Is the British version of House of Cards worth watching? Presumably it has a better overall story and ending than the American one given the declining quality of the later seasons of the American one, topped by having to erase their main character due to real life interfering
dont bother I tried a few years ago and its impossible to understand without subtitles and Frank Underwood is way better than the homosexual english guy
frank underwood seems capeshit tier
also anything american is bound to be nihilistic and unduly smug
Comic book villains are based on American politicians. If american politics were a script, the producers would tell the writers to increase the subtlety.
Didn’t Frank literally have gay sex in the American one?
Frank Underwood is a bisexual played by a literal pederast homosexual. He's quite possibly the gaygiest character ever put to screen.
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
>it doesn't matter huwhat i do as long as i'm doing something
>huwhipped cream
>impossible to understand without subtitles
Is this the power of American education?
First season is fine
Second is just a repeat of the first but still alright
Third is shit
Overall it's surface level stuff, I don't understand the rave reviews. Ian Richardson's smile reminds me of Elliot Rodger when he talks to the viewer
i only watched season 1. it is pretty comfy and US version season 1 is almost 1 to 1 remake they are very, very similar. it just never got me interested enough to continue watching it. i guess it is because it felt to similar to US version that i watched around the same time and the fact that im not that familiar in political situation and system in UK
francis urquhart is a good protagonist, but he is no frank underwood
Everything made in Britain is better than everything made in the US, including all media, so yeah.
i thought both the american and the british versions were meh, though i really liked political intrigues and stuff like that, is there something like "house of cards except good"?
Yes Minister is house of cards but good and funny. No overarching series plot though, it's more of an anthology.
First off. The British one is only four episodes per season, 1 hour each. Three seasons. So it’s not much of a time investment. American one is like 70+ 1 hour episodes in comparison. The British one straight up adapts the trilogy of novels. So the story is much more focused and concise.
I much prefer the British house of cards. Francis Urquhart is on a base level similar to Frank Underwood, but very different when you get into details. Frank grew up poor and was a social ladder climber who married into wealth. Frank is some kind of gay or bisexual. Franks goal is just power in general.
Francis is from old money, is a blue blood Tory who’s literally from a noble family. Normally this would make him much more difficult to pitch to voters as some populist leader but he has extremely good political instincts. He’s not out of touch. He isn’t bisexual. He does take mistresses and his wife is fine with it as she basically knows the deal, he cherishes her and only enjoys them.
Also find the relationships he has with Mattie the journalist and his wife much better in the British one.
There’s also just major plot and character elements in each season which couldn’t realistically be replicated for the American one because the American system is so different and Frank is so different
For example
>major plot of season 2 involves Francis facing off against the new fictional young King, who breaks protocol to engage in politics and criticise the government. Leading to the upcoming election basically being a referendum on whether Francis should resign or the king should abdicate to the much younger successor who would obviously not cause issues
>Frank never really seemed to have much in the way of an interesting background beyond the university stuff. Francis meanwhile was in the British army when he was young. And while on duty in British occupied Cyprus, did something quite bad that could cause major issues if it came to light
Oh and as for Francis goals. He genuinely believes he is the best person for the job and is fixing the countries issues. Of course he wants power but not for the sake of it. He actually enacts policies and we see praise and pushback over it. I don’t recall much actual policies happening in house of cards weirdly. Most I remember is possibly some kind of public works bill Frank wanted?
In addition a major motivating factor is he wants to become the longest serving prime minister since WW2. The position currently occupied by Margaret Thatcher. The start of the TV show is literally Thatcher losing power, which kick starts the plot into motion where the Tories elect their new leader. This kicks into high gear by the final season. Where he gets closer and closer to her record as things go to shit all around him
I never understood why there was pressure for the king to abdicate after Urquhart won his election. Why wouldn't the king just say "Frick I lost, oh well guess I'll slink off to my estate and live a quiet life of luxury" instead of quitting?
