Talk:Poldark (2015 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical context[edit]

To what extent would there have been steam-engine pumping of the mines in the context of the stories? 'Cutting edge technology', something expensive happening elsewhere or what? Would the landowners be discussing the latest agricultural improvements? And to what extent would the characters have been speaking Cornish (as well as or instead of English)? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Savery's "Engine for raising water by fire" made it first appearance in the 1690s. Savery was a Devon man so the use of his engine in Cornwall is possible, if not probable in very small workings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.39.218 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cornish engine article, Wheal Vor (mine) had one of the earliest Newcomen engines (in-cylinder condensing engines, utilising sub-atmosperic pressure) before 1714", or 70 years before the end of the American War of Independence. Use of the Cornish language might well add authenticity but would do little to build a worthwhile TV audience.;) Bjenks (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would there have been a class divide with speaking English/speaking Cornish in preference? 'For the purpose of the TV series' a passing reference to the language/use of local words in speech would have sufficed.

Given that the series is set in 'the 1780s' one would expect some reference to the British general election, 1780, George III, the first stages of the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions (given 'the presence of amounts of ironstone' complained about a mention of Henry Cort as 'a possibility if the finance could be found'), and the Affair of the Diamond Necklace/other events in France. Cornwall may have been geographically isolated, but news and developments would have reached them and been discussed. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the series is set in the 1780s, by this time, English had replaced Cornish as the language in common use. Dolly Pentreath, who is popularly believed to be the last fluent Cornish speaker, died in 1790 or thereabouts and though it is accepted that there were a handful of Cornish speakers living into the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were no monoglot speakers at this time and English was the language of all classes. Dialect words and phrases would have remained in use and indeed, were still in common use up to recent times. Sadly now, only the older generation understand and use them and in a few years time, they will doubtless die out completely.

2016 series[edit]

Should there be a separate article or should the heading of this article reflect that it covers two years' series? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, for any TV series which requires a date for disambiguation, that year is always the year of its debut.— TAnthonyTalk 21:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the lead of this article is pretty standard, in conveys the point that the show began in 2015 and continues into the present.— TAnthonyTalk 21:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American production input?[edit]

I was surprised by this abrupt change by Drmargi, which ascribes American input to this 100% true-blue British TV series. I have examined the (Poldark Series 1) end credits for Episode 7, which state that:

  • Polly Hill (deleted by said editor) is in fact the Executive Producer for the BBC which commissioned the show from British production company Mammoth Screen
  • Rebecca Keane (also deleted by said editor) is credited as Creative Director (immediately beneath Head of Production Veronica Castillo).
  • Rebecca Eaton is credited as Executive Producer for Masterpiece, an American enterprise which "has presented numerous acclaimed British productions (including Poldark). In other words, it would appear that Ms Eaton's role has little to do with the creation/production of Poldark.
  • I could not find an Elizabeth Kilgariff anywhere in the credits I looked at, though Debbie Horsfield, Karen Thrussell and Damien Timmer were listed as Executive Producers
  • Nor, incidentally, could I find producer Eliza Mellor, who may have been limited to one production.

