I'm under the impression that she knows and she doesn't talk about it. She knew to come back when he was found dead because she was wanting him to get his plans in order.
House of Cards - S1 on Netflix - Spacey & Fincher - *UNMARKED SPOILERS FOR ALL OF S1*
- Thread starter Cornballer
- Start date
- Status
This is how I see it too. But you can make an argument for both I guess.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I can't imagine Claire knowing that Frank did that. I think Claire has lines that she won't cross. Wasn't there at least one scene where Claire was all "poor Peter" while only talking to Frank? Claire came back because she knew it would be a mess for Frank, not because she knew he killed him. That's who I saw it at least.
Uni on Everything!
Member
Just marathon'd this over the weekend and absolutely loved it! Have a question though...
So was it Frank's plan all along for Russo to crash and burn? Because it seemed to me he really wanted the watershed bill to pass and was genuinely pissed at Claire for sabotaging him. If Russo had won governor how would Frank have secured the VP position?
The reason I'm questioning this is because in one of the scenes he said all his months of scheming would be wasted if the current VP doesn't run for governor in Russo's place. Did he just get lucky and things worked out in his favor?
The reason I'm questioning this is because in one of the scenes he said all his months of scheming would be wasted if the current VP doesn't run for governor in Russo's place. Did he just get lucky and things worked out in his favor?
He always planned to blow up Russo's governor race, forcing the VP to step in. That was the plan from the start.
The bill failing and Clair defying him forced him to move up his time-table - the show has dialogue between Underwood and Stamper that addresses this.
He was furious with Clair because he had to move things up. There was a CHANCE the Democrats had enough time to find another real candidate. So he had to carefully manipulate the VP and the POTUS into getting the VP to step down and run, instead of it being the "obvious" choice, like it would have been if Russo didn't implode until a bit later.
The bill failing and Clair defying him forced him to move up his time-table - the show has dialogue between Underwood and Stamper that addresses this.
He was furious with Clair because he had to move things up. There was a CHANCE the Democrats had enough time to find another real candidate. So he had to carefully manipulate the VP and the POTUS into getting the VP to step down and run, instead of it being the "obvious" choice, like it would have been if Russo didn't implode until a bit later.
ambientmystic
Member
Thanks for this. I had the same question myself. He seemed really
pissed about Russo's watershed bill not passing that I thought he genuinely wanted Russo's campaign bolstered and for him to win the race to become Governor.
Cornballer
Member
- Sepinwall's review of S1: In the end, Netflix's 'House of Cards' good but not great
I like Sepinwall's work but it really seems he got too caught up in the distribution model in terms of how it interrupted his usual approach. Shame he got spoiled halfway through too.
Dr Stabbingworth
Member
Just finished the show last night and I loved it. There was one thing that really bugged me though about the last episode.
Regardless, I can't wait for next season.
When Doug picks up Rachel after meeting with Zoe, Lucas sees Doug's license plate and there's a bit of foreboding about him identifying Doug. It seems really odd, after the whole season of Frank showing up at Zoe's apartment, and all the other times where people were trying to be discrete, that Doug would be so careless. Either that or it's surprising that the writers would use that as a plot device to potentially expose Doug/Francis after ignoring all the other obvious points where their plotting could have been unraveled by somebody noticing Francis in the wrong place.
Regardless, I can't wait for next season.
I assume Francis will be forced to throw Doug under the bus at some point and I can't wait to see how that plays out.
Cornballer
Member
A few polling numbers from a small, recent survey: House Of Cards Makes Netflix Subscribers More Loyal: Survey
Deadline.com said:
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
haha
He's randomly spoiled The Wire and The Sopranos (and probably other shows too) in totally unrelated pieces, so it serves him right.
I just erased that entire scene from my memory.
Triple Oceans
Member
Haven't read the review as I'm still working my way through the series, but there is no denying that as a whole AV Club seems to feel very threatened by House of Cards. Alan Sepinwall too. He's made a number of passive-aggressive comments about the distribution model (making it a point to keep saying over and over how he doesn't have time to watch all the episodes in a marathon). It's kinda funny.
