ever play it on network or cable TV it would be easier with a standard length
later syndication no doubt
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Eh, the problem is, it doesnt seem like its a distraction that would gain any traction. They tell the viewer "no totally, this is a legit thing he needs to worry about, it could cost him his seat, trust us!"
But beyond that, a lot of viewers like myself are probably just like "yeah this is stupid, i dont believe for one second any law suit or smear campaign based on this would get off the ground at all"
I mean, maybe its meta in the fact we are annoyed by its pettiness as Francis is, and feel distracted from the main issues by it. But the reason it fails is because it doesnt pass my suspension of disbelief. I dont believe when they tell me the possible consequences of the event. They might as well claim that it will lead to a nuclear war if he doesn't deal with the water tower! It would be just as believable and backed up by facts as the claims that it could lead to him losing his seat or getting bogged down in law suits.
I 100% believe a small town in Gaffney, South Carolina would get pissed about this.
And even if it doesn't cost him his seat, it makes reelection much more difficult (and expensive) than it needs to be given that he could easily fly down and nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand. The townsfolk are clearly pissed off -- regardless of merit -- and so it's an issue whether he likes it or not.
This criticism is also still functioning in the 'the show needs to be believable to be entertaining' bubble.
As someone living in Smalltown, Georgia, I didn't even bat an eye at that whole sequence. People underestimate how petty southern fundies can be.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
Out of interest, how many people saw the original?
Personally, I think Spacey is doing an amazing job of doing an American version of Richardson's character.
Don't have anything to discuss about the plot, really, but fuck that was good. My wife and I are also watching the West Wing (which I also love) and this is a nice sinister counter balance to the saccharin idealism of the West Wing.
Interesting that they're not following the British version, exactly; at least in series structure. I kinda expected this season to end more decisively with certain things happening.
Do we know how the show is doing for Netflix? New season for sure or still on the table? Timeline?
Posts
He said, while gathered around the virtual water cooler.
I 100% believe a small town in Gaffney, South Carolina would get pissed about this.
And even if it doesn't cost him his seat, it makes reelection much more difficult (and expensive) than it needs to be given that he could easily fly down and nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand. The townsfolk are clearly pissed off -- regardless of merit -- and so it's an issue whether he likes it or not.
This criticism is also still functioning in the 'the show needs to be believable to be entertaining' bubble.
Now, we disagree on how unrealistic the situation presented was. Thats fair. Personally I think its a joke of a plot and that nobody would blame a congressman because he voted to keep a water tower up because a girl died while texting about said water tower. Like...typing that sentence almost seems dumber to me then the fake joke example I typed above.
But yes, the show needs to be semi realistic for it to work. I think youd agree a show with the fake plot i presented was pretty bad. Hence, I think one with the plot they presented was pretty bad.
You guys can keep saying "Oh no, it totally IS realistic!" but yeah, it doesnt make me think it is. A few people in the town might be dumb enough to make a big deal out of it, but not enough to cause any damage.
And for people bringing up stuff the main stream media focused on about real politicians as some sort of proof, in all those cases, despite the media latching on, those events didnt matter. Fox news may try to link him to the girls death in some stupid way, I dont doubt that, but nobody would care. Thats my point. It wouldnt matter, he wouldnt need to waste his time, like 99% of the dumb stuff fox says.
We could have a larger conversation about the feedback loop effect between media and current events (read: the media finding a relatively minor story that not many people care about, giving it non-stop coverage, and through brute force making it a Big Story). The bottom line is that you think the story is unrealistic, and that lack of realism makes it a poor storyline in your eyes.
I think the show isn't trying to be a hyper-realistic docu-drama of U.S. politics, and is instead both: A) at times lambasting U.S. political culture by taking things that objective do happen in the U.S. and turning them up to eleven; and
We disagree/have conceptions of what the show is trying to do/ought to be for us. I value your two cents.
The episode with the peach initially caught me off guard with how ridiculous it felt. The more I thought about it, though, the more I appreciated its inclusion in the series. As someone from a large city who's spent time living in small-town country, I am amazed at how myopic and petty local politics can be. For a lot of people who are uneducated, don't follow politics, and/or are disconnected from larger urban centers, what's "important" about their politicians to them can seem irrelevant to us. I thought the episode was a great reminder how even though we view congressmen as their personas on the national stage, even the most important and influential have to answer to a small town somewhere if that happens to be where their district falls.
Also, I feel the need to comment on the plot line where
Holy fuck was that cold. I mean, up until that point you see Underwood as a relatively amoral man, but you don't appreciate the level of cruelty and disregard for others that he is comfortable with. It was brilliantly done, but I was in disbelief as it unfolded because I just couldn't believe that anyone could be that ruthless.
It was all the worse because I genuinely liked Russo as a character. He had depth, but he came off a good-hearted guy who was really trying to fight through some heinous stuff he'd let himself get mixed up in. When all was said and done, I felt floored, but in a good way.
I liked that plotline too
I also liked the fact that Frank told Claire he killed Peter (and the relatively non-expository way they revealed that). Their relationship is one of the most interesting parts of the show for me.
Edit: I also agree about Russo - he was an appealing tragic hero; seeing his hometown and family and everything really built up how he got into politics to help people (maybe one of the only people we've seen who that's true for). In another show, he could have been the protagonist.
I can't help but feel...
This.
As the show goes on, his narrations to the audience become more and more unreliable compared to his on-screen actions and outward emotions. He imagines himself as unstoppable, but the premise of the show is very much that he got dropped from a position he was certain he was going to get.
But were there any other instances that he screwed up this badly? Everything else I remember was more minor, such as people lying to him or events not playing out as he predicted. I can't think of another time where he, personally, dropped the ball so completely.
Keep watching.
Also, even if he
Maybe we can chalk it up to him not being great on TV, but the lobbyist seemed convinced that Frank was a master at this sort of thing.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That dialogue was pretty expository though.
Show was great. I will probably watch the BBC series since Netflix has it as well.
The brick, wife and vowel gambits during the debate were still ridiculous and out of character.
Yeah, I'd have preferred it if
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
As an aside... what're the ground rules gonna be for spoilers in this thread? I mean, given that the entire show is up and available for watching.
Maybe we don't have to spoiler tag stuff from episode 1?
It's been over a week since anybody here has.
What the all at once release schedule does is steal the oxygen from the slow building fire of word of mouth.
Really the topic came up because I meant to mention it to a coworker but the topic never came up....now it's so long I had forgotten about it.
machiavellian porn, all day erry day
Thank you sir, may I please have some more?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
As someone living in Smalltown, Georgia, I didn't even bat an eye at that whole sequence. People underestimate how petty southern fundies can be.
Personally, I think Spacey is doing an amazing job of doing an American version of Richardson's character.
Don't have anything to discuss about the plot, really, but fuck that was good. My wife and I are also watching the West Wing (which I also love) and this is a nice sinister counter balance to the saccharin idealism of the West Wing.
Interesting that they're not following the British version, exactly; at least in series structure. I kinda expected this season to end more decisively with certain things happening.
Do we know how the show is doing for Netflix? New season for sure or still on the table? Timeline?
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand