What Are You Watching On NETFLIX, Amazon Prime & Hulu? (All things Streaming)

[Angelica]

House of Cards is fucking dull. I do not like a single character on this show. I know that is expected since this is Washington, but to me, a show is a good as its characters.

It's seriously the most overrated show of at least the last five years, IMO. And that goes double for Spacey's performance, which is pure ham. Robin Wright is spectacular, but that's not enough to motivate me to pick up where I left off.

When I start to be critical of the actors and production quality, I have to remember, this is Netflix. Most of the budget went to location, Kevin Spacey and I guess Robin Wright too. But she is a long way from Forrest Gump and The Princess Bride. As awful her character may be, she is above the remaining cast of wooden actors, playing one dimensional characters.

There's the news paper editor guy from The Wire. I guess he plays a somewhat bigger part later on. The rest are a bunch of third rates

Anyway, I watched Beowulf, I thought it was great.

You two are crazy.....

House of Cards is great, for what it is. And I'm relatively sure you're not supposed to "like" the characters....not even in an "anti-hero" sort of way. You're (pretty much) supposed to despise them.

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

[Ace Nova]

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

[Angelica]

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

That take on Tony is totally valid up until season 5 or so, then as he unraveled he was a stone cunt. But still compelling and beautifully written.

I don't have a problem with unlikeable or evil, but IMO he's not interesting, which is a dealbreaker.

[Dazey]

House of Cards is fucking dull. I do not like a single character on this show. I know that is expected since this is Washington, but to me, a show is a good as its characters.

It's seriously the most overrated show of at least the last five years, IMO. And that goes double for Spacey's performance, which is pure ham. Robin Wright is spectacular, but that's not enough to motivate me to pick up where I left off.

Have you ever seen the original series?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)

[Ace Nova]

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

That take on Tony is totally valid up until season 5 or so, then as he unraveled he was a stone cunt. But still compelling and beautifully written.

I don't have a problem with unlikeable or evil, but IMO he's not interesting, which is a dealbreaker.

Have you watched both seasons in their entirety?

[Georgy Zhukov]

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

Tony was no anti-hero. He was first class cunt. The trick is that he was written for you to like him inspite of the fact he is a murderer, a manipulator, an adulterer, and all that stuff. Same with Walter White. You know he's a bad man, but you route for him.

These shows typically give you one good character you can relate to. Incase of the Sopranos, that was Melfi. SPOILER ALERT! She was attracted to Tony, compelled to help him, but she never slept with him, never took told him about the rape and how she knew the guy who did it, even though he got off on the charge, and in the end, she stopped helping him because she realized he was using her therapy sessions to justify his acts. And that is when the audience see's that too.

That is good writing. House of Cards offers none of that and when they do, it is poorly written. But then again, this is Netflix, not HBO, FX, Shotime, even freaking ABC. Netflix is on the bottom of the list in quality of their shows.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Georgy Zhukov

[Ace Nova]

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

Tony was no anti-hero. He was first class cunt. The trick is that he was written for you to like him inspite of the fact he is a murderer, a manipulator, an adulterer, and all that stuff. Same with Walter White. You know he's a bad man, but you route for him.

These shows typically give you one good character you can relate to. Incase of the Sopranos, that was Melfi. SPOILER ALERT! She was attracted to Tony, compelled to help him, but she never slept with him, never took told him about the rape and how she knew the guy who did it, even though he got off on the charge, and in the end, she stopped helping him because she realized he was using her therapy sessions to justify his acts. And that is when the audience see's that too.

That is good writing. House of Cards offers none of that and when they do, it is poorly written. But then again, this is Netflix, not HBO, FX, Shotime, even freaking ABC. Netflix is on the bottom of the list in quality of their shows.

Melfi? Wtf.....I actually couldn't stand her character....so their goes that theory. If anything, I thought viewers related to Carmela much more so than they ever related to Melfi.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Georgy Zhukov]

You don't have to like Melfi, but she represents the people watching the show. Carmela is another despicable character in her own way.

Anyway, House of Cards is nowhere near the league of The Sopranos. The show is just fluff.

[Ace Nova]

You don't have to like Melfi, but she represents the people watching the show. Carmela is another despicable character in her own way.

Anyway, House of Cards is nowhere near the league of The Sopranos. The show is just fluff.

Fluff, huh?

