Talk:House of Cards (American TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cast

Move SEBASTIAN ARCELUS (Lucas Goodwin) from Recurring Cast up to Main Cast, as he is a series regular — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaplan89 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 Wisconsin protests

We should consider the parallels between the movie plot an the 2011 Wisconsin protests.S trinitrotoluene (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If these parallels have been documented in third-party reliable sources critiquing the House of Cards series, then I think that would be reasonable. However, if we are drawing our own parallels, then that would be considered original thought, which wouldn't be reasonable. --McDoobAU93 15:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Chuck Hagel nomination myself, but like you say, there needs to be a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section is way too excessive, with unnecessary headings. If there is going to be a season overview section, it should match other summaries like the ones on the Breaking Bad and Sopranos articles. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It may be time to start up a List of House of Cards (U.S. series) episodes article, I think, if the plot section is beginning to overpower the rest of the article. --McDoobAU93 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Already exists. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Updated the Episode page with correct information, and removed the entirely inappropriate beat-for-beat synopsis on the main page. I reduced it with a far shorter show description that simply sets the boat to sea...not describes every bolt.

Mistamystery (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

See also - public choice theory (special interests and rent-seeking)

I created the "See also" section and added public choice theory to it. Rich removed it with the following explanation "Jesh, opening a SA section for various economic/political theories is not encyclopedic or constructive."

For those of you who've watched the series, it should be readily apparent just how relevant public choice theory is to the show. In fact, rent seeking should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Actually "Rent Seeking" would be a far more accurate, if somewhat less catchy, title for the show.

For those of you not familiar with Wikipedia See also policy...links do not require reliable sources to be listed...they just need to be at least "tangentially related". Public choice is directly related to this show...and as such, it should be included in the See also section. --Xerographica (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction to your quote. It is "...tangentially related topics." [Emphasis added.] The topic of the article is the television show. Not beltway politics, or musings about economic ideas, or poor excuses to add "See also" listings. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Would an accurate synopsis of the show mention rent seeking? --Xerographica (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It is a drama about "Kevin Spacey as Francis "Frank" Underwood, a ruthless politician with his eye on the top job in Washington, DC." Not "Kevin Spacey as Francis "Frank" Underwood, a ruthless politician who considers rent seeking when he evaluates his career prospects." – S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Underwood sucks on the tit, he doesn't provide it. Try again. --Xerographica (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what he sucks on. (Would fellatio be tangentially related to the show and thereby appropriate as a see also?) The topic of the article is the TV show, nothing more than that. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic of the article is the TV show and a strong recurring theme in the TV show is rent seeking. Have you even seen the show? --Xerographica (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As you say, the topic of the article is the TV show. The topic of the article is not recurring themes of the show. Your tangentially related argument does not cut it. Why did I mention fellatio? Well, by your logic, if I take it to an extreme, fellatio is appropriate because it is a type of sexual activity, e.g., it involves sucking on a body part. Tit sucking is related to both breastfeeding and the mechanics of human sexuality because it is sucking on a body part, similar to fellatio. Since the show mentions tit sucking, which has a strong allusion to breastfeeding and since breastfeeding is tangentially related to sexual activity (both pre-partum and post-partum), and since fellatio is a sexual activity, fellatio must be a proper tangentially related see also for the article. (And keep your inquiries as to whether I (or anyone) has seen the show (or read material) to yourself. If I/we answer yes, then you'd likely respond "well, then, you don't understand what you saw/read" and if I/we answer no, you'd have another smart remark about my/our ability to figure out whether this is an appropriate see also.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you really nailed my logic there. Why don't you watch the show and then come back so we can have an informed discussion on whether breastfeeding or rent-seeking is more relevant. --Xerographica (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would agree with Xerographica's statement on reliable sources and the "see also" section, but do we cross into original analysis territory by saying "well I've seen this concept in the show, so we should link to that". If a reliably-sourced critique of the series appeared that mentions that terminology and concept, then I would be all for it being described in the article. I don't think a "see also" section would be needed if the concept were introduced by way of critical commentary on the series. --McDoobAU93 00:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

When the tit's that big...