Yeah, Sepinwall couldn't help but shit on the distribution method ("oh no, I notice character growth too much when it's not separated by an artificial, arbitrary week" "oh no, how am I supposed to discuss this with other people?" etc. etc.). I'm fine with people shitting on the show, but shitting on the distribution method? That, I will not permit. Do these people know the novel existed before their beloved golden age of television?
Todd at AV Club makes a big deal about
Also, a lot of people really don't like Zoe.
Frank's murder of Peter, basically saying it came out of nowhere and was uncharacteristic of him, but I didn't see it that way at all. Dude straight up killed that dog in the first episode like it was nothing, I consider that a pretty strong precursor to his ability to end a vulnerable life.
Also, a lot of people really don't like Zoe.
Exactly,
Frank did the action in the moment but they established from the very start that his character was capable of it. In fact, they explicitly told us that was his philosophy in life.
Thank you for saying this, I really can't understand why critics seems so down on the distribution model. Say what you want about the show, but why bitch about having too much content available to consume at your own pace? This is how I've been watching television for years now (one season at a time) and I can't go back. I mean, why can't they just watch one episode a week? lol
ambientmystic
Member
Lol. That's their bloody problem. This delivery system is perfect for the modern television show watcher who's used to on demand delivery; whenever, wherever, and the sooner those reviewer hacks get used to the reality of this new system, the better it'll be for everyone.
I for one applaud Netflix for taking the bold move in allowing the show to be consumed all in one sitting. Ensures the narrative remains flowing and stays fresh in the mind, and saves on the pointless and artificial cliffhangers that were necessary to maintain interest in previous television shows due to the limitations imposed by the now antiquated delivery model.
Now this is true.
Two reasons:
1) For the weekly recappers (AV Club, Sepinwall) this distribution model will make them largely irrelevant.
2) For all the rest of the TV critics, they no longer get to feel special that they get a batch of screeners weeks or months ahead of episodes actually airing.
I agree that there's some issues with character growth and the pacing of that over the course of the year/season. But Sepinwall specifically points the finger at the distribution method.
"But there were also stories that suffered from seeing the episodes in such close proximity to each other. Zoe's transition from [vague spoilers removed] felt much more abrupt watched this way than at a more leisurely pace."
Also, the sub-header of the review says "mid-tier on HBO or Showtime." I get it, it's not perfect. But the Showtime slate is basically Homeland (which has driven off a cliff in S2) and Dexter (which is just uniformly awful at this point). It's not like HBO's hitting it out of the park with their current drama slate either. I don't mean to shit on Sepinwall or anyone really but the criticism is that it didn't reinvent the television show as an entertainment medium. Double standards.
"But there were also stories that suffered from seeing the episodes in such close proximity to each other. Zoe's transition from [vague spoilers removed] felt much more abrupt watched this way than at a more leisurely pace."
Also, the sub-header of the review says "mid-tier on HBO or Showtime." I get it, it's not perfect. But the Showtime slate is basically Homeland (which has driven off a cliff in S2) and Dexter (which is just uniformly awful at this point). It's not like HBO's hitting it out of the park with their current drama slate either. I don't mean to shit on Sepinwall or anyone really but the criticism is that it didn't reinvent the television show as an entertainment medium. Double standards.
likedamaster
Member
Such a great show. Didn't have time to power read through the thread, but does anyone know the exact start of next season?
Steelyuhas
Member
Yeah I'm not surprised by their reviews because of this.
Cornballer
Member
Nope. It'll probably be sometime in early 2014.
dead souls
Member
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Why does Netflix make AV Club reviews irrelevant? I know I enjoy the writing on the AV Club, so I've gone back and read all of the old reviews for several old seasons of shows I picked up late and marathoned through on Netflix.
dead souls
Member
It will change their business a bit, but I think it's spin to say it's influencing their reviews of HoC negatively. Hell, Sepinwall and The AVClub both gave the show a mostly positive review.
It's not spin when they admit it themselves. But it really doesn't matter. Can't say I agree with you on Shameless and the Borgias though... Showtime's slate is better than it's ever been, but they've had such a shitty slate for quite some time that it's not really saying much.
ambientmystic
Member
BertramCooper
Banned
Best not to get bent out of shape by a VanDerWerff review.
He writes some really stupid shit.
