Talk:The Leftovers (TV series)

Pilot reception - discussion?
Would it be inappropriate to discuss here how poorly received the pilot has been by prospective audiences - based on ratings and IMDB forum posts - and how this contrasts with the "generally favorable/positive" reviews from critics? Frankly, I couldn't believe I wasted an hour of my life on this terrible show, but was misled by an unjustly positive and encouraging pre-broadcast "review" from a 'professional' critic. JDanek007Talk 07:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The ratings aren't actually bad. Sure it's not Game of Thrones, or even True Blood, but for HBO the ratings are solid. Adding what the reception has been like among the general public is not encyclopedic.  Adding reviews from respected and noted publications and critics is one thing, adding the opinion of anyone with a keyboard is quite another.  For one thing you would never be able to gauge exactly what that reaction is/was.  Sure a lot of people hated it, but just as many people will have loved it (and maybe just not posted about it).  I actually loved it.  I thought it was surreal and sad and poetic rather than just being the same old crap (cough Dominion. cough Tyrant).  But in encyclopedic terms my opinion doesn't count.  I don't write for E! and I'm not a respected critic or blogger.  If you can find an article by one of the above mentioned that actually highlights the contrast between critical reception and general audience reception then it could be added. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, SchrutedIt08. Cheers JDanek007</b><sup style="color:olivedrab;">Talk 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if it were up to me, media like this would not even have a critical reception header. It is the furthest from objectionable in this entire encyclopedia. KarstenO (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Presume you meant something like "objective". 98.4.124.117 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Leftovers (season 1) and The Leftovers (season 2)
I redirected these pages to this article for now, though it may be preferable to actually move some of the content from this article to separate pages dedicated to each season. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Leftovers
Unraptured ==

Why isn't this in the article? Are you afraid to name the thing for what is? Also why is there no reference to the larger genre? 98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also I just did a quick check of the critical reception and same apparent deal. It's like on redbox when you see some title and you're not sure if it's a jesuslander thing, but you can then tell it is because it's loaded up with the maximum ratings in spite of apparent triteness. Just reviewed this more closely, the episode summaries, etc. and I think I may have seen one season skipping through it. It's clear from the report here that more than half the original metacritics, loosing the 35% that barfed it up on season 1, were attritted out by the time Left Behind done with (at least some) art morphed into a full Lost rip off in season 3 leaving the aforementioned redbox effect, so only the above items need action. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * So the genre, it's clear from the current "Premise" &sect;, would be "Tribulation Drama". 98.4.124.117 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course Perrotta's idea of the Sudden Disappearance is based on the rapture myth (so it might make sense to refer to it as a "rapture-like event", as the novel's article does), but to call it "the rapture" would be very misleading, because it clearly isn't. It affects Christians exactly the same as everyone else. It doesn't affect the dead. It isn't followed by the tribulations of Revelation, or by a second coming. Characters in the story who try to understand it through Christianity invariably fail, but those who try to understand it scientifically or through folk/new age spirituality are partly successful. And, most of all, the point of the story is almost the opposite of a tribulation drama—the characters have to learn to cope with the world as it is.


 * You could argue that this is a secular version of, response to, or even satire of a tribulation drama. But I'm pretty sure that would be original research; you'd need to find a review or article that makes that agreement. But at any rate, actually calling this a tribulation drama would be like calling Christopher Moore's Lamb a Christian gospel instead of an absurdist fantasy novel.