Therefore, unless Drmargi can fully justify her edits, it would appear reasonable to revert Poldark to its correct status as a British TV series, and to limit names in the infobox to significant and verifiable participants. Bjenks (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End credits for the British version of Series 2, episode 1 list five executive producers on the same screen in this order: EP for Masterpiece/Rebecca Eaton; EP for the BBC/Elizabeth Kilgarriff; EP/Debbie Horsfield, Karen Thrussell, Damien Timmer. The only other producer listed is Margaret Mitchell in the opening credits. The final screen says A Mammoth Screen production for BBC, co-produced with Masterpiece. Like it or not, Poldark, like Sherlock, Downton Abbey, Victoria, and a number of other productions is a BBC (or ITV)/Masterpiece co-production. The credits establish that, and there is no more reliable source. Moreover, when Sherlock won its Emmy recently, there were three producers on the stage: Steven Moffat, Sue Vertue and Rebecca Eaton. Do you have a source to demonstrate she isn't actively involved in the production? Your spin is simply WP:OR. --Drmargi (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Are you sure that the WP:OR began with me? Like it or not, I lack the time and inclination to contend with your type of spin. But why not now continue consistently with the many other "British-American" productions here, here, and elsewhere in WP? Mabe you could also create separate infobox segments for the whole variety of producers, episode by episode, from the reliable if mainly trivial end credits. Bjenks (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi, it is all well and good for you to quote the credits, but surely you understand why this will be challenged. It would be best to add a reliable source to the article to dispel any controversy.— TAnthonyTalk 05:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting continually challenged because PBS is not established as a coproducer in the article. Do so and no one will want to/be able to challenge the British-American status.— TAnthonyTalk 21:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The credits are the most reliable source there is. --Drmargi (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand, your citing the credits on the talk page does not satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. The article currently doesn't even have PBS listed as a producer anywhere. Further, your insistence on restoring the unsourced info—but disinterest in providing a tangible source in the article to back it up—is getting old. The fact that every random editor who stumbles upon the article challenges it should tell you something, and I should note that even if you are 100% correct, it is 100% appropriate for "British-American" to re removed until it's sourced. Wikipedia content is not necessarily about what is true, it is about what can be verified.— TAnthonyTalk 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarize yourself with WP:PROVEIT, this discussion is over until you can provide something tangible. This information is not so essential that the understanding of the topic suffers with it not included. The truth is, I believe your interpretation of the credits but I am challenging you on principle, you are flatly violating policy here.— TAnthonyTalk 16:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The credits are verification, and satisfy WP:VERIFY. We routinely use credits to verify casting and other screen credits. I've also corrected the article so that all three production concerns are listed, not just Mammoth Screen. This sounds like a case of "I don't like it!" more than anything. --Drmargi (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only American input I can see is money via Masterpiece. PBS is a customer. Murdoch Mysteries is still listed as Canadian despite ITV money. Star Wars is regarded as American despite being British made. ITC programmes of the sixties are regarded as British despite having a token American and pre-sales in America. Poldark and Sherlock and other Masterpiece involvement should be regarded as British.REVUpminster (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. The copyright is held by Mammoth Screen. REVUpminster (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped my protest because the credits do indeed cite Masterpiece, but it would still be great to have a more tangible citation in the article. The British-American status is being repeatedly challenged. I've placed a hidden note to hopefully inform editors, but with things they way they are it is completely understandable that new editors challenge it.— TAnthonyTalk 00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every British programme with money from Masterpiece is being claimed as a US co-production despite the copyright held by Mammoth, a British Production company. Another complication is ITV Studios who also make it for the BBC https://itvstudios.com/programmes/poldark--3 REVUpminster (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting interview; "Masterpiece’s 10% earns it the right to be consulted on casting and other creative decisions, though not control". