Talk:Murder on the Orient Express
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Spoiler
- This book was also noted for its surprise ending, where it is revealed that all of them did it - the twelve suspects are the twelve executioners, taking justice into their own hands for a crime that the law did not punish.
This should be cut down to "This book was also noted for its surprise ending" or something similar; I think telling the end solution of a detective story is a bit too much (even with the spoiler disclaimer), and saying there is a surprise ending doesn't need any "proof" to show it really is surprising. --Farside 16:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm restoring this text, as per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains spoilers. And we have a spoiler warning on the page; however, as an encyclopedia, it is our function to provide information, not act as a teaser to bolster sales. Girolamo Savonarola 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Avoiding spoilers isn't about bolstering sales, it's about not spoiling books and films that people intend to read or watch. Believe it or not, some people don't want to know what happens at the end of a murder mystery.
Then perhaps you might want to provide the correct information. Poirot specifically exonerates one of the thirteen suspects.
[edit] Article title
'Murder in the Calais Coach' is the American title of 1934 (Dodd Mead, New York), but the 'original title' (Collins, London, 1934) was always 'Murder on the Orient Express'. Ma'ame Michu 22:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Stupid viewers
Many viewers, unfamiliar with the plot, thought that the murder mystery would take place against a dramatic backdrop of a world-famous train speeding through exotic landscapes and were disappointed to find that the train is stalled in snow for most of the movie. Do we have a source for this? Mark1 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I made several edits a couple of days ago, and made more today
Whoever wrote the synopsis either didn't read the book, or didn't read it closely. There are numerous errors.
The "editors" of Wikipedia, and I use the term in the loosest possible sense, must have disapproved of the method in which I made my corrections, since they deleted my commentary. However, while they were doing so, they also deleted any reference to a fairly pivotal character. Very sloppy.
Please don't stop leaving "commentary" on the front page- if you have something to say, say it here.
You might want to reread that, mon ami. You're asking me to keep leaving commentary on the front page. Besides, I've left the same commentary several times now. How about one of you bright young things get off your ass and fix it so that the synopsis is correct?
- Lemme get this straight - you have enough time and effort to write out what the errors are - several times after reversions, even - but can't be bothered to actually just do the simple work of making the corrections? If you have more info or corrections, by all means make them! That's the whole point of a wiki. I'm just helping to copy-edit the article; I haven't read the book in at least ten years myself. Girolamo Savonarola 00:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Whereas I have the book in front of me - and it shows that all my comments were correct. But someone else decided s/he was right, and removed an edit that I made WITHOUT fanfare - the extra T in Colonel Arbuthnot's name.
That, I assume, is the "point" of a wiki - accuracy isn't an issue.
→This page appears to have been vandalized by 72.82.60.233. I'm going to revert it to the previous version. -wgw2024 0434 PST 9/20/06
[edit] CSI
"In a final scene where the characters put themselves in their position to see if they would have taken part, all agree they would have. Except Gil Grissom, who pointed out it all could have been avoided if one person spoke out..." spoke out how? could someone explain this? --dan 00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I saw that episode. As I recall, the victim wasn't having a panic attack, as claimed, at all. He was very sick. His brain was swollen. Grissam didn't point out "it all could have been avoided if one person spoke out...", but said it could have been prevented if someone had taken the trouble to speak to the victim and ask him what was wrong.
- The connection with the matter at hand, if there is one, is tenuous at best. I deleted the text. If someone wants to cite a source as a basis to claim such a connection, it could perhaps be reinstated.... in an abbreviated form. TheMadBaron 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

