Is there an established procedure re discussing a show like this? Where an entire new season can be watched at once, rather than it being parceled out one per week?
Is it open spoilers for the entire show right from the start or what?
I don’t know the answer and don’t want to hijack the thread, but I can’t help but ask: does the exact time they released all the season’s episodes determine whether it’s up for Primetime Emmys instead of Daytime Emmys?
Probably should be spoilered, as people will watch varying numbers of episodes in a sitting. We watched 1-3 last night, for example, but someone else may only be on episode one.
Anyway, I wasn’t going to watch this season, as I was put off by last season’s nonsense. But this one has taken off at a pretty good clip. I still can’t stand Robin Wright as an actor. It’s like watching a stick talk.
I’m on episode six. So far, I reckon it’s the best season since the first one. I won’t spoil it, but episode 4 is a real game changer!
Truth be told, I had the opposite reaction.
[spoiler]Frank starts out fighting a tough election, Claire is acting like a spoiler entitled child throwing a Frank-destroying tantrum… and at the end they’re still fighting the same election and Claire’s been given a truly unlikely gift to keep her from throwing any more Frank-destroying tantrums.
I like this show, and I like Spacey, but it’s gotten ridiculous to the point that mocking it is starting to become a significant part of its entertainment value, as is the case for The Walking Dead and was for Sons of Anarchy.[/spoiler]
Watched the entire 4th season over the weekend and still trying to process whether I thought it was up to the high water mark set in the previous 3 seasons. Lot’s of great story lines and a few surprises. Certainly entertaining and compelling enough to keep my attention through to the end. Already looking forward to season 5.
I’m curious to hear what others thought but I don’t want to spoil it for those who still have not watched and don’t feel like spoiler boxing entire posts.
I thought it was the best season since the first.
The points I don’t like:
The single issue campaigns - I would have liked to hear about something other than America Works and Go Army. There was a bit about women and equality.
The character development of Freddy - I don’t think there was a need to bring him back or else there were several scenes left on the cutting room floor to make a better arc.
Doug Stamper - what is with this guy? How about some backstory? Why is he so loyal?
Highlights (trying to avoid too many spoilers):
The gamesmanship over the Texas race
Bringing back some previous characters to extend their storylines and give them satisfying conclusions - there are already so many characters that it was nice to not have to have 20 new ones this season.
The refocus of the middle of the season- It was tiresome following a primary main character for 42 episodes. Decreasing his screen time served to demonstrate how others behave when not with him (or Doug), but also how the power in a room is focused through him.
The Republican candidate and the show’s use of the character to mimic the current real-life candidate(s?).
Seth vs. Doug vs. LeAnn - 3 overachievers all vying for attention
Elizabeth Hale - a failed mother, but still trying to help her daughter who doesn’t want help. Maybe we can meet Doug’s mother, Rosemary, soon!?!
Have now watched the whole Season 4 and enjoyed it. I’m curious about Season 5 after reading somewhere that this was Beau Willimon’s last season (producer and I think main writer or showrunner). I hope it doesn’t get too “different” from what’s already been established.
Agree with whoever said it’d be nice to see some backstory on Doug, and how he came to be so loyal. He’s done some horrible and criminal things but I’m hardpressed to think of another character in TV who demonstrated such unwavering loyalty.
I can’t be the only one who thinks the guy playing Conway, the Repub candidate, is a terrible, terrible actor. For me it is so bad that it’s actually distracting, especially if it’s a scene where he must gesture with his hands and arms. It looks so weird, sort of like the arms and hands are not attached to the same body. A bit of dialogue mentions his height, and he is indeed a tall guy, plus he has sort of a low voice which I guess in some ways is perceived as “commanding” which would be good for the character in question, who is being described on the show itself as being like the picture-perfect candidate. But he is Godawful to me! After seeing a couple of his scenes I realized that he was reminding me of someone very specific. Brendan Fraser in the movie “Crash.” Fraser in that is also a taller guy with a lowish voice playing a politician, as I think he played a DA and those are ultimately political positions. Beats me but seems possible that Fraser, too, was chosen as much for his physical traits and voice as anything else because he was so wooden both with his line delivery and gesturing that it was just awful.
