Yeah, the lack of payoff was a big turnoff for me in Season 2. I mean, you spend so much time leading viewers around with characters that in the end don't really mean a thing. I quite liked season 1, as I felt it had an interesting premise and was willing to give the show a chance. Obviously, countless others felt the same way as it became enormously popular. But where it gets me is that it feels as though the writers and producers misjudged the things that made it popular, instead increasing things that should have been kept minimal, ie the mystery box being increased in a significant way for season 2. As such, I felt the mystery box took over leaving the narrative to the sidelines. I felt bad for the writers because there was so much potential, but I kept picturing them being interrupted by suits telling them they needed to write in another mystery box. By the time the season 2 finale rolled around, I was unimpressed and frustrated, and I haven't watched Season 3 because it had left such a sour taste behind. It struck me as wrong, because why should a writing method completely take over from the story you're trying to tell?
That more or less describes what happened to House of Cards to me. First few seasons followed the British counterpart's storyline, but once the show became a hit, the narrative was slowed to the point that it was rarely ever referred to in later seasons. Felt like they weren't even interested in closing any of the story threads, and while it felt like there was enough evidence to implicate Frank Underwood in his underhanded dealings, it all seemed to wash over and he seemed to always get his way. It also explains why the show felt mostly random in the later seasons, with it not really leading anywhere. The final episode felt like a finger to the viewers for sticking it out. Always felt that they should have closed out the early storylines properly so that they could move on.
Last edited:
