Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by doubleohfive, Feb 14, 2014.
Unless you're bitten by one and turn into a walking lesbian.
What, Bisexual...No that is impossible
I agree that his character took a huge hit this season, but it was explained and made sense. At the AA meeting, he described his attraction to Rachel as being like an addiction. He didn't want to feel that way, but he did, and it affected him and it affected his work. He got sloppy, and made mistakes, finally paying the ultimate price for them. It was like how alcohol felt to him.
But why? There was never any explanation for why he was so hung up on her to begin with, or build-up illustrating it. Everything last season seemed like he was just doing his normal thorough-bordering-anal-retentive job, then suddenly this season he was obsessed with her and controlling her and turned into a quivering mess.
Why does anyone respond the way they do to anything? People have weaknesses. Given the amount of time he was spending around her, it was always possible he'd develop some kind of fixation on her. I don't know that he ever had that kind of power over someone before, and this was someone who had no other options and no hope.
Yep. I mean, I felt it, but I figured it was me projecting again.
If only there were more shows as well written and acted as this.
Great, but that isn't a compelling story. The power trip argument isn't convincing. He was running shit "like a boss" the whole first season. Unless there was some weakness with women telegraphed in the first season that I missed, it just doesn't ring true to the character as established.
Real life can get away with being messy and random. Storytelling has to be better than that.
I had no problem with Doug's obsession. His relationship with Rachel was already weird in the first season, and the second season reminded us several times that Doug was an alcoholic who had trouble with addiction, as well as man who was dedicated to being in control.
What bothered me was the pace of the story, which was a little slow (probably, I suspect, to keep Doug in play as Underwood's operative). I do wonder what will happen with the computer hacker, since Doug died before he could tell Frank anything about him.
Doug's storyline was fine, just way too long drawn out.
I'm wondering how many more seasons do they think the show will go? I'm thinking two. One about it, and one about his downfall. I hope they don't drag the show out for yard and years just to get a few extra seasons.
Both Damages and Rescue Me I feel would be better as three season, and I have a feeling House of Cards will be the same way.
Yeah, I agree that one or two more seasons would be sufficient. At this rate, maybe just one. I wouldn't like a whole season of wheel-spinning, and I fear that's what we'd get if the rest of the story is split over 2 seasons.
Agreed. Frances and Claire's story lines don't have 2 seasons worth of legs left. However, Netflix has tapped into something bigger than simply this one story - the American public's visceral hatred of Washington D.C. and anyone who works in Congress or even the White House. Even Barack Obama can no longer claim to be, "loved," as POTUS any longer with approval ratings in the low 40's.
Kevin Spacey in an interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily show described House of Cards as the, "anti-West Wing." Netflix would be smart to be already thinking of spin off series in the same vain.
Well, I suppose an additional season of the Underwoods desperately scrambling to reclaim some former glory might be interesting.
I don't think the show (or any spinoffs) would work without Spacey, though. Without him and Robin Wright, I don't think I'd bother. The two of them really elevate what is otherwise pretty pedestrian material.
I say it's safe to continue for two seasons, but making it to season 5 would be pushing it. Ideas for plotlines for subsequent seasons:
(2015) The action begins at the end of 2014 as Frank must choose a Vice President and cabinet. Unseen by us, as Frank is the main character, the Vice President is as ruthless as Frank is. The season ends before campaigning for the next term begins. Probably a lot of Republican primary action and Frank preparing for his (de facto) nomination.
(2016) The entire campaign for President. Frank wins, but it will cost him, probably requiring him to pull in too many favors or stabbing the wrong people in the back.
(2017) Frank begins his 2nd term, and it goes epicly downhill from there. Facts get uncovered. The "Roman senators" start to circle the wagons. Gets assassinated.
End of series: Frank dies to end the series (it's a classic tragedy, of course he dies), but the way it happens keeps the American public in the dark, and no one ever discovers what a terrible man he is. His legacy is secured. But we know.
I agree, without the Underwoods there is no point. I have a feeling Netflix will try and milk the show for 2-3 more seasons. However he raised in season 1, again in season 2, how many seasons can they do where he keeps his secrets before the downfall? I'm going with two, people find out in the third season finale and the finale season is about his trial.
Has the show been following the UK version? Obviously the UK one can't have the main guy ever become king.
Frank on trial wouldn't be the same show though, and it would stretch credibility for him to still be able to manipulate and machinate while under investigation. It will already be bordering on the implausible to watch him getting away with it as president. The only way to realistically continue the show is to pass it on to a new lead trying to take Frank down.
Season 7: Frank launches a coup, installs himself as king. Season 8: The search for an heir.
I finished up the season the other day, and I thought it was an improvement on the first season. I had said of the first season that it was an A-grade show in all aspects but the writing, and I think the show improved on that front this time. The monologues are less cheesy, and Frank doesn't come across as a Machiavellian genius quite as much as he did before. The hacker guy did fall into the usual Hollywood tropes, though, and that episode about the Senate went way over the top.
Up until the the first episode of the second season, it loosely followed the story of the UK version. After that, it went its own way. In the UK version...
Spoiler: To Play the King
...Francis Urquhart is the PM and gets involved in a constitutional crisis when the new king openly challenges his right-wing economic policies. Meanwhile, FU has an extra-marital fling with a young up-and-comer in the Conservative party called Sarah Harding, but she begins to uncover his murders. FU and Stamper have a bit of a falling-out, leading Stamper and Sarah to work together to reveal the truth about FU, but FU has them both killed with car-bombs, which get blamed on the IRA. FU wins a snap election, thus winning the battle for popular opinion, and the king is forced to abdicate.
I'm slow. I'm watching the first episode of season 2 and my jaws just dropped to the floor. I had to pause the video and post this. I mean, I kind of expected it given the build up and the location of the meeting, but it still shocked me.
Yep, I was just as shocked after that episode. All I can say now after seeing all of season two is, enjoy the ride!
Separate names with a comma.