 * Meanwhile, why do you think anyone would be "afraid to name the thing for what it is"? I can't tell whether you're a fundamentalist who mistakenly thinks this is a Christian story and believes Wikipedia is part of some vast conspiracy trying to prevent people from discovering Christian stories, or an atheist who thinks this is an anti-Christian story and believes Wikipedia is too afraid of religious fundamentalists to print the truth, but either way… why would you think that? Wikipedia isn't afraid to name the Left Behind series or the Towing Jehovah series for what they are, and it's hard to imagine what motivation anyone would have for doing otherwise. --173.228.85.220 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast list: season 3 leads
Following ' revert of my edits to the cast list, discussing here per the WP:BRD cycle. My rationale for the changes were as follows:
 * A 'featured' category for cast lists has become used in multiple articles over the last couple of years (since The Leftovers concluded), beginning I believe with The Crown (TV series). In The Crown, multiple cast members are credited with the main cast (i.e. in the opening titles) in one episode only, making it beneficial to list them separately so as not to suggest they appear in a regular capacity. The Crown credits all main cast for episodes they appear in only - The Leftovers, meanwhile, generally credits its main cast in every episode. In season 3, however, the established main cast who appear in two episodes or less are only credited when appearing, as is the upgraded Scott Glenn (who appears in five episodes). So the situation is a little different, but it seemed to me the clear distinction between the credits of the core main cast and these others meant 'featured' would be useful here, avoid the necessity of a footnote (the situation is already explained further in the 'casting' section) and operate more consistently with other TV series pages.
 * Regarding the listing of cast who only appear once per season in the 'recurring' section, this seems misleading to me. Recurring means appearing in multiple episodes of a season, so these actors never fulfil that definition. Not aware of a precedent for this in any other article - if anything, there could be a separate section for notable guests, but I wouldn't say any of these three warrant this (Linn-Baker could perhaps be mentioned in the casting section, as I believe Lindelof has discussed his appearances in secondary sources). U-Mos (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the whole "featured" thing is a made-up convention by Wikipedia editors, it has no bearing on the real-world. No third-party sources are going to refer to Scott Glenn's billing as "featured" in season 3 because he's only credited when he appears. We know what series regular is, what a guest appearance is, or what a recurring character is. The Crown is a different scenario since it's a British series and they follow a different credit/billing style than American shows; they tend to credit anyone in the opening titles who has a notable role in an episode, whether they're a "series regular" or not. Glenn appears in five episodes of season 3, that's more than half. It just seems unnecessary to create a new subsection just to fill it with one actor. This edit might be of interest to you. As for the recurring thing, I think they're still valid; but if you wish to create a "Notable guests" section and move them there, then by all means. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After discussing this on the MOS talk page, I agree that creating the "featured" section can be problematic. If they are credited as main cast members, they are main cast members regardless of the no. of appearances. I tried to roll back every use of the featured section (which I originally exported from The Crown to other series), because the list of main actors should ALWAYS follow the original chronological credit order of the sequence/titles, per MOS:TVCAST. What you can do is put a note like I did in Outlander. If one actor appears in only one episode it can be noted, but it shouldn't be highlighted, cause Wikipedia is not IMDb. I also think this should be noted in the Manual of Style when full consensus is reached, cause this credit style is booming these days, but this is not the place for this discussion.--TheVampire (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that interesting MOS discussion, which I hadn't seen. Doesn't seem to have reached a consensus, and the Outlander page was apparently changed because there is a separate cast article, which isn't the case here. The Crown remains happily with its featured list, by consensus. I don't agree with your interpretation of UK/US systems - The Crown is very unusual in crediting one-episode cast members with the main cast, but such quirks are more frequently seen with more complex series now. Like I said, the distinction is that The Leftovers normally credits its entire main cast in every episode, whether they appear or not. 'Featured' is a category that certainly doesn't need to be created arbitrarily, but can be useful when there's a clear distinction within main cast credits that affects multiple cast members. That is the case in season 3 of The Leftovers: between the seven actors who are credited in every episode, and the six who are only credited when they appear. I agree that if Glenn was the only actor credited differently a note would suffice, but we're talking nearly half the main cast credits - the others only wouldn't be listed in a featured section because they were regular main cast in earlier seasons. Considering that, not splitting the section but having Glenn's entry read "(featured season 3, recurring season 1-2)" may do the trick? U-Mos (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there is some confusion here. The original meaning of 'featured' (as introduced for The Crown) is: a character appearing in just one episode of a season, although credited as a main cast member. For The Leftovers, these actors you mentioned, who are only credited when they appear, appear in multiple episodes while being credited in the opening. That means that they are main cast members. Game of Thrones for instance credited main cast members based on their appearance, should we remove those not appearing in 10/10 episodes within a season? That would mean having just Peter Dinklage credited for season 2. Westworld also credits some people in every episode despite appearances and some additional main cast members when they appear, and notes have been put. NONETHELESS, the distinction between the opening/starring/main title credits and the guest/co-starring ones as they appear in an episode should be reflected on Wikipedia as they are, following the MOS:TVCAST listing conventions, regardless of crediting style or number of appearances, because that is a division based on contracts and salary, as Bignole noted on the MOS talk page. So The Leftovers can follow what has already been done for Westworld (the note is already there, actually), without the need to introduce a featured section (which is currently a special arrangement for The Crown only).--TheVampire (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think I'm denying these actors are in the main cast, which they clearly are through being credited in the opening titles. But that is not necessarily synonymous with series regular, as season 3 shows. The Leftovers is much simpler to distinguish contractual arrangements than The Crown/Game of Thrones, as its regulars are credited in every episode. I've also already accepted that a separate featured section isn't necessary here. As my main concern and the reason for changing this article was the lack of clarity, would you object to having a different note for each actor concerned, which states how many season 3 episodes they appear in? U-Mos (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As you said, the Main section is for all main cast members, regardless of appearances (so not just for series regulars). Most American broadcast shows work with the concept of series regulars, but not all shows do (especially cable and shorter ones these days). So, for shows like The Leftovers notes can be added for clarity provided that they comply with MOS:TVCAST. That means that a note can explain the crediting style, but it cannot provide an episode count as those have been banned by the MOS. So the possible use of the notes are for actors who are only credited in the episodes in which they appear (as opposed to a set of actors credited for every episode) and for actors who appear in a single episode (which would normally make them one-time guests), but who are credited as main cast members nonetheless. Off topic, I still believe these things should be agreed and then written in the MOS, but for now the common practice is to seek consensus for special measures for every page, provided that these measures comply with the MOS.--TheVampire (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I can agree to that. That means two actors who only appear once in season 3 can be noted as such. Would be nice for the MOS to do a lot of things really, but I've learned from experience that there is a great deal of reluctance to make any changes to it... U-Mos (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)