Speaking of rent-seeking...

Like "Veep," HBO's satirical half-hour, "Cards" remains somewhat coy about party affiliations for no clear reason, but Willimon exhibits a strong ear for the corrupting aspects of politics. Referring to a lobbyist throwing around money, Underwood drawls, "When the tit's that big, everybody gets in line." - Brian Lowry, House of Cards

Willimon clearly is having fun with the writing on this series, and he’s deftly able to make it shift characters and moods with ease. That means Francis isn’t always devouring people. In one scene, we find that he -- like so many others -- owes a great deal to lobbyists. And when he’s shown being threatened to make promises come true, he says to the camera: "It’s degrading, I know. But everybody gets in line when the tit’s that big." - Tim Goodman, House of Cards: TV Review

At a bare minimum...public choice theory should be added to the See also section. --Xerographica (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

TV series?

Why are we calling this a TV series in the article name?--Asher196 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I suggest moving the page to (U.S. Web Series) or (Netflix Original Series).Pbruce1110 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In the opening credits, it clearly reads: "Created for television by Beau Willimon". It's not a traditional TV series, but it is still a TV series. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need a definition of "TV series" then. Regardless of whether Netflix calls it one, I still don't think it is a TV series.--Asher196 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want - That's what the distributor is calling it, and that's what we'll call it too. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how it works. We call it what it is.--Asher196 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't. Your user page suggests you've been around enough to know that we can't decide what we'd like to call it. If, however, you have a reliable source that calls it something other than a television series, please, by all means bring it here. --McDoobAU93 00:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is I found many sources calling it a web series, and many calling it a TV series. Just because Netflix calls it a TV series doesn't make it one.--Asher196 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I would therefore suggest launching a move discussion and present your sources. I have no problem with the article's name being whatever the preponderance of sources call it. --McDoobAU93 00:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If it comes to that I guess we can go that way. I wanted to see what others had to say on the matter.--Asher196 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured it already had. The move wouldn't be a non-controversial one, so the proper step is to start a move discussion, where the opinions that you seek would continue to be brought forth, and at the conclusion of discussion, the article would be moved to the new name (if it's not already there). --McDoobAU93 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Big Data Netflix

Hi, Here is an interesting article about production of the House of Cards. Bottomline - it's a first movie that Netflix produced based on the "Big Data" they collected that shows patterns in viewers' watching preferences. http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/ I think it is an important fact, but maybe it fits better in the Netflix article? 69.117.85.7 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Second season

I changed the mention in the lede of the second season. The cited source says only that Netflix has committed to a second season, nothing about it being in development or 13 episodes. Having thus jumped the gun, there are citations in the body to the two season 26 episode commitment that could be added with the deleted language " of 13 episodes" but I haven't seen anything confirming it's "currently in development." Besides it could be seen as cluttering the lede. So I left it. Don't feel strongly either way.

I do think someone with the time should take a few of those links and starts a subsection about the second season... LOTS OF PEOPLE WILL BE COMING HERE LOOKING TO WHEN THEY CAN GET THEIR FIX.... Netflix commenst are already starting the "Where's season 2?" drumbeat.TjoeC (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Character name

For the character of Frank Underwood it mentions that he was named after Francis Urquhart MP the character of the BBC version. I think it would also be good to add that he was also named after the country's first ever democratic whip Oscar Underwood. --Jimv1983 (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reference to underscore that, of course. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

EP Fincher

The first reference to David Fincher should specify his title and responsibility for the series. According to the current Infobox, he is the show's Executive Producer and is also listed as Director of the first two episodes. This is confirmed in his own article. --Thomprod (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for run time

I would like to make a minor change to the page to show the maximum running time of episodes as 56 minutes vs. the currently stated 53. The first episode was 56 minutes long. Rgrasmus (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? If so, I will add it for you.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 19:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a screen grab from the episode choice screen. It is available temporarily here [Dropbox link removed after page changes made] Rgrasmus (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to the article. Thanks for your help!—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 14:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)