The guy playing Conway on HoC sticks out like a sore thumb amongst so many other really good actors (I disagree with whoever said Robin Wright was like watching a stick talk. made me laugh but I disagree!).
I binged the whole thing. While it wasn’t as good as S1 and S2, it was a lot better than S3. S3 wasn’t the worst fall of a show ever, but it didn’t get me excited for S4. It’s a shame because S4 is fairly solid and better than a lot of other shows.
He’s a Swedish actor who was excellent in his role in “The Killing”. He’s not great in this, but does a credible job. I stand by my Robin Wright statement. She’s like the Betty Draper of politics.
I have enjoyed the series as a whole. I do think these shows have a tendency to milk the cash cow dry. Three seasons with the fat cut would have probably sufficed imo.
I think his loyalty is driven by his psychotic obsessiveness.
It occurs to me that he might be cut loose by the president when the fact about how he got the president moved to the top of the donor recipient list is revealed. If that happens, Doug will either provide the press with all the dirt on Frank before taking his own life, or, he’ll assassinate Frank. <cut and wrap>
Almost done with S4 – some pretty wild stuff has happened (some, for me, pushing the limits of believability, but still fun).
Doug bothers the living crap outta me; not so much for his psycho-ness, but his huge, HUGE, HUGE head! He looks like one of those bobble-head dolls.
A lot of actors are like that: enormous gourds and tiny bodies.
My suggestion (seriously) is treat the entire series as requiring spoiler boxes until series five comes out. Just because (generic) you’ve got time to watch all of the episodes over a weekend doesn’t mean everyone else does and there’s plenty of people who might want to discuss the show but can only manage an episode or two each week for whatever reason.
I’ve started watching the series and already I see there’s a pretty significant spoiler in this thread, which is disappointing.
The hilarious part is, his highest-profile role was Robocop.
It appears the community doesn’t have an established way of dealing with these ‘dump at once’ shows, but I do think we need one.
My suggestion: Any discussion of details of an episode, especially anything spoilery, should be spoiler boxed, and labeled with the episode number of the latest episode relevant. As in, if I wished to talk about Stamper’s sudden career switch to Kangaroo Wrangler, I would have to lead off with 'Spoilers up to Episode 47."
But I think requiring them all the way to the following season is overkill. Perhaps we could set the time based on how long it would take for a season if it had been shown at the normal one per week schedule? So a show with 13 episodes, like this one, would be in spoilers for three months? With that date figured out and put into the thread title?
Like: Game of Thrones Season 4 (Spoiler boxes until 6/4/16)
Yes, some interested people won’t be finished by then, due to reasons, but they’ll be warned to stay out of the thread from 6/4/16 until they HAVE watched it.
Opinions? Other ideas?
That’s stupid and makes no sense. Every post in the thread will be nothing but spoiler boxes, what is the point of that?
This is not practical, especially for a show like House of Cards. When watching episodes in sequence on Netflix, I have no idea what happened in what episode, they all run together. House of Cards doesn’t even give episode titles, they just have a running count starting from Season 1, Episode 1. Did *big event *happen in episode 42 or 44? Was such and such line said in 45 or 46? There is no way to expect people to remember that.
It’s really a whole new way of watching a TV show, and unfortunately one of the downfalls of releasing an entire show at once is the loss of “watercoolor” type discussion threads. If you want to read discussions about a show online you’re just going to have to either wait until you’ve seen the whole thing, or forget about protecting yourself from spoilers. There is just no practical way to do otherwise.
It’s possible to discuss plot developments generally without getting specifically open spoilery. Same as any current movie or computer game.
The episodes are numbered, last I checked - each episode this season is called “Chapter 40/41/42” etc (at least on the Australian Netflix, can’t imagine why the US one would be any different).
I still don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people not to start breaking out the spoilers the weekend after the series first drops. You wouldn’t spoil a movie a week after it comes out on the “If you cared you would have seen it by now” theory, so the same should apply to a TV series.
Personally, I don’t find it a huge imposition to err on the side of caution and spoilerbox things from relatively current shows/films/computer games. I’d like to think most other people feel the same way.
Well, what about Lassie? She killed two hookers who knew too much.