9.1 rating in IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/

85% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/house-of-cards/s02/

It's a very good show. Whether it will ever rank up there with the Sopranos or other "tier 1" shows, has yet to be seen....the show is still in its infancy.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Who cares about IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes? IMDB lost crediblity years ago thanks to Nolan fanboys. And Rotten Tomatoes ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because actual reviews tell more. And this show is going in its third and possibly final season. The original show wrapped up in 3 seasons and it looks like this will too.

[Ace Nova]

Who cares about IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes? IMDB lost crediblity years ago thanks to Nolan fanboys. And Rotten Tomatoes ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because actual reviews tell more. And this show is going in its third and possibly final season. The original show wrapped up in 3 seasons and it looks like this will too.

I wasn't aware of any of the ratings until you called the show "fluff". So I thought that maybe I was wrong about it....so I checked out the ratings to discover that I wasn't....at least according to the vast majority of people and critics that watch the show.....

[Georgy Zhukov]

And I don't give a flying fuck what they think. The vast majority of critics and people seem to love Pan's Labyrinth and I couldn't get past the horrible writing.

People swing the way critics go anyway. Generally they can't form opinions of their own. And why do critics love it? Maybe it has something to do with David Fincher's name attached to it. And they love to suck his balls.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Georgy Zhukov

[Ace Nova]

And I don't give a flying fuck what they think. The vast majority of critics and people seem to love Pan's Labyrinth and I couldn't get past the horrible writing.

People swing the way critics go anyway. Generally they can't form opinions of their own. And why do critics love it? Maybe it has something to do with David Fincher's name attached to it. And they love to suck his balls.

Or maybe because it's a good show.

[Angelica]

House of Cards is fucking dull. I do not like a single character on this show. I know that is expected since this is Washington, but to me, a show is a good as its characters.

It's seriously the most overrated show of at least the last five years, IMO. And that goes double for Spacey's performance, which is pure ham. Robin Wright is spectacular, but that's not enough to motivate me to pick up where I left off.

Have you ever seen the original series?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series)

No, I've heard from everyone who has that it's superior, though.

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

That take on Tony is totally valid up until season 5 or so, then as he unraveled he was a stone cunt. But still compelling and beautifully written.

I don't have a problem with unlikeable or evil, but IMO he's not interesting, which is a dealbreaker.

Have you watched both seasons in their entirety?

I gave up out of boredom halfway through S2.

And many, many shows since The Sopranos have successfully trafficked in making unlikeable characters compelling. It doesn't do that. The writing isn't there, IMO.

The thing with shows like the Sopranos is that Tony was "likeable". He was the classic anti-hero. Underwood isn't that and isn't meant to be that. One major difference is that most of Tony Sopranos' "victims" had it coming to them, while most of Underwood's victims don't. Tony Soprano had a "human" side to him, making him "likeable". The writers initially had the viewers fooled into thinking Underwood was going to be that same classic "anti-hero", and he was, for some of the first season. As the show progressed, it became clear that he is no Tony Soprano. He has no "human" side to him. He's something much darker, he's pure evil.

Tony was no anti-hero. He was first class cunt. The trick is that he was written for you to like him inspite of the fact he is a murderer, a manipulator, an adulterer, and all that stuff. Same with Walter White. You know he's a bad man, but you route for him.

You're right, I read KK's post too quickly. He was likeable, but he certainly wasn't an anti-hero. He was always an indefensible human being. I never liked Walter White enough to root for him, but the writing was so strong it didn't matter.

[Angelica]

Melfi? Wtf.....I actually couldn't stand her character....so their goes that theory. If anything, I thought viewers related to Carmela much more so than they ever related to Melfi.

I think he means Melfi was the moral center of a show about otherwise amoral people. Carm was knowingly living off blood money and corrupting her children by raising them in that enviroment. Melfi is the only significant adult character who isn't a scumbag (a case could be made for Adriana, it would hinge almost exclusively on her fundamental stupidity though). And by the end it's obvious there's not much hope for the Meadow and AJ.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Angelica

[Ace Nova]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for a new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/tony-soprano-walter-white-tv-572602

http://www.today.com/popculture/tony-soprano-character-altered-face-tv-paving-way-antiheroes-6C10387810

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2010/03/the-10-greatest-anti-heroes-9-tony-soprano.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/06/20/james-gandolfini-the-sopranos-cable-antihero/2441129/

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a491666/sopranos-and-the-anti-hero-how-james-gandolfinis-tony-changed-tv.html#~oW8aJ8K5tsb1Z4

http://www.eonline.com/news/432448/james-gandolfini-s-legacy-5-tv-anti-heroes-made-possible-by-tony-soprano

Melfi? Wtf.....I actually couldn't stand her character....so their goes that theory. If anything, I thought viewers related to Carmela much more so than they ever related to Melfi.

