Talk:Deathtrap (film)

Plot

The current ending of the plot description is written in a "Geeze, guess what happened!" style that is unencyclopedic. Suggestions for a rewrite? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization because the summary conclusion doesn't say anything that doesn't happen on screen, which is what it is supposed to do. I'm looking for an extra word or a hint of spangle and I'm not seeing it. You cut the fact that the two men "die," and I think that's not a good idea. Maybe you think it's out of line to say that Helga is 'victorious'. That is something to think about.

You removed the ellipsis, but it seems to make it more clear to include the paragraph break that way than to leave it out. Admittedly, it is unusual to use an ellipsis in this way, but the film ending does something unusual, too. There's a match cut, a shift in sound quality, a different light and suddenly we realize that something was left out and we're in a new time and place. Given the constraints of a plot summary, I'm not sure what would more accurately state the action of the movie. Perhaps with some fine tuning we could bring across the spatiotemporal shift a little more deftly.

In terms of style, I would point out that this summary is consistently written from "inside" the movie. In other words, the summary does not refer to the movie ("The film opens in Denmark..."). For that reason, it would be better to avoid the solution you tried ("soon revealed to be occurring") which is out of keeping with the rest of the summary. Summaries written from the inside have a more professional feel.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Helga's Celebrity

Is Helga a celebrity at the beginning of the movie? I'm not sure what the evidence is on that without rewatching. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• She's a psychic investigator a la Peter Hurkos. She's booked to appear on an upcoming Merv Griffin Show. I don't remember any exact dialogue but "minor celebrity" seems a reasonable descriptor. Otto4711 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deathtrap/Sleuth plot similarity

Ring Cinema: I would ask you to please cite the relevant verbiage in the Manual of Style or other guideline or policy that supports your assertion that similarities between two works of fiction as noted by at least two prominent critics and several writers on film history meets a criteria of "relatively trivial", and that it "doesn't belong in the lead." There are multiple film articles that address the a film's similarity to other films in the lead, and most of these films don't share any actors. Examples: Volcano (1997 film)/Dante's Peak, Armageddon (1998 film)/Deep Impact (film), Olympus Has Fallen/White House Down. It seems like there is quite a lot of precedent for mentioning similar films in another film's lead. Thank you.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say the shoe is on the other foot. Is there a policy or guideline that supports you? I wouldn't feel bound by other editors' judgment, and the cases you cite are different anyway. The similarities mentioned are not particularly strong. And I would note that the article on Sleuth never mentioned the similarity, which is extremely telling. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What actually is the similarity that you want to mention? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No, actually, the shoe is not on the other foot. The similarity is noted in multiple sources that fully meet WP:SOURCE's criteria for being reliable sources within the WP:Verifiability policy, so the burden is on you to demonstrate through policy, guideline, or demonstration of past consensus that the information should be excluded. You say you wouldn't feel bound by other editors' judgement, but you actually are bound by consensus, and multiple articles demonstrate that the consensus is mentioning similar films in an article's lead is appropriate. What's funny, is on one hand you are claiming you are not bound by other editors' judgement when they have put similar films in leads, but then you completely contradict yourself by basically saying that we should be bound to what you make a wild leap in assuming was Sleuth article authors' conscious judgement not to mention similarities to Deathtrap. There is nothing "extremely telling" about the absence of mention of the similarities in the Sleuth lead, it most likely means that Sleuth article authors just never noticed the sources which discuss the similarities before. I note that you don't even try to explain why you feel the similarities are not strong, or why you feel the different kinds of similarities between Sleuth/Deathtrap versus the other examples I provided should disqualify mention, but that really doesn't matter here. I am under no obligation to explain the similarities to you or convince you that they are strong, because your opinion on whether they are strong or not has no bearing whatsoever on this, the only criteria PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY is that multiple verifiable, significant, reliable third party published sources have noted similarities. You're arguing "I Just Don't Like It", and that dog won't hunt. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can already sense we are not going to come to an agreement on our own, so I have listed this at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS: ‘The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects’ (emphasis mine). The information in question does not appear to meet this description, per the current article, hence it does not belong in the lead; it may however be included in the article body. HTH, Aquegg (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't see how that automatically excludes the information in question, and one could very well argue that it is important information that one of the lead actors was in a very similar film (it was important enough for Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin to place it in their reviews), just as it seems important enough for multiple film articles to mention similar films in their leads. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

