House of Cards

by Idéfix Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:31 pm

This is a new TV series just launched by Netflix. Unlike all other TV programming, the content here has been financed directly by Netflix, and the series is not expected to air on any major network or cable channel. All thirteen episodes of the first season were released at once on Netflix for instant streaming last week. It stars Kevin Spacey as the ambitious and ruthless Democratic House Majority Whip in a hypothetical 2013. A new Democratic president has just taken office; the House is in Democratic hands while the Senate is in GOP hands. The protagonist is expecting to be named the new Secretary of State, in reward for the help he has given the new president's campaign. But he is betrayed, and spends the next several months plotting his revenge. I started watching this on Saturday, and already watched six episodes. If you like politics and / or political dramas, this is the series for you.

by Petrichor Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:36 pm

It is absolutely the series for me...i just finished ep.4.

It is sublimely delicious and kevin spacey is superb.
i liked the scene where robin wright spends some time with the photographer at washington mandarin.

the series original is bbc...so snobbish suchers like bw can choose to indulge across the pond.

during case interview prep, i suddenly had this question thrown at me - what is the cost-benefit analysis for netflix engaging in this venture?

by Idéfix Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:40 pm

atcg wrote:It is absolutely the series for me...i just finished ep.4.

It is sublimely delicious and kevin spacey is superb.
i liked the scene where robin wright spends some time with the photographer at washington mandarin.

the series original is bbc...so snobbish suchers like bw can choose to indulge across the pond.

during case interview prep, i suddenly had this question thrown at me - what is the cost-benefit analysis for netflix engaging in this venture?

Haha -- I was actually wondering that myself when I read about NFLX's new move. They are also reviving Arrested Development, which is one of my absolute favorites.

It is an expensive bet at $100 million, but it has the potential to shake up the market just a little bit. I don't see people getting NFLX memberships just for this one show, though. They have a 30 day free trial, to boot. So even if I wanted a membership just to watch this show, I could sign up for free trial, terminate and be done. Do the same next year in the spouse's name for season 2 or something. Perhaps if they have a good mix of 5-10 shows, that could drive new revenues. But a hundred million here and a hundred million there, and soon you are talking real money.

by Petrichor Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:42 pm

panini press wrote:So even if I wanted a membership just to watch this show, I could sign up for free trial, terminate and be done. Do the same next year in the spouse's name for season 2 or something. Perhaps if they have a good mix of 5-10 shows, that could drive new revenues. But a hundred million here and a hundred million there, and soon you are talking real money.

I think NFLX is going for the brand equity of HBO and Showtime - there is probably customer segmentation taking place right under their noses and they are creeping up the 'perception' chain...now I did not use data - just intuition...so take with a huge pinch of salt.

NFLX jumped on news as well - something is cooking definitely.

by Petrichor Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:59 pm

actually googled it...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/economics-netflixs-100-million-new-show/61692/

gory details behind why NFLX is a decent bet for 2 year horizon.

ps. who doesn't like metaphors with irony? if the numbers doesnt come through...house of cards indeed.

by Hellsangel Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:31 pm

So this is the original:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098825/?ref_=sr_2

Have to check if Amazon has it. Netflix will probably bury it.

by Hellsangel Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:45 pm

Well, well, well:

http://www.amazon.com/House-of-Cards-Episode-1/dp/B000HSIEPI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1360097047&sr=1-1&keywords=House+of+Cards

For fans of TTSS, the lead character plays Bill Haydon in that.

by bw Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Well, well, well:

http://www.amazon.com/House-of-Cards-Episode-1/dp/B000HSIEPI/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1360097047&sr=1-1&keywords=House+of+Cards

For fans of TTSS, the lead character plays Bill Haydon in that.

oh, nice, i want to watch it too.

by Petrichor Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:17 pm

WSJ CI:

Here’s Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes on an earnings call today, responding to a question on what the Netflix move means for HBO:

"I feel great about how HBO is doing today. I think we just talked about it. It’s got the best original programming slate ever, a lot of very high-profile series and more every year. We’ve locked up the theatrical movie position for the next decade. The HBO GO product is a fantastic, 21st-century, Internet-ready product, and we just added more subs than at any time in the last 10 years.

Now let’s go over and give a little credit to Netflix. They’re doing a great job. I think the functionality of their service, some of the really consumer-friendly effectiveness of their search, if you’re watching it, finding what you want to watch, getting recommendations to go through a very, very deep library, a lot of programming, it’s — the more programs you have on a service, the more important it is to be able to find them.

