>Just finished a binge watch of HOC season 2 and I must ask - >WHICH is the better show. Here's some criteria for you - >writing, directing, storyline/script, acting, character >development, cinematography, etc. > >Serious discussion please.........
You know...this isn't even close right. But I'm game.
Writing: HoC Beau Willimon and the writers clearly have a distinct vision they want for the show and are given the leeway to implement it. Having a blueprint from the original BBC show helps. The dialogue is snappy and I dig a lot of the foreshadowing that takes place.
Storyline/Script: Same as above. Some things stretch believability, specifically the Peter Russo "thing", but I find most of what happens very plausible. Also, while reading news articles about our Congress and all the procedural machinations and vote trading that occurs, I tend to believe HoC gets closer to what actually happens in Congress than other fictional works.
Acting: HoC Is this even a question? Scandal is a melodrama disguised as a political thriller with matching melodramatic acting. Every episode Robin Wright and Kevin Space put on a clinic. Not to mention Corey Stoll and Michael Kelly.
Character Development: HoC Scandal writers come up with a crazy scenario for each of their characters and throw it on the screen. They change the characters to suit whatever crazy storlyine they want to develop. It's so freakin' absurd. The HoC characters arrived fully formed. We knew what they were from the jump. Although they haven't exactly shown "growth" in the past two seasons, they are so fully realized that I don't need to see "growth" per se.
Cinematography: HoC This show is shot beautifully. I think the tone David Fincher set in the first two episodes carried well throughout the show. It gives it a cinematic quality.
All that said, people like what they like. I happen to think Scandal is a terrible, terrible show. Some people think HoC is overrated. There's no accounting for taste. Scandal just ain't my cup of tea. I have learned to accept that.