Wasn’t it because the entire show was built around urquhart being frustrated by how weak and neutered post-colonial England had become (thus grabbing power to set things right), how the king was directly responsible for that, and losing the election was an undeniable sign of weakness from the king?
At least that’s the impression I got as a non-bong. The entire show seemed wrapped up in all these, dare I say, dogwhistles about modern British identity/culture that urquhart was either rejecting or the anthesis of.
Oh yes, the king definitely lost face and power, but I can't imagine total abdication being very realistic in such a scenario. He can be king until he dies, PMs have a shorter tenure. Maybe it's one of those old line traditions, i.e. "the noble and honorable thing to do."
Yeah but didn’t urquhart literally run on the platform that the king is weak and making the country weak? Which prompted the king to run for prime minister as well? Therefor the king losing such an election is more than a loss of face, it’s undeniable proof that urquhart is completely correct? Then wasn’t urquhart’s goal to be king anyway, and was just using the Brit political system as a means to that end?
>Which prompted the king to run for prime minister as well?
He didn't run for PM and Urquhart won by a thin margin
So the king’s desired PM lost? And the platform was weakness vs strength of royalty? Sorry I watched it like a decade ago I’m fuzzy. But wasn’t the point that the king’s man losing by a thin margin was more embarrassing than if he lost by a landslide, as it underlined the idea that England was entirely lost and confused, with no idea what it was or what it wanted. Then the king abdicates not only because of the loss of face, but a sort of existential crisis, for if the British people don’t know who they are or what they want, then who the hell is their king? And how do you lose face without even knowing what “face” you even lost.
You’re making this far more convoluted annd infusing than it is. Just read the Wikipedia article for series 2 lmao. It’s not complicated.
If the king staked his entire position and reputation on something, gambled it and lost, no. He realistically wouldn’t remain in power. If that was the case King Edward would have just married Wallis Simpson and refused to step down as king.
What would happen is the other royals and government would ask them to step down. And if they didn’t then parliament would just force them to. The British monarch isn’t some medieval overlord who has total power lmao. They can’t really do much of anything.
Edward stood down because marrying a divorced American commoner and social climber was socially taboo, nowadays you have the current King who has talked openly about his affair, married his mistress who is Catholic and the heir to the throne married a commoner, social norms and expectations change over time
That’s the point. The taboo these days would have been for the monarch to be openly political to the point of opposing or supporting a specific party. It makes complete sense why it would lead to this fictional king resigning when he stakes his entire reign on this first election in which he states he has no confidence in Francis or the tories and the opposition should win.
How the frick would he in good faith be able to remain king after Francis and the tories won the election after that? When the monarch is then supposed to officially name Francis as PM? That very act is supposed to entail they have the confidence of the monarch as well as the commons
I don't think that would be a taboo and realistically nearly 50% of people would support it
Then you clearly haven’t paid any attention. Also, having “nearly 50%” of people supporting the monarch would already be a massive drop in support lmao
Like I said. The Scottish nationalists shit the bed because the queen made a completely neutral comment during the Scottish independence referendum. Not sure why you think the monarch nailing their entire establishment on one temporary party would be a good idea. You’d just create a permanent opposition of anti monarchy voters for whoever supported the party the monarchy opposed. Why on earth would this be wise?
Why do that when the monarchy enjoys broad spectrum support across both aisles of politics precisely because they don’t involve themselves in the process?
>How the frick would he in good faith be able to remain king after Francis and the tories won the election after that?
Just be king bro, no one would care if he dropped his political aspirations and just did the formalities
>just be king bro
Life isn’t a paradox game. Not sure if you’re unable to understand the political system or you can’t understand how people think.
Nah he could just remain king, no one would care
the british royalty only continue to exist at the largess of the people. a king who makes a (failed) political move would then be a focal point to justify dismantling the entire royal system.
Don’t bother. He’s either trolling or too dumb to understand.
