Talk:Succession (TV series)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Succession (TV series) was copied or moved into List of awards and nominations received by Succession on February 3, 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 5 to 11, 2021 (25th) December 12 to 18, 2021 (18th) March 26 to April 1, 2023 (25th) April 9 to 15, 2023 (9th) April 16 to 22, 2023 (21st) May 21 to 27, 2023 (18th) May 28 to June 3, 2023 (7th)

In addition to the Murdochs, are the characters and situations in this series based (even loosely) on the Trumps and/or Kushners? If so, why isn't this mentioned in the current version of the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the show is based on the Trumps, nor the Kushner's. I don't think that the family in the show would be based on a Jewish family (or one with a direct Jewish connection), as Logan Roy is, at many times, somewhat antisemitic or inconsiderate to Jews. 38.106.71.5 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain this in a concisely as I can, in my current status; instead of dragging it on for the folly of "convering all-bases": Should the Marcy & Stewy portraying thespians be credited as "special recurring" or somesuch for ongoing season 3, to the effect? They are only "GUEST STARRING" (distinct in letter-casing of the end-credits) to be ever credited in title-sequence of the series. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, "special recurring" will do While I tried my Best to concisely explain it over at the ES with limited space it provides, particularly on the [sub]sections-only edits; it appears that what I expected (if not ‘anticipated’, somehow) inevitably occurred. Here's the thing: Without going on about the show's production-background like heightened-costs with reduced substance all Thanks to the ongoing global-healthcare tragedy and all, the reason why ongoing credits of Mr Arian Moayed, and [when she completes getting credited in 3 episodes at max] Ms Hiam Abbass should be recognised distinctly by the wiki is that they are, so far, 2 of the only "guest-stars" across all episodes of the series to get credited in the intro/opening-credits/title-sequence. I wished to point-out exactly that when I referred to "Promotion to Opening Titles" at TV Tropes for a documented-reference, given the convention for listing cast on scripted TV & film, but especially TV. The very fact that this show has hosted many thespians of verifiable higher-profile but always credited them as "Guest Starring" in end-credits at Best, should count as a plus for my point [that none of them ever received a "Special Guest Star" credit*]. Now, some could argue that one certain Mr Parker Sawyers was also credited with Regulars in the opening-titles, and that's true. But the big-picture is, the barely-noticeable role of Alessandro Daniels in the pilot was permanently written-out by what would be the first episode of the ordered-series, S1E02 titled "Sh*t Show at the F**k Factory" (side-note: I'm not self-censuring, but instead obeying one of English wiki's Pillars in causing least-offense by quoting what should be a phrasal proper-noun verbatim, in that, it's how the episode is literally titled for HBO's top secret of final-cut episodes, mainly overseas; for additional-context: the line in the episode is "shitshow at the factory" in that cut). A-gain, that wiki dubs it "Dropped After the Pilot". And even given I've been trying only update Stewy [as yet], the point must stand nullified by the very factor that while Mr Sawyers received his only-credit for the show in pilot, Mr Moayed has received the latest-format-of-billing in 3 episodes, at the very least. Ms Abbass is yet to appear in at least 1 more episode credited as such, before I deem it sufficiently-qualified to update her “recurring” here. Higher-UAL "Drmargi", for is ostensibly upset that I'm being idiosyncratic in my phrasing. Well, given the hidden-text, the term “recurring” is idiosyncratic to the credits across the contemporary American Television billing as a whole, in and of itself. So how on Earth could it be possibly the norm across the WP:TV articles when at least here, intros are explicitly the preferred-source? Lemme remind everybody with enough on their hands to process this, *if the hang-up is simply over the fact that I invoked “special” to denote their otherwise recurring-status, as I've also wished to summarise here, while it's true that "special" is commonly deemed as a seperate billing in and of itself, I expand the brief that: Ever since HBO started commissioning distinct title-sequence for each season of their commissioned series (non-British English) which was, if I'm placing it correctly, around the same time they announced the shuttering of their in-house casting department mainly involved in casting for their commissioned/self-produced limited-series/miniseries, viz. Angels in America, et al., they did away with "Special Guest Star" billing which is generally reserved for high-profile contributors/performers in real-universe and increasingly, particularly for lower-budgeted series, the performers which are either: A) Demoted from previously Regular billing. B) Are Regulars of another show in a franchise, for a crossover-event or so forth. And as if that's not enough, speaking of the "Pilot", it's very rare for a series which in spite of going through the pilot-process of greenlighting on American TV, still doesn't have its first-episode titled as simply "Pilot" but something else. So even within the otherwise restrictive-sphere of its network, this case ought to still be considered in solitary because of number of uncommon factors involved. Last but not the least, overall: What Marcy's billing has gone through the seasons is summarised by additionally-citing what's-described-as Chuck Cunningham Syndrome (as she has been a Satellite Character) on that site, whereas Stewy's prima facie complex case is nothing-more-than the scenario of "Evolving Credits". I am open to considering any other way to explicitly mention their “special” place as only non-Regular cast-members [excluding the Pilot] in the series to be billed in the opening-sequence at a relevant place in the article, though. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Edited 11:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Out of that massive wall of text, I do not see an answer to the question that actually matters: Do reliable and independent sources generally refer to the characters in that way? The answer to that question is also the answer to the RfC. We're not talking about one's analysis of what TV Tropes says on general topics, either, but what actual reliable sources refer to them in specific as. Currently, the argument to do so seems entirely based upon synthesis, so unless such references can be shown, the answer would be "no". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Vide the “hidden-text” part above. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Edited 03:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than handwaving, please either provide the reliable and independent sources which specifically refer to these characters in those terms, or state that you do not have them. I am not trying to parse whatever you're trying to say out of that incomprehensible text wall. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Ahh... Classic regression to WP:RUDE indisputably remains the go-to conduct for "we're the Legion" higher-UAL types, eh? (Of which, there are far too many than this site would dare to concede.) What do you want at your pro bono service to be served at the platter? A screencap, or..? To spell-it-out for you: The hidden-text at the "Cast" section explicitly mentions that only-&-only opening-titles are supposed to be considered as “reliable and independent” source for the purposes of editing that section. Are you trying to impose "fuck that" on me in regards to it without having to take the heat for removing that hidden-instruction yourself? Needless to add, I don't feel highly persuaded by those who wish to overbear me with Continuum fallacy (at the very least) or somesuch, simply based on their quasi-Credentialism like how many edit-counts they've attained over time, since it would be pseudo-logical. Needless to add, I don't hold those prone to playing domination-tactics in high-regard, either. Wish to make amends? —103.163.124.73 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd respond to the wall of text above if I could, but frankly it is a rambling mess that makes no sense. Moreover, its arguments(?) rely on reference to unreliable sources built on fan-submitted content; the piece at TV Tropes referred to is absolute nonsense from beginning to end. Clearly, the IP hasn't the first idea how roles types (main v. guest) and billing are established. The bottom line for me is that the term "special recurring" is not used in the industry and is thereby rendered meaningless for the purposes of describing an actor's role this article. This simply can't be so complicated that a made-up term is needed. Moayed is either main, guest or recurring this season. Which is it? His billing will tell us, and that's how we describe him. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I've already spelled-out that there's no such thing as simply “recurring” for on-screen billing in at least one of my edit-summaries, across the contemporary American Television series productions, at the very least. So it does appear that I do know quite something about how “roles types [sic] […] and billing are established”, as long as the hidden-comment in the section is indiscriminately treated as a valid-instruction for citation. So before you continue your aggression couched behind catchphrases like “bottom line” and as if that's just enough, even “clearly”, I urge you resist your temptation to making presumptions in order to continue pulling rank. Regards —103.163.124.73 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Edited 08:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Drmargi here. They're billed as "guest stars", it's that simple. I'm guessing they're getting special treatment by being credited in the opening titles because they're former regulars. There's other shows that credit certain guest stars in their opening credits, such as Mad Men and Homeland. There's notes placed beside their credit in the cast table at List of Succession characters which is suffice regarding this matter. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's done a lot in these short series; they don't appear in every episode, but their characters are still pivotal, and their billing reflects that. Billing is contractual, and can be negotiated in some cases. Regardless, they are billed in the main cast, and as such, we note them accordingly. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drovethrughosts: Evidently, in spite of your "frat" sentiment in agreement, I am grateful that at least you were capable to invest enough of mind and time in successfully processing my exhaustive explanation. Regarding your last sentence, I see that the newly-created "List of.." article has that explanatory-note added there already, as indicated in my own last-sentence, I am cool with that. So why not that peachy arrangement could be made to reflect that here, as well? —103.163.124.73 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drovethrughosts: This goes without saying that I don't think I can agree with your uncited-rationale for why they're the only ones to get credited alongside so-called Regulars. Why? Well.. Because now more than ever, even miniseries or limited-series credit certain guest or recurring cast member alongside the rest of Regulars, and without differentiating them as even "guest starring" or somesuch, for one. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rule on Wikipedia that editors should sign their posts. Why aren't you doing this? With the amount of comments you are making on this page -- and the nature of some of your comments -- you should definitely be using an actual Wikipedia account, rather than an anonymous IP address.Chillowack (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillowack: Dunno where you're going with “...the nature of some of your comments..”