But if you talk about original programming, HBO has always operated in a competitive environment. We’ve been happy to see some of the successes at Showtime and Stars recently in originals. Netflix has a new original that’s pretty good, House of Cards. I think that’s great. It’ll take a while for that to turn into — I forget, what does HBO get? 10 or so hits here? It’s all good.

I think it reminds consumers of the choice that they have of television programming on demand. And it’s an extremely — the cycle of making breakthrough original programming and having people find it and use it, which HBO has been doing for 20 years, and Netflix is now joining, it takes a while to get that up to scale."

It seems, for now, that Time Warner is fairly content with an upstart competitor.

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:16 pm

Finished all 13 episodes. The British original is now on Netflix as well. The British original is not as dark, is much more subtle, has a lot less sleaze, is not as fast and is not as gripping.

by Petrichor Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:07 am

Do not google...why is the US flag shown upside-down on the title?

Finally finished the episodes - Spacey, nicely done showing the stuffy brits how it's done.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:16 am

that mara girl (the reporter) has a fine fine ass. or was that a body double in the scene where she gets naked and tells the south carolina guy to take her naked pictures?

by Impedimenta Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:19 pm

have to renew my subscription.

by Idéfix Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:31 pm

I finished watching this over the weekend. It was great right through the end of the season. If I had no subscription, I would definitely pay to watch this series. It is now Netflix's most popular item: http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/12/house-of-cards-results/

And it is a hit on Capitol Hill: http://www.vulture.com/2013/02/house-of-cards-hit-capitol-hill.html

by Propagandhi711 Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:44 pm

I must say it was a disappointment, not enough spank worthy material for a TV-MA show. or maybe I take too long these days....hmmm.

kevin spacey did act well without too much of his old smarminess. his anger is more believable than in older movies, maybe a function of his aging face: anger doesnt project well on younger faces

by Idéfix Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:56 pm

atcg wrote:Do not google...why is the US flag shown upside-down on the title?

No idea... perhaps to indicate things in politics are sometimes the opposite of what they seem?

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:56 pm

panini press wrote:
atcg wrote:Do not google...why is the US flag shown upside-down on the title?
No idea... perhaps to indicate things in politics are sometimes the opposite of what they seem?

It is a sign of distress.

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:57 pm

atcg wrote:Do not google...why is the US flag shown upside-down on the title?

Finally finished the episodes - Spacey, nicely done showing the stuffy brits how it's done.

You might very well think that. But I couldn't possibly comment.

by Petrichor Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:07 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
You might very well think that. But I couldn't possibly comment.

Was that a line in the original?

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:09 pm

atcg wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
You might very well think that. But I couldn't possibly comment.

Was that a line in the original?

by bw Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:04 am

watched all 13 episodes to see what the fuss is all about. it was exhausting. shall watch the british original next. i have a feeling that the british show will be much more classy.

i don't think i have the patience for these "season" thingies. i prefer short films/shows that i am done with in 2-3 hours.

by Petrichor Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:57 am

Did you identify with Mrs. Underwood, Ms. Barnes or Ms. Vasquez?

Who do you find yourself sweating like?

by Idéfix Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:17 pm

bw wrote:watched all 13 episodes to see what the fuss is all about. it was exhausting. shall watch the british original next. i have a feeling that the british show will be much more classy.

Are you sure you don't mean classical? Wink

by bw Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:48 pm

atcg wrote:Did you identify with Mrs. Underwood, Ms. Barnes or Ms. Vasquez?

nope

by bw Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:52 pm

panini press wrote:
bw wrote:watched all 13 episodes to see what the fuss is all about. it was exhausting. shall watch the british original next. i have a feeling that the british show will be much more classy.
Are you sure you don't mean classical?

haha, no, i meant classy and yeah, it is also a BBC classic.

watched half of episode 1 - so far, people come across a lot more intelligent and more realistic in looks and behaviour.

by Hellsangel Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:25 pm

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:11 pm

bw wrote:
panini press wrote:
bw wrote:watched all 13 episodes to see what the fuss is all about. it was exhausting. shall watch the british original next. i have a feeling that the british show will be much more classy.
Are you sure you don't mean classical?

haha, no, i meant classy and yeah, it is also a BBC classic.

watched half of episode 1 - so far, people come across a lot more intelligent and more realistic in looks and behaviour.

I started and finished another political thriller, 'The State Within' over the weekend. This one is made by BBC America. It is a take on the Iraq war. It was made in 2006 before the era of the iPhone, starring Jason Isaacs ( Harry Potter, The Patriot) as the British Ambassador to the United States.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:28 pm

I finished watching the BBC version of House of Cards over the weekend.