Because the entire position of the royal family relies on them remaining non political. There’s a reason no monarch since WW2 has taken any stance in opposition to the government (or any stance beyond generic pro country speeches, charities, approving and rubber stamping whichever party wins, and general good will). Because their position is entirely symbolic. If Parliament decided tomorrow that the monarch was fricking things up they’d be able to dismantle it in one afternoon by passing a single act.
The king becoming political and using his privileged unelected position to actively sabotage the sitting government and oppose it opens up a huge can of worms about what exactly parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy is meant to be.
Not sure why this is confusing. They literally explain it in the show. Why did you think people were pissed off or happy about the fictional king being “progressive” and supporting the opposing party? Because doing something like that in real life would be a shit show. Imagine if the queen had said the public should vote Conservative in the 90’s when Labour was on the up. The queen didn’t even say how to vote when there was a Scottish independence referendum for gods sake. And people still got mad just because she said voters should “consider the options carefully”. As neutral a statement as you can get
So the king abdicated because he failed in making the royalty a political force again.
I enjoyed writing that more than I would’ve enjoyed reading some pajeet’s synopsis. But I do remember the show making a point that a slim loss was worse than a resounding loss.
The British one is much better. The most important difference is that it's a straightforward fricking story with a fricking ending, the American adaptation crashed and burned in all kinds of ways because of Kevin Spacey. The British one is also not nearly as cartoony, which makes it feel much more down-to-earth.
The American version is easier to understand, but it's an inferior package.
Yeah, characters don’t get nearly as dragged out either. They serve their purpose and either die or get discarded. They don’t hang around for an extra five episodes where they repeat the exact same plot beat like the American one
it's good if you have an itch to rewatch hoc us and want to forego it. season 1 definitely is good and feels rich in its wealth of side characters
it becomes more and more about frank as the seasons progress though and while that's technically more plot relevant it became less interesting to me, and as his crimes became worse
despite surface level similarities, they’re very different. The main character is a “bad guy” in both, but underwood is bad because he’s grabbing for power at any cost for pure self-aggrandizement, whereas urquhart is “bad” because he’s grabbing power to make England powerful again, which is “bad” because of something like England would lose its “identity” if it was powerful again or something.
>Is the British version of House of Cards worth watching?
yes
>Presumably it has a better overall story and ending than the American one
not quite.
overall, and ignoring the clusterfrick of the last seasons, the american one is more serious. and if we're only considering s01/s02, its outright better.
the original is funnier and it doesn't shit itself. both are worth a watch.
The UK one is better because you actually see him exercise his power. We never truly saw Frank as an all powerful President, he was always worried about elections, or relections, or midterms or whatever. Which sure is kind of realistic but it would've been nice to see him make some fricking decisions now that he reached the Presidency.
yup
>
The king becoming political and using his privileged unelected position to actively sabotage the sitting government and oppose it opens up a huge can of worms about what exactly parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy is meant to be.
Not sure why this is confusing. They literally explain it in the show. Why did you think people were pissed off or happy about the fictional king being “progressive” and supporting the opposing party? Because doing something like that in real life would be a shit show. Imagine if the queen had said the public should vote Conservative in the 90’s when Labour was on the up. The queen didn’t even say how to vote when there was a Scottish independence referendum for gods sake. And people still got mad just because she said voters should “consider the options carefully”. As neutral a statement as you can get
>Ty anon, that explains it
why did this get deleted?
Pic related is better as all bongs can confirm
Francis doesn't have sex with a monke in the British one
The British version kicks ass. I love reading comments from people who got filtered by it, who shit on the second and third season (because they lost patience and got bored and wanted it to end).
The second and the third season are excellent, and the ending and everything leading up to it is sublime.
It's obvious that the original trilogy was going to be remade relatively straight, complete with Underwood losing his touch and his wife having him killed (foreshadowed by the dog-killing in the very first episode).
But LE EPIC FIRST NETFLICKS ORIGINAL SERIEZ got too popular and they made their first moronic TV decision to water it down and keep the show going as long as possible. To the point Spacey's pedo allegations came out and killed any chance of the show ending properly.