I think he means Melfi was the moral center of a show about otherwise amoral people. Carm was knowingly living off blood money and corrupting her children by raising them in that enviroment. Melfi is the only significant adult character who isn't a scumbag (a case could be made for Adriana, it would hinge almost exclusively on her fundamental stupidity though). And by the end it's obvious there's not much hope for the Meadow and AJ.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. She (Melfi) was the show's "super-ego".

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Georgy Zhukov]

Melfi? Wtf.....I actually couldn't stand her character....so their goes that theory. If anything, I thought viewers related to Carmela much more so than they ever related to Melfi.

I think he means Melfi was the moral center of a show about otherwise amoral people. Carm was knowingly living off blood money and corrupting her children by raising them in that enviroment. Melfi is the only significant adult character who isn't a scumbag (a case could be made for Adriana, it would hinge almost exclusively on her fundamental stupidity though). And by the end it's obvious there's not much hope for the Meadow and AJ.

Meadow probably has more hope than AJ. But yes, Melfi is the moral center of the show. The only immoral thing she did was accept Tony's dirty money.

[Angelica]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for the new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

Granted, the term has become increasingly broad but I would firmly classify Tony as a villain. He wasn't genuinely morally complex enough to fit any other definition, IMO.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Angelica

[Ace Nova]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for the new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

Granted, the term has become increasingly broad but I would firmly classify Tony as a villain. He wasn't genuinely morally complex enough to fit any other definition, IMO.

What does morality have to do with being an anti-hero? By definition, an anti-hero (more than likely) won't be that morally complex...if they were, they wouldn't be "anti-heroes", they would be "heroes".

The Sopranos paved the way for a new era of shows where the protagonist was no longer a hero but an anti-hero and the show's antagonists, which normally would be "heroes" (the police, FBI, etc) are the villains.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[luciusfunk]

Watching Prison Break. This show is awesome. Don't know how I missed it when it was on Fox.

[Angelica]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for the new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

Granted, the term has become increasingly broad but I would firmly classify Tony as a villain. He wasn't genuinely morally complex enough to fit any other definition, IMO.

What does morality have to do with being an anti-hero? By definition, an anti-hero (more than likely) won't be that morally complex...if they were, they wouldn't be "anti-heroes", they would be "heroes".

The Sopranos paved the way for a new era of shows where the protagonist was no longer a hero but an anti-hero and the show's antagonists, which normally would be "heroes" (the police, FBI, etc) are the villains.

You know what? You're right. When I studied, I was taught particular definitions for particular archetypes - hero, anti-hero, villain protagonist, villain, and anti-villain which were very specific. The definition of anti-hero was broad enough to include everyone from Holden Caulfield, to Han Solo, to Travis Bickle - basically, they had to have both enough bad and enough good to differentiate them from both heroes and villains. And the difference between an anti-hero and a villain protagonist (or anti-villain protagonist) had to be pedantically justified, with clear distinctions between each, otherwise it was all meaningless. So as far as I'm concerned, Tony is a villain protagonist and Dexter Morgan is an anti-villain. But according the every fucking definition that came up on google, an anti-hero is simply a 'character that lacks traditionally heroic qualities', so by that standard, obviously Tony qualifies.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Angelica

[Ace Nova]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for the new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

Granted, the term has become increasingly broad but I would firmly classify Tony as a villain. He wasn't genuinely morally complex enough to fit any other definition, IMO.

What does morality have to do with being an anti-hero? By definition, an anti-hero (more than likely) won't be that morally complex...if they were, they wouldn't be "anti-heroes", they would be "heroes".

The Sopranos paved the way for a new era of shows where the protagonist was no longer a hero but an anti-hero and the show's antagonists, which normally would be "heroes" (the police, FBI, etc) are the villains.

You know what? You're right. When I studied, I was taught particular definitions for particular archetypes - hero, anti-hero, villain protagonist, villain, and anti-villain which were very specific. The definition of anti-hero was broad enough to include everyone from Holden Caulfield, to Han Solo, to Travis Bickle - basically, they had to have both enough bad and enough good to differentiate them from both heroes and villains. And the difference between an anti-hero and a villain protagonist (or anti-villain protagonist) had to be pedantically justified, with clear distinctions between each, otherwise it was all meaningless. So as far as I'm concerned, Tony is a villain protagonist and Dexter Morgan is an anti-villain. But according the every fucking definition that came up on google, an anti-hero is simply a 'character that lacks traditionally heroic qualities', so by that standard, obviously Tony qualifies.

