There may be two competing biopics of Pope John Paul II coming up this week, but that doesn’t mean there’s more drama headed our way. Struggle as they might to make the life of the late pontiff compelling viewing, neither quite succeeds – for the obvious reason that hagiography doesn’t come with a lot of subtlety or nuance. The shortcomings of each project remind us that pandering to an audience, even one as large and loyal as the American Catholic population, may deliver numbers, but not entertainment.

First comes ABC’s version this Thursday night at 8 p.m., filling a void left on the network’s schedule created by the cancellation of “The Night Stalker.” Fans of that dark crime saga won’t be sucked in by “Have No Fear: The Life of Pope John Paul II,” a miniseries that portrays the future pope with every bit of piousness that one would expect of a man on the path to sainthood. Told in two hours (the CBS saga runs over two nights beginning next Sunday), ABC’s movie takes a fairly straightforward approach to the life of the young Polish boy and his evolution as a religious leader. We watch his suffering after the death of his mother, his brief struggle with sexual attraction to a young Jewish girl, and his quick rise through the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church’s power structure without sensing deep interior conflict; instead, “Have No Fear” embraces the notion of Wojtyla’s essential goodness.

Perhaps it’s the glory of Pope John Paul II’s life and achievements that becomes a noose around the neck of the producers responsible for these projects. (The drama of real-life events – such as the assassination attempt that opens the CBS version – don’t get used to maximum effect, there’s a lackluster feeling to both.) The CBS attempt manages to make a little bit more of his biography, mostly by casting well-known stars; Cary Elwes plays the charismatic young Wojtyla – who began his career as an actor – and Jon Voight fills in for his years as pope. (It has been a long, strange journey for Mr. Voight from his 1968 breakthrough performance as the male hustler Joe Buck in “Midnight Cowboy.”) The ABC version goes with a single, relative unknown; the German actor Thomas Kretschmann, in this country seen mostly in small roles in movies, inhabits the role with a one note righteousness that will make you grateful for its brevity.

It’s almost remarkable how little one learns about Pope John Paul II from these movies – or, indeed, about the lives of popes in general. The CBS version had access to the Vatican for filming, and the result is a verisimilitude that only brings its shortcomings into sharper focus. In the ABC film, told in flashback from the pope’s visit to Jerusalem, his crises – the sight of the German occupation of Poland as a young man, or his doubts about whether to remain pope through a debilitating illness – don’t represent the pope as anything but perfect. Would those most interested in the papacy have been offended if, instead, the networks had chosen to do a miniseries about a more controversial pope? I could imagine a far more fascinating movie about the life of Rodrigo Borgia, the Spanish pope of the Renaissance who famously had sex with his beautiful daughter Lucrezia – as did his son Cesare. He may not have been a pope worth revering, but his story makes for richer entertainment.

I did enjoy moments from both movies, though they sometimes turned out to be the same moments. It was amusing to see the young Wojtyla doing dueling scenes from “Hamlet” in multiple acting classes; in the CBS film, he capably delivered the “alas, poor Yorick” speech, while over on ABC he met with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But whatever dramatic chops this pope may have had disappeared when he put on those flowing robes in these films. As pope, he seemed to excel at touching people and kissing babies; both movies reveal him to be a consummate politician and a sensitive soul. Surprised? Nothing in these movies will surprise you, and maybe that’s the point. This is Catholic comfort food from networks afraid to offend anyone. They may earn the numbers executives crave, but only because Nielsen boxes can’t calculate levels of boredom and disappointment.

***

If you can’t identify the numbers four, eight, 15, 16, 23, and 42, then this may not be of interest. But by now I’m assuming that readers of this column either share my predilection (okay … obsession) for “Lost” or have long since gone looking for the latest Jay Nordlinger opera review.

Anyway, I just felt like riffing for a minute about the last few episodes of the Best Show on Television, and about how they were … well … not so good. I mean, it’s still the best show and all, but I have to admit that my mind wandered a bit, especially during the golf game between Jack and Kate in last week’s episode. I’m sure that some “Lost” nut (and I assure you, I am not one of those) has conjured a grand theory to explain the golf bet and its relationship to electromagnetic fields or dialectical materialism, but in the end, it amounted to nothing more than filler on a show that shouldn’t need it. Can’t we get back to Desmond and the Dharma Initiative? As the great philosopher Ricky Ricardo once said, these producers have some ‘splainin’ to do. I’m ready not to be completely confused anymore.

dblum@nysun.com