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/01/dowton-abbey-sherlock-rebecca-eaton-masterpiece REVUpminster (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the logic in calling it a British-American programme, notwithstanding the involvement of a US production company. As I have tried to say, Homeland has Israeli producers but isn't American-Israeli (and that's based on an Israeli source material). Maybe the answer is that the Homeland wiki needs updating (as do, no doubt, a large number of other wiki pages). But even then describing Poldark as British-American is, as many have noted, intuitively wrong because the fact there is some American financial interest down the line does not make it partially American (no more than Cadbury did not become "British-American" when it was bought by Kraft and spun out into Mondelez). Linguistically it makes more sense to describe it as a "British-American produced British drama". I acknowledge the American producers (but retain questions over their significance), but this does not make it a "British-American" drama. Further, the country of origin is (correctly) listed as "United Kingdom" - I think that is sufficient for concluding it is a British drama. Gtpointer (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are your criteria for a series' nationality? I know there have been many conversations about this, but we typically attribute nationality based on the production company. We can't necessarily decide for ourselves how much contribution by a credited producer "counts". I'm not saying I disagree with you, but there may very well be something written about this at the Project level.— TAnthonyTalk 14:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that where a TV series primarily airs would be the main criterion, along with some softer criteria based on setting, source material and cast. I appreciate this isn't particularly specific or helpful but whilst it might be wikipedia policy to base it on the production companies, this doesn't reflect how ordinary people view a programme. If the description is counter-intuitive to 99% of people then it doesn't seem a useful description. What if the American production company is majority (or even wholly owned) by a Chinese company? Does it become a British-American-Chinese production or a British-Chinese production? I appreciate your point about it being difficult to pin-point the exact level a production company's contribution becomes significant, which I agree with. However, I am also raising the further point about how far one digs into the "nationality" of the production company and hence the programme. The further you do this, the more "accurate" the origin of the programme will be (according to wikipedia's current policy) but equally the less connected it is with the general perception of the programme. I also realise that my approach works better for TV programmes than films (although I'd still say that there's a strong argument, for example, that the Harry Potter films are British films rather than British-American), and that the increasing presence of Amazon Video/Netflix etc are blurring the borders of where a programme "airs".
I also have a secondary (lesser) complaint about this approach, in that it seems to be only applied one way so that programmes made in one country with any american production input are described as "X-American" but American programmes made with any third-country production input are solely described as "American". Smacks of American imperialism through wikipedia to me! Gtpointer (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think project nationality should be based on broadcasting, that is an uphill battle that will need to be discussed at a higher level. I can't say that all TV or film articles are consistent with how they are applying nationality, but I doubt there is an active movement implementing a pro-American slant. Do you have examples, in particular where a co-production has been suggested but shot down? Like this article, I think it is more likely that editor(s) have created an article with limited knowledge and no one has come along yet with sources to challenge it. As far as your Homeland example, if there are sources establishing a co-production with an Israeli company, this should be brought up on the talk page. However, while source material (and copyright) should always be noted in an article, that does not necessarily have any bearing on the production.— TAnthonyTalk 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to the above, there has been extended discussion here, here and here about the nationality of television series, with particular reference to British series such as Downton Abbey that are financially supported by and shown in the US under the PBS Masterpiece brand. Consequentially the television MoS now rests upon direct referencing and the exercise of creative control as the determinants of the nationality (country of origin). In the case of Poldark, this enables a resolution of the above discussion based on the revised MoS, with its nationality as a British series confirmed by referencing Netflix[1], Hollywood Reporter[2], the series's Facebook page[3], and CNN[4], as well as Amazon, digitalspy, VisionTV Canada, yourtv Australia, and a host of British RS. That creative control sat in the UK is widely recognised and confirmed by interviews with PBS executives. MapReader (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historical questions[edit]