I found the characters in the American version more nuanced and well-developed. That may be a function of the fact that the American version uses 13 hours to tell the story that the British version does in 4 hours. In the British version, the lead character is the only that is sketched out in any detail. And he is not very convincing, because of a combination of extraordinary detachment in performing cruel actions, but tormented by dreams and visions of his victims. It is Shakespearean drama, but not very convincing for a modern politician.

The other major difference was the depth of the female characters. The women in the American version have more going on in their lives and careers beyond their male partners. Mrs. Underwood is a much more complex and interesting personality than Mrs. Urquhart; she has her own career, ambitions, and emotions and pursues them even if to the detriment of her husband. Mrs. Urquhart is portrayed as a scheming housewife and little else. Similarly for Zoe Barnes vs. Mattie Storin.

I liked watching the BBC version primarily for the insights into the British system. I am now looking forward more eagerly to the next season of the US version.

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:41 pm

Kevin Spacey was playing, well, Kevin Spacey. While Robin Wright seemed to be channeling Jamie Lee Curtis.

But Ian Richardson has a very nice voice.

by bw Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:24 pm

oh, british version all the way - the american one tries to be a slick, hollywood, formula movie - focused on being a box office success. on the other hand, francis U is simple and clear in his goals - no sentimentality involved. there isn't any guilt in the real sense despite some haunting memories.

robin wright's character was all over the place - again, i think, to get the "formula" right for the american audience - else it will all be too cerebral and boring.

stamper is LAME in the american version. the reporter is a lightweight and left no impression on me.

ian richardson ROCKS. kevin spacey - can't get past his "american beauty" role.

i am glad i watched the american version first - else, i may not have completed it at all.

--------------------------------------------------

Most striking is the change in tone. Netflix’s House of Cards is a drama, a thriller, even a tragedy, deeply earnest and strikingly dark, clearly reaching for some kind of mix between All the President’s Men and The Godfather. The BBC’s House of Cards, on the other hand, is a razor-taloned satire, the blackest black comedy since Dr. Strangelove. While Netflix’s version has its funny moments, the British version is black comedy at its unadulterated best; it’s utterly hilarious, but its funniest moments are also its most horrible, and the comedy builds relentlessly until the show suddenly turns on us, and slaps us in the face with a shocking climax that brings home in the most brutal fashion the weight of all the horror we’ve been laughing at (no, I won’t give it away, but suffice it to say that it outdoes the climax of its American remake by light years).

The difference is personified in the series’ central roles. Spacey’s Underwood is a Machiavellian shark, a player of the highest order who takes his job very, very seriously and is very, very good at it. He is a consummate operator in the finest tradition of the American backroom wheeler-dealer, willing to say anything to make a sale.

His British counterpart is Francis Urquhart (pronounced Urk-hurt, and yes, that his initials are F.U. is deliberate), played by Ian Richardson in what is unquestionably his greatest performance. Urquhart is not a shark – he is pure evil, a Mephistopheles for the modern age. Clearly based on Shakespeare’s Richard III, he has none of Spacey’s angst-ridden drive; instead, he revels in the evil he commits, and so do we, taking a corrupted pleasure in watching him knock down his rivals one by one as he clears the path to ultimate power. We feel for Spacey’s Underwood because he seems to have some semblance of humanity beneath the ruthless exterior, but we feel for Richardson’s Urquhart because – like Richard – he seems to be having so much fun. He’s evil because he enjoys it; and for awhile, so do we.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/02/28/why-the-original-house-of-cards-is-infinitely-better-than-netflixs-remake/

by bw Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:36 pm

the original show is a dark satire focusing on one man's evil rise to power - the american version loses that plot - way too many side stories and characters making it a grand soap opera instead.

by Idéfix Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:39 pm

For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

by bw Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:10 pm

trofimov wrote:For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

you missed the irony and sarcasm totally, if you took any of his words to be sincere. he is not meant to ring true at all - it is a dark comedy.

i found it deliciously evil, much like roald dahl's "tales of the unexpected"

the american one can't stick to the plot, tries to show the "human" side and gets all messy and cheesy.

anyway, am off to try the BBC america offering next.

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:31 pm

bw wrote:
trofimov wrote:For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

you missed the irony and sarcasm totally, if you took any of his words to be sincere. he is not meant to ring true at all - it is a dark comedy.

i found it deliciously evil, much like roald dahl's "tales of the unexpected"

the american one can't stick to the plot, tries to show the "human" side and gets all messy and cheesy.

anyway, am off to try the BBC america offering next.

Starting The State Within? I think you will like that show.

by bw Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:34 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
trofimov wrote:For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

you missed the irony and sarcasm totally, if you took any of his words to be sincere. he is not meant to ring true at all - it is a dark comedy.

i found it deliciously evil, much like roald dahl's "tales of the unexpected"

the american one can't stick to the plot, tries to show the "human" side and gets all messy and cheesy.

anyway, am off to try the BBC america offering next.