. So please get this straight: I'm doing whatever's required, in regards to signposting my posts. I wouldn't originally bother to refer you to some finalised-essay, but given the tenor of your frankly-bizarre reply, please refer to WP:HUMAN and yes, WP:WAE. (Even though I don't absolutely identify with off-site "AGFWWRUP".) —103.163.124.73 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillowack: The IP did sign their post, and WP:REGISTER reminds us that "You don't need to be registered to contribute". Whether the editor uses a consistent anonymous IP address or an anonymous username like we do, it's easy to see what they've posted. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input GoingBatty, and happy editing to you too!Chillowack (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Thanks So Much for your token of humility. I'm grateful to find you in one of the very few "experienced" editors to show courtesy and humbleness towards their "inexperienced" counterparts. May you [continue to] have a blissful life ahead! –103.163.124.73 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Awards and nominations" section is getting large. Time to split it off into a separate article? GoingBatty (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Roy redirects here instead of the List of Succession characters article, and none of the other members of the main cast have redirects at all. Shouldn't all character names redirect to the character article, and all episode titles that don't have their own articles redirect to this article? jonas (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined CastJared (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, this article is having undue weight problem along with Euphoria. I know that The Sopranos, The Wire, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones, and Westworld have split the articles with seasons to avoid having undue weight. But will it split? CastJared (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 seasons with 29 episodes are not enough to split into List of articles or season articles. Based on MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH still apply. Per MOS:TVSPLIT, it would take between 50 and 60 episodes to warrant separating those summaries off the main page to an List of Episodes page. Succession is nowhere near that range of episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is probably not the right place for this, but I was wondering what we could do to get better images of the lead actors? The current images for everyone except Jeremy Strong look and feel rather outdated (Kieran Culkin's in particular, I mean look at that hair!) Getty Images has a lot of photos from the show's past premieres, we could pull from the season 3 and season 4 premieres which have some great shots. I'm not familiar with the process of obtaining licensed photos for use on Wikimedia. I do feel this show could use them though, Severance and Ted Lasso's casts all got updated with good, HQ headshots from their respective premieres. UnknownBat (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor 208.99.245.250 is making good edits to this article, but three times has changed ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine to ''[[New York (magazine)|New York Magazine]]'', most recently in this edit. I reverted the first two changes, but do not wish to be in an edit war. I've invited the IP editor here, in the hopes that we come to a consensus. Comments from other editors would also be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roy family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether "satire" and "comedy-drama" best describe this series. It is so deeply cynical and partly even sardonic about the emptiness, selfishness, and ruthlessness of its characters and corporate america and whilst evoking jokes, it is more about the nervous laughter about the terrible deeds and misjudgements of the characters. I would call it an "American cynical TV series about greed and selfishness in corporate America created by Jesse ... " . But I know I come late to this topic and the opening sentence may have been discussed more than once already ... Thoughts? Jaeljojo (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the series has gone through four seasons, then it seems appropriate to start to update the characters summaries in the article from their old versions originally written in season one. The character summary section from season one seems to be keeping the summaries of the characters made long ago in the first season. Now that the show has completed its fourth season, those first season character summaries are no longer accurate given what has happened in the entire four seasons. It is no longer accurate to say, after the completion of season four that Tom "enjoys his proximity to the Roy family's power, but is frequently dismissed by the family's inner circle." "Dismissed" is no longer accurate since at the end of season four he is prominently the CEO of the entire company. HenryRoan (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6 of the 10 episodes of Succession's first season don't have their own Wikipedia pages. And every episode in Seasons 2-4 have their own pages. Should someone approve these pages? Also had pages for more characters, not just Kendall, like Logan, Shiv, Roman, Connor, Tom and Greg should have their own pages. MrCboY1997 (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several times now I've edited the page to remove the erroneous description Satire. The show is NOT a satire, lacking several elements of that genre - in particular, exaggeration and irony. I'll accept that it may have had satirical moments early on, but they're quite insignificant overall. There's a good brief guide to recognising satire at https://www.casdonline.org/cms/lib/PA02217736/Centricity/Domain/372/Recognizing_and_Analyzing_Satire.pdf Why do people keep reverting my corrections? Groogle365 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]