House of Cards (Netflix)

[tighr]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

It's possible that yourself and Odo_ital are the only two people in America who haven't completed the season.

I've got this work thing getting in the way of my binge Netflixing.

[Guy Gardener]

I wasn't mocking you for being a decent human being, probably just the opposite.

[stj]

In a US context, the King can only be the President. So the second instalment could hardly copy the second UK series.

But then, I've been unable to muster the interest to watch because I cannot see how they could possibly help me to suspend disbelief. The UK is a parliamentary system, the US is a presidential system,. FU's plotting will be different according to the politics. In the US, no scandal will force the resignation of the President and no impeachment (and trial) will be orchestrated by one man. That wasn't even true in Andrew Johnson's trial.

[Guy Gardener]

Impeachment is just one way to assume the presidency.

There's always assassination.

And you don't even have to fully assassinate him, just give the bugger a stroke.

A British Prime Minister rules Britain for "the Monarch" afterwhich the royal family is given billions of dollars a year in taxes as long as the Monarch signs into law all the relevant papers, even the death warrant for the King or Queen. The second the monarch refuses to sign any of the incoming laws, it creates a constitutional crisis and a new civil war where whatever dads army loyalist Beefeaters they have stationed at the palace have to take on the rest of the British Armed forces, afterwhich the family is ousted onto a council estate and now have to figure out how to subside on a regular sized welfare cheque like all the other idle moochers.

I suggested Sandscorp or

Gerald McRaney

would be the American King, but the most really applicable comparison to above is someone or something triggering China to call in their debt, the trillions of dollars which America doesn't have which could only be resolved in a change in leadership and a new deal.

Has House of Cards been renewed yet, becuase it seems slightly premature to be talking about season three already.

[stj]

I'm afraid that I believe that an undefined royal prerogative has come in handy too often, even in recent years (cue Gough Whitlam and, if I understand the mechanism correctly, Stephen Harper.) The purpose of the British monarch is not to sign laws but to read proclamations of martial law.

Unhappily for the peoples of Britain and Ireland and many other places, Parliament has always carried out the correct policies, thus this essential function of British monarchy has thus far been left in reserve.

The equivalent in the US would be FEMA's continuity of government plans, along with Homeland Security's interesting arrangements about chain of command.

It's hard to guess how eager those who count really are to use such measures, but they do like to have the option.

[Guy Gardener]

It has to be better than the half assed Coup in Last Resort where the Speaker of the House upon realizing that he had failed, stuck a pistol in his mouth and sprayed his brains all over congress in front of a hundred TV cameras.

[od0_ital]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

It's possible that yourself and Odo_ital are the only two people in America who haven't completed the season.

I finished up to the sixth episode before I had to go to work last night.

[Guy Gardener]

Do you remember the Southpark world of Warcraft episode?

The World of War craft CEO's and Stan's dad are huddling around conspiring.

"OH My god! This could very well mean THE END OF THE WORLD.... of warcraft."

"No, we have a solution! All we need to do is log onto a World of war craft account and... What?"

The WOW CEOs look about themselves all saddened like and declare "But none of us have a World of Warcraft account. We all have lives."

(I swear, no one gets me.)

[Professor Zoom]

tighr wrote:

---

I've got this work thing getting in the way of my binge Netflixing.

I have work, a wife and a baby. No binge for me either.

[tighr]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

It has to be better than the half assed Coup in Last Resort where the Speaker of the House upon realizing that he had failed, stuck a pistol in his mouth and sprayed his brains all over congress in front of a hundred TV cameras.

That was the most bizarre plot point, ever. The final episodes of that show were so badly thrown together. Why would he do that? I couldn't think of a single reason he would resort to suicide.

Not even as a... Last resort.



But seriously, I was disappointed that no one on the show even mentioned Budd Dwyer. Had this been Archer or Community or even the Gilmore Girls, that would have been the first thing out of someone's mouth.

[tighr]

stj wrote:

---

In the US, no scandal will force the resignation of the President and no impeachment (and trial) will be orchestrated by one man. That wasn't even true in Andrew Johnson's trial.

It doesn't have to be orchestrated by one man, he simply has to get the ball rolling. The rest will snowball into place.

[Marc]

stj wrote:

---

I'm afraid that I believe that an undefined royal prerogative has come in handy too often, even in recent years (cue Gough Whitlam and, if I understand the mechanism correctly, Stephen Harper.) The purpose of the British monarch is not to sign laws but to read proclamations of martial law.

Unhappily for the peoples of Britain and Ireland and many other places, Parliament has always carried out the correct policies, thus this essential function of British monarchy has thus far been left in reserve.

The equivalent in the US would be FEMA's continuity of government plans, along with Homeland Security's interesting arrangements about chain of command.

It's hard to guess how eager those who count really are to use such measures, but they do like to have the option.

Not sure was a man who was an Australian Labor Prime minister nearly 40 years ago has to with things.

Wonder if Netflix is going to sell it to other channels (don't have Netflix ).

It also got a fairly mediocre review in the Globe & Mail yesterday. The review put much of the blame on the production side due to the involvement of people with no tv experience. Being good in movies production the article argues doesn't make one suitable for the small screen.

[bigdaddy]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

It's possible that yourself and Odo_ital are the only two people in America who haven't completed the season.

I haven't seen a single episode.

[Guy Gardener]

Then, you're letting the side down.

[Temis the Vorta]

I'll get to episode two tonight! I'm spending a lot more time trying to figure out what "rating" the show is getting. Finally found something...

Only two percent of Netflix's streaming customers watched the first episode of its new, highly-publicized original drama, House of Cards, according to Procera, which measures Internet use among cable and telco services.

Netflix refuses to reveal its own show ratings, but if the Procera numbers are true, it means that only about 540,000 Netflix streaming subscribers watched the first episode. (Netflix has 27 million streaming subs so two percent would come to 540,000.)

At this point, it's dicey to evaluate the success -- or lack their of -- of the show's debut. (Netflix added all 13 House of Cards episodes to its library last Friday.) But if we compare the Procera numbers to HBO, which has around 30 million subscribers (close to Netflix's 27 million), House of Cards would have to be considered a ratings disappointment thus far.

Any new HBO show that draws fewer than one million subscribers for its debut is regarded as a ratings disappointment, although the network will often keep the show afloat if it receives widespread critical praise.

...

On the plus side for Netflix, the Procera stats show that many people who did watch the first episode of House of Cards watched subsequent episodes as well. In fact, 1.3 percent of its total streaming sub base watched episode two.

Hmm, but as I've noted before, as a Netflix subscriber, I wouldn't have known this show existed if Netflix were my only information source. A couple days before the launch, I saw tons of ads offering the first episode free, so that might be Netflix's real test for the new show. And it's too early for anyone to be counting my viewing, since I haven't even seen the second ep but plan to see the whole thing.

Also, direct comparisons to HBO won't work since HBO doesn't have a slew of episodes and movies all available at the same time, distracting subscribers from seeing any given show within any given time period.

So Netflix is right not to let the numbers get out (it took some digging for me to even find this much), there are too many apples & oranges comparisons that could happen and make them look bad unfairly.