Talk:Midnight Mass (miniseries)

Angels or vampires?

/* Episodes */ the vampire is not a angel and was even described by the show creators as being a vampire. It is incorrect to label it as a angel.

Please stop changing the vampire to be listed as a angel in the wiki page. The show runners have already said that the monster in the show is not a angel and is a legit vampire. It will only cause confusion to people looking to learn about the show by incorrectly naming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tron4444444 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tron4444444: Give us a reliable source that "the showrunners themselves have said directly that the vampire is not a angel but a classic vampire". That's how Wikipedia works. Your saying it doesn't make it true. And stop edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tron4444444: Be it as it may, the creature is literally referred to as an "Angel" in the SUBTITLES AND CREDITS of the show.Trqalobaid (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Tron4444444, who is currently blocked but carrying on with their edit war anyway (now using Tron444444) is relying on the Looper ref in their edit(s++) to write the characters as "vampires". The previous edit uses the Den of Geek ref (same diff) to write the characters as "angels". Here's the thing; both articles mention both "angels" and "vampires", but while the show uses several recognizable vampire tropes, they apparently aren't referred to as "vampires" in the show, but the priest Hill is referred to as an "angel" (as per this ScreenRant ref). But it might not be that straightforward. We need to wary of OR & SYNTH, and definitely need more discussion. To that end, still waiting for "Tron4++" to respond here (while they still can) and would also like to see responses from other editors as well. - wolf 08:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We can add IP 166.205.97.75 (located in Houston TX) as another Tron sock; similar edit on Midnight Mass and (no surprise) vandalizing my talk page. Regarding the angel-vampire issue, I agree that using "vampire" is SYNTH without compelling evidence otherwise. The default in this situation is to use the show itself as the source without that evidence. Furthermore, "angel" clearly is now the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS since a number of editors have used/restored that term and only a lone troll has used "vampire". And here is a quotation by creator-director Flanagan: "The angel doesn’t represent vampirism or horror but corruption in any belief system." [1] He explicitly calls it an angel that does not represent vampirism. Both Tron accounts are indeffed because of socking, so I doubt they'll ever comment. And frankly, at this point I don't think we should give any weight to the opinion of such a pervasive edit-warring troll. I welcome other opinions, but if the weight of a consensus hinges on a troll, we can safely dismiss it. Sundayclose (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. At the time I posted my previous comment, their first account was only partially blocked so they could edit elsewhere, including this talk page where the blocking admin had encouraged them to participate. Of course they didn't, they instead continued edit-warring with a second "Tron" account, and then a third account (all with varying numbers of the "4"'s attached). They've all since been indef'd, per SPI & Checkuser. So going forward, they shouldn't be able to contribute to any consensus anyway, unless there is a reversal of their status (unlikely, but possible). Hopefully things will settles down here now. - wolf 21:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the quotation necessarily strikes out the possibility that the creature is not a vampire. To me the quotation seems to be saying that taking the creature at surface value misses the themes of present within the series. Moreover, while this IGN article repeated uses the term angel to describe the monster and how angels were a direct visual and narrative inspiration for the creature, in the same article Flanagan is directly quoted saying "The idea that we could take a classic vampire story and reframe it through a biblical angel, in a case of really unfortunate mistaken identity was also really, just kind of fun." To me this hints that the creature is indeed some sort of vampire that is simply mistaken for an angel. However, it is very muddied here, and there is potential that I am misreading somewhere. From a narrative standpoint, I feel like taking the creature to be some sort of "angel" misses some of the themes of the story: namely, how religion has the ability to warp our perception of reality, and the harm that can often ensue from such beliefs. I would like to here other thoughts on this however. Camcam1016 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Writing credits

Episodes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are written by multiple writers. In the end credits of the show, the names of the different writers are separated by the word "and". For instance, episode 6 ("Book VI: Acts of The Apostles") has the following writing credit in the end credits:

Written by
MIKE FLANAGAN
and
JAMES FLANAGAN
and
JEFF HOWARD

It is my opinion that the writing credits in the episode table should be written in the same way. That is, the "Written by" row for episode 6 should read:

Mike Flanagan and James Flanagan and Jeff Howard

... and obviously the same goes for episodes 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well.

In the U.S. television industry, the word "and" with regard to writing credits is not used randomly. It has a specific meaning that is different than the meaning of using "&". For episode list articles, the writing credits are typically written in the same way as they are written in the episode itself. For example, in the episode list for the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "The Pack" is credited to Matt Kiene & Joe Reinkemeyer, not "Matt Kiene, Joe Reinkemeyer".

