Jump to content

Talk:The Mousetrap

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.24.215.154 (talk) at 02:02, 3 December 2011 (→‎Offensive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia spoiling the ending

I'm playing Trotter in a production of The Mousetrap and I want to invite my friends - however I know that if they wikipedia the play they will have the ending ruined for them (they will know I am the murderer from the start - it must be hard to enjoy a whodunnit when you already know from the start exactly who done it). Can there at least be some sort of SPOILER ALERT before revealing this information? I've already had a mate who looked it up, had the ending ruined for him when he wasn't expecting it, and now cannot he unknow that knowledge. Does this twist have to be ruined for everyone who reads this article? On many posters and playbills of The Mousetrap is a phrase that goes something along the lines of "Don't reveal the twist at the end"; does Wikipedia really need to ruin this theatrical tradition that, in all honesty, only adds to the overall enjoyment of the show? Is it imperative that it take the "mystery" out of this murder-mystery?Sebastianisgreat (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings other than our general disclaimers. Beyond that, it is not our problem. elektrikSHOOS 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I played Paravicini in a recent production, and didn't worry about it. (In fact, my 10-year-old was convinced I was the murderer up to the end. :-) ) If you don't want to know what happens in a play, don't look it up before you go see it. Seems fairly simple to me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the term Identity of the Murderer is in bold right on top of the section in question and seems to me to be very noticeable. There is already sufficient warning and I am confident that someone seeing that header would stop before they find out who the murderer was.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the play for the first time in January this year, so not wanting the ending to be spoiled I didn't look up an article on it that would likely do that. Why did your mate read the article in the first place - even just reading the basic plot seems a silly thing to do if you're going to see it? I don't think the ending should be removed, we can't protect people from themselves I'm afraid.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that "Identity of the Murderer" would be a discussion on that subject, without necessarily revealing it, especially in the context of the requested secrecy. Guess I must be stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.186.152 (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a plot synopsis of any story (book, film or play) will spoil the ending. In other cases it will not even have the ending under a separate headline as this does. There's no reason why this should be any different. An encyclopedia shouldn't be dictated by Agatha Christie's rules. Simple, don't want to know the plot? Don't read a plot synopsis.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we are actually going above and beyond standard practice. Few if any other pages divide the ending of the plot in this matter.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive

I'm not sure how Wikipedia - which I guess is trying to compare itself to some sort of legitimate encyclopedia - can justify publishing the twist ending. I appreciate that the sorts of people who run these sorts of computer websites have no appreciation of preserved culture of this sort, but what a disgrace - especially the arrogance in the official responses to people and locking the site to make it unedited. Would have never expected this. Wikipedia should not have it's huge advertisements begging for money from people if it is itself when it is obviously being run by some truly spineless people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringey555 (talkcontribs) 01:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't understand how you can justify not putting the ending on the page. The play is very old and has a very famous plot twist. If you don't live near a theater putting on the show, but you want to know what the famous twist ending is, Wikipedia ha sit for you. And the page is locked so that people who aren't actually brave enough to have a discussion about any changes they want, do make changes. JDDJS (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory, though why anyone would go "I can't see the Mousetrap, I know, I will go and read it on Wikipedia because that is exactly the experience I want" rather than waiting or making an attempt to get to a show, I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringey555 (talkcontribs) 02:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well in America, you could wait for years for somebody in your area to put on a production of the show, and have no results. JDDJS (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can justify it for you: Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings. An encyclopedic purpose is being served by describing the full plot, despite your aversion to the contrary. We've also placed the ending in its own unique section which can be easily skipped by readers who don't want to be spoiled. If you do not agree with this, perhaps you should search elsewhere for information. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I mean. What disgusting arrogance. I have already seen this play, but the entire point of it is that the ending is not spoiled once you leave the show. What a shame that isn't understood by some moronic modern day internet drones. --Kringey555 (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's not a theatrical review site, or a TV trailer, or a man talking loudly in a Charing Cross pub. If someone is researching Christie's work or the history of twist endings in fiction, they would expect to be able to research the main, salient points of the play from an encyclopaedia, and - as you say - the ending is to some extent "the entire point". Behind the play's longevity, the presence of the twist ending is best-known aspect of the work. Since sources have written about that ending (and the play itself has been published and can be bought from any bookshop!), we would be doing readers a great and arrogant disservice to say "the ending is legendarily famous; to find out what it actually is, please travel to London's West End to see the play, or leaf through the script in a library or bookshop, if you have any local libraries or bookshops". --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting how you're calling us arrogant when you called us "spineless people," "moronic modern-day internet drones" and "trying to compare itself to some sort of legitimate encyclopedia."
It should also be pointed out that none of these are "official" responses, as Wikipedia has no editorial board and is in fact run by a community of editors, who decide things via consensus. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in a summer theatre festival production of this play last year. Nowhere in the script does it say "Don't reveal the ending", and our production did not ask the audience to keep the secret. "internet drones" has nothing to do with the question at hand.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first contribution. Please remove the twist ending, in the spirit of the play. Eveline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.149.191 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short that is not going to happen since our guidelines clearly state that we should not remove information because it is a spoiler.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original cast

I don't want to barge in, but if any regular editor of this article thinks the names of the original West End cast worth adding, these are they:

  • Mollie Ralston – Sheila Sim
  • Giles Ralston – John Paul
  • Christopher Wren – Allan McClelland
  • Mrs Boyle – Mignon O'Doherty
  • Major Metcalf – Aubrey Dexter
  • Miss Casewell – Jessica Spencer
  • Mr Paravicini – Martin Miller
  • Detective Sergeant Trotter – Richard Attenborough

Source: "Ambassadors Theatre – 'The Mousetrap'", The Times, 26 November 1952, p. 12. Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think those would probably be worth having -- go ahead and add them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 26 November 2011

Please delete the information stating who the murderer is in the play the Mousetrap, this spoils the entertainment for people who wish to see the play and is totally unnecessary.

78.86.228.83 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per WP:SPOILER, encyclopedia articles cover all encyclopedic areas of a topic, and the ending to this play is of encyclopedic value. You can read discussions about this issue farther up on this talk page, and in the talk page's archives. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]