What languages/dialects would the characters have been using?

To what extent would the upper/middling/professional classes have used English by preference and Cornish as a second 'modern' language, with Latin as a reading language, and the 'working classes' the reverse - and would the smugglers have known Breton or French?

And would the characters have caught cowpox or been inoculated with it (as this was current new medical technology)? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The locals would speak Cornish, and the upper classes English, some may know Cornish. Reading and writing would be English as would be the bibles. The Cornish would be unlikely to read or write just as most of the working class of England. Latin would have been only used in high legal circles. Roman Catholic churches were not allowed until 1850 as the Church of England was and still is the reformed catholic church. catholic means universal which is used to replace catholic in the creed in some low conservative evangelical Church of England churches. REVUpminster (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was including 'school Latin' in the term 'reading language' - and it is convenient to use modern definitions of class (including the agricultural workers and probably the smugglers in the working classes).
English, of course, is used for convenience in the TV series. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, but not only for that—these TV series present works of fiction (the Poldark novels) written in modern English. There are other places in WP to discuss the use of languages and dialects at various times, e.g., here. This article is not an appropriate place for that. Would we want to discuss why Shakespeare did not choose to have his characters speaking Latin in Julius Caesar, and whether that refinement would make a TV adaptation more successful? Bjenks (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was looping back to the actual article - sometimes the talk pages of articles on relevant 'fictional narratives of whatever kind' (books, TV, films etc) is the best place to answer such quick questions (and then explore in depth in more relevant places - [5] and [6] in this case, for those so interested).
Any ideas on the cowpox question? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenner carried out the first experimental cowpox inoculation (against smallpox) in 1796, but it didn't come into widespread use till the 1840s. Nasty outbreaks of various diseases do figure in the Poldark stories and the characters would probably still be very afraid of smallpox. The last native speakers of Cornish, down in the Penzance area some way from the Poldark location at Perranporth, were dying out by the 1790s and everyone spoke English, though some Cornish phrases were still used. The only Cornish word you hear nowadays is 'emmets', which is what the Cornish call tourists, though it literally means 'ants'. Khamba Tendal (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is order of actors in credits so important to this article?[edit]

TAnthony Why does it matter the order in which characters are listed in the credits when listing them in this article? It is a lot easier to understand the list if names are grouped as the characters are connected (e. g., the Poldark families). Or to list the cast in alphabetic order by character name or by actor name, so the names can be found. Is this some sort of Wikipedia policy, to force the order of character names? --Prairieplant (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per MOS:TVCAST, The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Some older articles may not reflect this at the moment, but most current articles should.— TAnthonyTalk 16:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Prairieplant, we have some articles favored by younger viewers where the fanboys/fangirls got into squabbles about cast order, so we now have this idiotically restrictive clause in the MOS:TV put in place by a handful of editors. I agree that, in this case, organizing the cast by family would make far, far more sense, and actually be (GASP!) encyclopedic. However, if you do, you'll get shouted down by the Project TV folks. You might try raising the issue at the Project TV or MOS:TV talk pages. Ping me if you do; I'll be happy to weigh in. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations and the link, TAnthony and Drmargi. I suppose a character list might be less restrictive than a cast list, but the one linked as an example did not have so many characters as the Poldark series to be certain. I like to see the character name first. Now I am educated. I am glad there are not similar rules for characters in novels, and there is no need to worry about the character and an actor portraying the character. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also "in-universe" to list them otherwise. — Wyliepedia 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reception section[edit]

The article needs to show the critical reception and reviews for the series. I encourage users to find notable references such as the NY Time's review for the first season and place it in said article. NowIsntItTime 20:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

True. I haven't read the books, but people who have, say this is not very good. More like a Mills & Boon soap opera, rather than the intelligence of the books. Are there any critical responses thatmake the comparison?
The current, 5th series is history-misery-lit (insanity, slavery and evil slave owners, unpleasant treatment of the insane, the poor being downtrodden, children being sent down t'pits etc etc) - and the absences are deafening. 16:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want it, do the research and add the section. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to 'cease persisting with the series.'
Would the copper at the time of the series be used for copper plating the ships in Devonport down the coast? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

This article has been reverted several times in the last month (search the page history for 'undid'), but there is nothing posted on this talk page since 1 August. If there are diffeences of opinion, surely they can be explained . Admins may have to resort to various forms of protection if reverts continue and nobody will discuss here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

The current Production subheading speaks of the 2019 Series 5 in the future tense, that it will be written and it will be made. At this time, it has been made and has been broadcast. So this should be amended and perhaps updated with information about 2020 and Series 6? If there is to be one?? 70.27.171.169 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is still written as if it was in the future even though season/series 5 has been broadcast. You can be bold and try to fix it or you can keeping waiting to see what else might happen. This is yet another example of why it is a bad idea for an encyclopedia to include make unnecessary time references or include things written in the future tense, editors should try to write more defensively, but there's little chance of that ever happening. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poldark_(2015_TV_series)&oldid=1209798342"