Why should we not list the writing credits in the same way the series itself does? HaileyKhalif07 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We are only required to identify the names accurately and completely. We do not have to use a direct quotation from the series. This does not conflict with WP:MOS, which is our guideline rather than that of the showrunners' use. Regarding Buffy, there's a difference. Two items in a series can be separated with "&" or "and" without making it stylistically awkward. Sundayclose (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There are many examples where writing credits are listed in a way that seems stylistically awkward, both for Buffy and for almost every other TV show episode list on Wikipedia. Take The Sopranos episode list, where many episode writing credits are listed in a way that is very awkward to read, and yet are faithful to how the credits are listed in the episodes themselves. The Sopranos episode "University" receives the following credit:

Story by: David Chase & Terence Winter & Todd A. Kessler and Robin Green & Mitchell Burgess

Teleplay by: Terence Winter and Salvatore J. Stabile

Ultimately this is an encyclopedia. All I'm advocating for is an accurate depiction of the facts. And seeing as my opinion is not without precedent, I really have to wonder why you're taking such a hard line with regards to this series (that had a maximum of three writers per episode) but don't seem to mind that virtually every other TV show article on this website defers to how the episodes themselves credit their writers. Just staying within TV shows created by Mike Flanagan, are you going to go The Haunting of Hill House article and change the writing credit for "Two Storms" to "Mike Flanagan, Jeff Howard"? It currently reads "Mike Flanagan & Jeff Howard." HaileyKhalif07 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that I "don't seem to mind that virtually every other TV show article on this website defers to how the episodes themselves credit their writers." My concern here is this article; if other articles have a problem that's a different matter. No one is expected to fix all of Wikipedia. I also suspect that "virtually every other TV show article" is an unfounded exaggeration. Please allow others to disagree with you without mischaracterizing them. Please wait to see if a consensus develops here instead of badgering me. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're mischaracterizing me. I have not made any attempt to reinstate the changes I made to the article, and I respect that the status quo must prevail where disagreements arise. I bought it to the talk page precisely to gain consensus, and I assure that I will not make any changes to the writing credits on this article unless consensus is gained. Nor have I made any ad hominem arguments or anything worthy of being accused of "badgering" you. I must throw your own words back at you: "Please allow others to disagree with you without mischaracterizing them."

All I have asked you to do is explain why you insist on maintaining non-standard formatting for this article, one that is seemingly without precedent. I do not accept that my statement was a "unfounded exaggeration".HaileyKhalif07 (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is my last comment to you since you are repeating yourself. "All I have asked you to do is explain why you insist on maintaining non-standard formatting for this article": As I already explained, it is not non-standard formatting for Wikipedia. It does not violate WP:MOS. And yes, your comments "virtually every other TV show article" and "without precedent" are exaggerations. Your saying it doesn't make it true. Now, drop the stick and wait for others to comment because if you continue it is disruptive editing and at some point can result in loss of editing privileges. If others comment, I may make additional comments. Otherwise I have no more comments for you. And a word of caution: My lack of additional comments to you is not an acceptance of your argument. Don't change the article without a consensus. Read WP:BRD. If no one comments further, the current state of the article is the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Making a change requires a new consensus. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, this stylistic problem is not worth the rancor that you're creating. I will restore your edit. But my comments about badgering, dropping the stick, and disruptive editing still stand. If you do that in the future, you can't say you haven't been warned. Sundayclose (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising me. After your reverted my initial change, I made no attempt to reinstate these changes. I respect the status quo in matters of disagreement. I reject the claim that I a disruptive editor, as I bought the issue it the talk page. Frankly, I find your comments offensive and condescending. I respect that the status quo must prevail, I do not however respect any right you have to treat me as a pesky annoyance. You can argue a point without making personal attacks on other users. Be a better human. HaileyKhalif07 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said you reinstated the changes. I said that your comments are exaggerations and that pushing me to explain something I had already explained is badgering. If you think I made a personal attack, the appropriate venue to deal with that is WP:ANI, not by throwing around wild accusations here, although you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before you pursue it any further. Otherwise don't accuse me of personal attacks. Now please. The article is the way you want it. This matter is resolved. Please don't argue simply for the sake of arguing. Most editors drop the stick and move on when they get what they want. If you continue this you have clearly crossed the line into disruptive editing. I'm sure both of us have more important things to do. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on

Midnight Mass is not based on the story within a story from Hush. Flanagan had the idea for the story for MM long before even his first feature, but he couldn't make it into a movie or series yet. While he made other projects, he planted Easter eggs alluding to his MM idea into the movies. That doesn't make that MM is based on this Easter egg, MM is the realisation of an idea long before Hush. --Blobstar (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Who holds the copyrights?

List copyright holders and if available contact information 174.83.145.20 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)