Talk:Conclave (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Major Plot Point Ignored

As Cardinal Lawrence casts a ballot (presumably his 7th) the conclave is struck by a bomb and it appears that God in the Heavens is disapproving Lawrence's vote, which he has made for himself because all of the other candidates (except Benitez about whom almost nothing is known before his speech in the auditorium) are seriously flawed. After the conclave reconvenes following this violent interruption (and Cardinal Benitez speech of compassion in the auditorium) there appears to be a new vote (described as the 7th ballot) where he is elected Pope. Sterngard (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where Benitez is elected pope. I believe Lawrence was the only one to turn in a vote before the bomb hit, so when the whole conclave voted, it was still the same ballot. (I was expecting a scene where Lawrence retrieves his ballot during the aftermath of the bomb.) 173.90.75.20 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I agree that this is a very significant scene. My first reaction was that Lawrence appeared to be struck down by God (perhaps imagining it), but then it quickly became apparent that it was a bomb. As we can't get into speculation, I added a line about the bomb "knocking Lawrence to the floor after he has cast his vote", which I see has been deleted without a reason being given. I'll add it back, and if anyone would like to explain why this shouldn't be in the plot, I hope they will discuss it here. Blackballnz (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sterngard (talk) & 173.90.75.20 (talk) Blackballnz (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox language

Template:Infobox film language says to list "the language primarily used in the film." English is certainly the primary language of the film although there is quite a bit of other languages and subtitled content. The documentation also says "The BBFC website is a good resource for the main language used in the film" and in the BBFC listing for Conclave (see the section under "Industry details") only English as the language for this film.

Many editors seem to be unfamiliar with these guidelines and frequently list extra languages that are only briefly included, but in this case maybe editors do genuinely consider this film multilingual and it was done intentionally? So just double checking, but per the template documentation the Infobox language should be listed as English only unless there is some consensus to do otherwise? -- 109.79.162.81 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should just be "English". Not all editors know about the template documentation, and they may crib film databases that may be more indiscriminate with categorizing languages. I've removed all but English. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully this brief discussion will help ensure the change sticks and maybe a few lurkers who didn't now about the template documentation will take it on board. -- 109.78.196.173 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Having seen this film, it is as much a political drama (in much the same vein as the 1968 film The Shoes of the Fisherman) as a "thriller." 173.90.75.20 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajd. 173.90.75.20 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I agree that it's not a mystery, but would it be better labelled as a 'political drama' rather than a 'political thriller'? I note The Shoes of the Fisherman is called a political drama. Blackballnz (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film fits perfectly with the definition in the opening sentence of the "political thriller" Wkpd entry. 173.90.75.20 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILMGENRE This is not supposed to be opinion or original research. What do the reliable sources say? Also WP:WEIGHT. -- 109.76.197.233 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have both thriller and drama. 219.89.46.225 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't say which sources then other editors cannot WP:VERIFY or attempt to judge WP:WEIGHT. (Drama is largely redundant as most other genres are essentially subgenres of it.) Thankfully political thriller as the genre seems good, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement (or edit warring) in this case (Harris is known as a writer of political thrillers) but in general editors should rely WP:RS reliable sources and try to stick to the facts so that opinion and subjective interpretation can be kept to a minimum. -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made with no explanation

Hello - I note multiple changes have recently been made to this article with no explanation offered. I've changed some back, with explanations. My main concern is that some of this goes further than the plot of the film. The WP Manual of Style says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The ending of this film is subtle, and does not spell out everything for the viewer, so neither should this article. Blackballnz (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Say what you can see. The plot section is just for the plot. I expect you will need to review the Plot section a few more times and remind other editors about the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines but you are certainly correct to do so. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.76.133.119 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ 109.76.133.119. I'm going to see the film for the second time tomorrow, and I'll review the page when I return. Blackballnz (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afterwriting @Bicam3ralMind - Hi, I note many changes made to the plot in the last couple of days. I think it looks pretty good now, but there are a few places where I think assumptions have been made that shouldn't be included. I've watched it twice now, and I don't think Bellini's plea to not reveal the secret report implies that he has been offered a bribe in exchange for his support. I think this should be deleted. I'm also not sure we should say that Lawrence, at the end, is "entrusting that God divinely inspired the results". Another assumption. I'm also not keen on using the word 'intersex', as no-one in the film uses the word and that scene is quite subtle. I would be interesting in hearing your views before I make any changes. (BTW, I haven't read the book & I wonder if some of the assumptions are from people who've read the book & have taken information from there). Blackballnz (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bellini may not have been offered a bribe, but could Lawrence's accusation been made in anger? Bicam3ralMind (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bicam3ralMind Yes, he was definitely angry, but my point is that we shouldn't include speculation in the plot, just what we view. Blackballnz (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? "He shows the documents to Bellini, whose plea not to reveal their existence sparks an argument." Bicam3ralMind (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]