I think you're bang on with the Dexter Morgan analogy....he is the absolute PERFECT definition of an anti-villain.....a serial killer that kills serial killers......it doesn't get any better than that when talking about an anti-villain.

As far as Tony Soprano goes, I will concede that by the end of season 6, it would have been difficult to continue to categorize him as a stereotypical anti-hero....by then, it could have gone either way....anti-hero/villain.

As far as the first 5 seasons though, he was an anti-hero.....and yes, a protagonist villain can still be an anti-hero.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

Season 3 of Lilyhammer was put up today!

[Subtle Signs]

I just finished the second season of Weeds and loved it. I'm not sure how they can keep the quality up through season eight though?

I can't speak personally since I've yet to finish off the series, but supposedly by the end there is a huge decline in quality. So, I'd prepare for that.

Season three was great as well. I'm sure there's a thread for Weeds on here somewhere but I don't wanna look at it until I've finished all 8 seasons. How far along are you?

I believe I was at the midpoint of season four when I finally checked out, but I don't remember a lot of the details. It's been a long time since I watched the show, like around this time of year, but in 2010. I had to quit watching since I was busy around that time, and when I wasn't busy I just never got back around to it. Since you brought it up though, I'll probably brush it off sometime soon. Glad to hear you've enjoyed it so far though, and hopefully what I heard was wrong cause it was a pretty fun show from what I remember.

Season six was a bit of a letdown but season seven was great! I can't even imagine how it ends. There are so many possibilities. I'm gonna start the final season next week.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Tony Soprano was absolutely, undeniably a modern day anti-hero. As a matter of fact, he paved the way for the new generation of anti-heroes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_antiheroes

Granted, the term has become increasingly broad but I would firmly classify Tony as a villain. He wasn't genuinely morally complex enough to fit any other definition, IMO.

What does morality have to do with being an anti-hero? By definition, an anti-hero (more than likely) won't be that morally complex...if they were, they wouldn't be "anti-heroes", they would be "heroes".

The Sopranos paved the way for a new era of shows where the protagonist was no longer a hero but an anti-hero and the show's antagonists, which normally would be "heroes" (the police, FBI, etc) are the villains.

You know what? You're right. When I studied, I was taught particular definitions for particular archetypes - hero, anti-hero, villain protagonist, villain, and anti-villain which were very specific. The definition of anti-hero was broad enough to include everyone from Holden Caulfield, to Han Solo, to Travis Bickle - basically, they had to have both enough bad and enough good to differentiate them from both heroes and villains. And the difference between an anti-hero and a villain protagonist (or anti-villain protagonist) had to be pedantically justified, with clear distinctions between each, otherwise it was all meaningless. So as far as I'm concerned, Tony is a villain protagonist and Dexter Morgan is an anti-villain. But according the every fucking definition that came up on google, an anti-hero is simply a 'character that lacks traditionally heroic qualities', so by that standard, obviously Tony qualifies.

I think you're bang on with the Dexter Morgan analogy....he is the absolute PERFECT definition of an anti-villain.....a serial killer that kills serial killers......it doesn't get any better than that when talking about an anti-villain.

As far as Tony Soprano goes, I will concede that by the end of season 6, it would have been difficult to continue to categorize him as a stereotypical anti-hero....by then, it could have gone either way....anti-hero/villain.

As far as the first 5 seasons though, he was an anti-hero.....and yes, a protagonist villain can still be an anti-hero.

The thing about Tony Soprano, same with Walter White or Nucky Thompson (my favorites) is that even though they have done horrible things, they have redeeming qualities to them. They show fear in the inevitable. Francis Underwood, he is boring. It seems to be in control. He bores me. Instead of showing vulnerability he goes Richard III and not a very good impression.

That 9.1 rating is way too high.

Sherlock, now that is a masterpiece of television. Taking a break from House of Shit (I have made it this far, could at least finish it) and re-watching the first three series of Sherlock. Anyone who hasn't seen it needs to check it out. Each series is only 3 episodes, under 90 minutes each. Quality writing, acting, everything about it is joyful. BBC still has the programming to rival HBO, AMC, FX and Showtime.