Talk:The Young Pope

Where's the plot?

Looks like the plot is missing folks. I hope the series gains in popularity. Lighthead ^þ 08:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Famiglia Cristiana

With all due respect Famiglia Cristiana is not "obscure", it's the main catholic magazine in italy, so I think a small sentence is appropriate.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And that's what we have. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes but not cutting "core" content. It was later more correctly restored. That's more wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983 and ZarhanFastfire: Nothing in the article from Famiglia Cristiana says that The Young Pope "polarized Catholic viewers". It refers to "il rumore, le polemiche, le reazioni " (the noise, the controversy, the reactions) the Venice premiere produced. Nothing about Catholic reaction and nothing polarized. The author of the article – one person – has a mixed reaction, loves the acting and visuals but finds the whole thing implausible and banal. I'd respectfully suggest the problem here arises from an editor's difficulty either understanding the Italian or writing in English. (I suspect the latter.) Catholic reaction may have been polarized, but this source does not make that point.

If you disagree, please provide the Italian text you think backs up the phrase "polarized Catholic viewers" and your translation of that text. Thanks.Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Or Bmclaughlin9 maybe I just work in China where the link cannot be accessed (and it could be tomorrow, it's never very linear) and therefore I base myself on good faith and what people say so far? If I read in the object "obscure" instead of "does not say that" it is different, isn't it? maurizio turrioni is an established author about movie (not the first time I hear the name) on that very common magazine, that's what I know. Sources are the main aspect of wiki that's why they should be cited at the first place, not at the second or third step. So far, I assumed good faith and commented what I was told about sources. What if I'd respectfully suggest there is some passive-aggresive description here? :D.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait for you to access the source. I agree that it's good to cite Famiglia Cristian directly, in addition to citing what Variety reports about that publication. In fact, I added a second citation to Famiglia Cristiana earlier today. And yes, the author is notable and the source is of high quality. That's not the issue. The only question I've raised is: does the source we cite support the assertion that the The Yong Pope "polarized Catholic viewers"? (I've emailed the text of the source to you. Perhaps you can access that.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. Considering the only "issue" was about the only thing I could comment, namely author and magazine, I never addressed specifically the content... otherwise i would have probably rewritten it myself. Considering I could not access the article, I had no specific doubt about the "division amongst Chatolic viewers" (or similar) because that's something similar to what I have read or heard somewhere else too. I remember a debate was cited from Famiglia Cristiana on some other national newspaper (La Stampa? Not sure) and that this concept is probably addressed somewhere else. In any case that was never been my main issue. My only suggestion was to revise a removal dismissed in that way.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Good now that I've read the article and we can rule out that concept in the current text (BTW I did leave a message on some skype contact in Italy to copy and paste it from url, they simply didn't wake up yet). In the lunch pause i found here Sorrentino discuss how the series could be enjoyed by Catholics if observed as a picture (he implicitly assumes it might be create different perception), here on a source used because considered of decent level another critic observe that it might not be liked by a part of Catholics. In the end, after the realease, if you speak to Italian people who saw it, as I did over the holiday back home, the series was "divisive" concerning the religious aspects. Like a calm debate, but it provided a mixed reaction on that side. As you would imagine, it would have been strange otherwise.... I guess soon or later a source will be found about that. --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write any of it, though I did summarize what some earlier editor(s) produced, then restored what was too quickly and dismissively thrown out on the basis the weekly was "obscure" (it's had too long a run to be that) while at the same time tried to respect the fact that it didn't deserve as much emphasis as had originally been given to it. I can read Italian, but I did not read it in this instance, as like the above editor, I assumed good faith and basic competence as well. I'm out of country for a few weeks and have no time to do much here at the moment. Thanks for the shout, though. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I've questioned no one's good faith. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I'll remove the one remark at issue. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Somehow I don't think "Flashbacks" is a legitimate type of actor. Main, recurring, or guest. Surely there's going to be some overlap if any of the 'flashback' actors also appear as older versions of the character, so the idea of a special type of actor who is a 'flashback' is misconceived. They should be able to fit in one of those other three categories, shouldn't they? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Could someone confirm Sofia lacks a proper title? In one episode, when the Pope meets with the Patriarch of Moscow, the Pope's secretary says he had an audience with "the Head of the Vatican Press Office. She's outside, waiting", and in the next scene there's Sofia asking how the meeting with the Patriarch went. Could it be that they're the same, or was it just another excuse to end the meeting?

Girolamo played by "Unknown Actor"?

I thought it odd that a modern-day drama would have unknown actors playing key parts. On IMDb, the actor was listed as Edoardo Bussi. I edited the article but it reverted, as I didn't know how to cite it properly. If the author looks on IMDb, the info is easily accessible. Chitownriverscum (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Unfortunately there is little to no evidence regarding the identity of the actor as there not a single source supporting this with pictures, resumes, quotes, etc. It's all secondary sources with no references. IMDb is not enough in this case. TheVampire (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)