And he was also ridiculously forgiving of Homeland's horrendous second season, which was really goddamned irritating. (He was basically repeating, "I know this is stupid and implausible, but it just works for this show," ad naseam throughout the season.)
But to be fair, almost all critics were ridiculously forgiving of Homeland's second season. There tends to be a rather obvious groupthink among online TV critics.
He writes some really stupid shit.
And he was also ridiculously forgiving of Homeland's horrendous second season, which was really goddamned irritating. (He was basically repeating, "I know this is stupid and implausible, but it just works for this show," ad naseam throughout the season.)
But to be fair, almost all critics were ridiculously forgiving of Homeland's second season. There tends to be a rather obvious groupthink among online TV critics.
Yeah, but they've both gone out of their way to criticize the distribution method. The AV Club even posted an article saying that Scandal is better than House of Cards with one of the reasons being that its distribution method allows it to have "cliffhanger endings". So revolutionary!
http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-scandal-beats-house-of-cards-at-its-own-game,92545/
TheClimaxan
Member
I'm 3 episodes deep so far, and so far I love it. Kevin Spacey was born for this role.
good god, I nearly had a fucking aneurysm reading that article, there was so much stupidity. "The rising ratings for the show this season, its second, suggest this mode of storytelling is working."
I wonder what they'd have to say about the abysmal ratings the Wire got when it was on. Or what they think of the Big Bang Theory. The whole thing is just embarrassing to read; basically apologizing for all of TV's pitfalls. Oh, but cliffhangers are so dramatic! Oh, but isn't not knowing if the show will turn out to be good or not liberating? House of Cards looks too good! etc.
At the end of the day, double standards galore. It'd be more annoying if the arguments weren't so terrible. This is a distribution method that could potentially fix all the problems that have plagued TV as a storytelling medium; fucking embrace it.
This is insanely embarrassing.
Because they won't get clickbait episode rundowns and recaps. This distribution model may actually require that to do something we call "journalism" for a living.
I'm from Georgia, and I have to disagree with this. He sounds fine.
dead souls
Member
Agreed. I'm as surprised as anyone that I actually mostly agree with VanDerWerff's review of this show, since my tastes are usually miles off from his. It's funny to watch him meltdown in many of the comment sections of his Girls reviews.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Just finished House of Cards, that show is so above B-tier. It's at least as good as something like Breaking Bad. Spacey is amazing and that may have just made some people assume every character with less screentime just wasn't that important, but actually every other character is very interesting, smart, and even well-acted. Frank Underwood is just the glue that brings them all together.
Granted, some parts of it are a bit farfetched but no more than any other show on TV. There's also nothing else like it in the US as far as I know.
Maybe I'm just a little bit juvenile, but I would really like it if they grabbed one of the directors from Justified or Breaking Bad to get some crazy stylish cinematography going on. At least this show lets you work in ass and tits into the shot.
Granted, some parts of it are a bit farfetched but no more than any other show on TV. There's also nothing else like it in the US as far as I know.
Maybe I'm just a little bit juvenile, but I would really like it if they grabbed one of the directors from Justified or Breaking Bad to get some crazy stylish cinematography going on. At least this show lets you work in ass and tits into the shot.
Operations
Member
When was this clarified or how did you get that impression?
It seemed to me all of his moves were sort of improvised rather than the result of long-term planning (e.g. watershed bill not passing, Russo crashing, seizing the VP slot, etc.)
Also, what did he gain by forcing his Secretary of State pick? Doesn't seem to fit his overall strategy.
Also, what did he gain by forcing his Secretary of State pick? Doesn't seem to fit his overall strategy.
They did get David Fincher... not exactly sure what more you could ask for, from a visual point of view.
It was pretty clear that was the plan from the start.
The episode when the education bill is signed, Frank realizes that the VP is on shaky terms with the President. He then moves with the Russo plan, despite significant concerns from the DNC and the President's Chief of Staff. Frank set Russo up to fail.
Frank's plan is basically to buttfuck the President, politically. I'm sure next season will be Frank getting the President in a position to resign.
Frank's plan is basically to buttfuck the President, politically. I'm sure next season will be Frank getting the President in a position to resign.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
The Lamonster
Member
so does Kata Mara ever get truly naked on this show or what
- Status