Starting The State Within? I think you will like that show.

i guess i will first finish "hatufim" and then start this.

by Hellsangel Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:36 pm

bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
trofimov wrote:For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

you missed the irony and sarcasm totally, if you took any of his words to be sincere. he is not meant to ring true at all - it is a dark comedy.

i found it deliciously evil, much like roald dahl's "tales of the unexpected"

the american one can't stick to the plot, tries to show the "human" side and gets all messy and cheesy.

anyway, am off to try the BBC america offering next.

Starting The State Within? I think you will like that show.

i guess i will first finish "hatufim" and then start this.

Oh yeah! Eight more episodes to go?

by bw Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:41 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
bw wrote:
trofimov wrote:For me, the reason Urquhart doesn't work is this... a person who is evil because he enjoys being evil doesn't have to cloak it in the "I am doing it for the good of the country" nonsense behind closed doors. Urquhart's face-the-camera moments are devoid of candor; the only "real" thing there is his smile. An evil but successful person can presumably get more from gloating to the powerless audience than from avoiding the obvious. Underwood is blunt and honest to the camera, and that makes him ring truer to me.

I think the British version is rather overrated, despite an excellent performance by Ian Richardson. It is certainly no comedy.

you missed the irony and sarcasm totally, if you took any of his words to be sincere. he is not meant to ring true at all - it is a dark comedy.

i found it deliciously evil, much like roald dahl's "tales of the unexpected"

the american one can't stick to the plot, tries to show the "human" side and gets all messy and cheesy.

anyway, am off to try the BBC america offering next.

Starting The State Within? I think you will like that show.

i guess i will first finish "hatufim" and then start this.

Oh yeah! Eight more episodes to go?

yes - shall post my review after that - of course, there is the usual american, dumbed down offering to compare it with. Twisted Evil

by bw Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:07 pm

season 2 of the american version - good, bad?

by Hellsangel Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:10 pm

bw wrote:season 2 of the american version - good, bad?

I watched 4 episodes. The first episode is predictable for anyone who has seen the BBC original. The rest were kind of an embellishment for American politics. I guess he 'topples' the president by the end of the season. No king here to abdicate.

by Hellsangel Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:51 pm

It is devolving into a soap opera.

by bw Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:58 pm

Hellsangel wrote:It is devolving into a soap opera.

hmm - the bbc one was darker and better, you think? i recently watched kevin spacey in "glengarry glenn ross", a david mamet movie based on his play.

i will get around to this when i finish "the sopranos". i can't watch the sopranos with kids around and so it has been rather slow progress. i forget what happened previously a lot of times!

by Idéfix Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:09 pm

Just finished season 2. The characters are less gripping. Unlike Francis Urquhart, Frank Underwood does not suffer from nightmares about his worst deeds. The story is more complicated while the protagonists are portrayed as less flawed than in the first season. And the famous line does not get repeated this season.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:23 am

Why do Brit douches talk like they have lockjaw? The bbc original is vastly overrated IMO

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:26 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:Why do Brit douches talk like they have lockjaw? The bbc original is vastly overrated IMO

it's their language you know.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:30 am

Am talking about the facial movements when they talk...especially the upper class douches, with no facial movement above the upper lip

by bw Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:44 pm

Idéfix wrote:Just finished season 2. The characters are less gripping. Unlike Francis Urquhart, Frank Underwood does not suffer from nightmares about his worst deeds. The story is more complicated while the protagonists are portrayed as less flawed than in the first season. And the famous line does not get repeated this season.

"unwittingly funny" says the guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/feb/14/house-of-cards-season-two-first-look

by MaxEntropy_Man Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:51 pm

bw wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Just finished season 2. The characters are less gripping. Unlike Francis Urquhart, Frank Underwood does not suffer from nightmares about his worst deeds. The story is more complicated while the protagonists are portrayed as less flawed than in the first season. And the famous line does not get repeated this season.

"unwittingly funny" says the guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/feb/14/house-of-cards-season-two-first-look

my sis and bil didn't know about the original and were raving about the netflix version. i turned them onto the BBC version and they cussed me for putting them off the american netflix version. i haven't watched a single episode of the remake. probably won't based on the reviews here and what i heard from sis and bil after their intro to the BBC version.

by Idéfix Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:24 pm

I still prefer the American version.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:00 am

Idéfix wrote:I still prefer the American version.

me too....anglo worshipping blinds ppl in all time zones it seems

by peace_lover Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:02 am

I like Kevin Spacey..

by Sponsored content