On further review, it is relevant to mention that WP:FILMLEAD is the more relevant guideline, not the generic lead guideline you cited, and the whole guidance on this should be read, not just the first sentence. When you provided the first sentence out of context, it made it appear as if the guidance was limiting information in the lead. However when looking at the WP:FILMLEAD guidance, once can see that the similar first sentence is actually immediately followed by "At the minimum...", so in context, the lead sentence is part of guidance that encourages inclusion, not exclusion. The film lead style guidance also states that succeeding paragraphs of the lead should also include reactions by critics, and the reactions by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin, two of the top critics in the country at the time the movie was released, are that the film is similar to Sleuth. Also, the WP:FILMLEAD guidance recommends adding information like source material, sequels, spinoffs, etc. Furthermore, I have now found an LA Times article that states the play Deathtrap was likely inspired by the play Sleuth. If people would like me to rewrite the sentence to state that prominent critics from the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, and Washington Post noted similarities to Sleuth in their reviews so this more explicitly conforms to WP:FILMLEAD's guidance that critic reactions be included, and also to address guidance about including source material, I am happy to compromise and do so, but the information on the similarities needs to stay in the lead. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you are alone on this MMyers. Singling out critics in the lead is not a good practice, the parallels are pretty trivial, and the citations themselves mention different, vague reasons to group the films together. I think it amounts to no more than belonging to the same subgenre of films. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A single person who agreed with you isn't exactly overwhelming support for your position, and I adroitly demonstrated why his reason was at best incomplete and out of context. I am happy to compromise and not single out the specific critics. Your opinion that the critics mention "different, vague reasons" to group the films together misses the mark. My text didn't say that all the critics found X similar, it was that they all found similarities. That is an indisputable statement of fact. Your opinion that the similarities are trivial is original research and has no place in deciding whether it is appropriate to mention the fact that multiple prominent critics found similarities, whatever those similarities may be. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(moved by mmyers1976 from the Sleuth talk page)Actually, the citations don't agree on the nature of the similarity. It's not a good practice to single out critics in the lead section either. This proposal has not received any support in the discussion at Deathtrap, so I think until there is a consensus to include it in the lead it is correct to leave it out. I don't see where you are opening a dialogue, actually. You are simply ignoring everyone's objections. I believe I offered the idea of including the material elsewhere in the article instead of cutting it altogether, so perhaps you could take my suggestion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, the extent to which the similarities each critic noted overlap those of every other critic is not at issue here, the fact is indisputable that multiple prominent critics saw similarities, and that is what the text you keep reverting says. You are way, way deep in original research territory when you are trying to parse out differences between the critics' similarities to support your opinion that the similarities overall are trivial. And actually, if several prominent critics all found different reasons the two movies are similar, that actually gives more reasons the movies are similar, actually strengthening the argument that the films are significantly similar, not diminshes it. I am not ignoring everyone's objections, I am specifically addressing them. I don't have to agree with you or Aquegg to be engaging in a dialogue with you, and I demonstrated that a.) Aquegg had not drawn from the most relevant guideline, and b.) he was relying on only one sentence, taken out of context. After I pointed out what WP:FILMLEAD, the more apporpriate guideline says in entirety, he hasn't come back. And THD3, his objection was that the information was uncited, to I satisfied him by providing citation, and he hasn't come back. I do think that this information should also be mentioned in the reception section of the article, but that doesn't preclude it from also being mentioned in the lead, since WP:FILMLEAD specifically says that critic reactions should be mentioned in the article's lead (even though they are later mentioned in the Reception section). Also, don't think I didn't notice your weasel phrasing "Mention has sometimes been made of the similarities." Taken with your stated objection to the similarities in the first place, it appears extremely pointy. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it was subsequently reverted in the article, I will put my compromise sentence here for review and discussion:

Critics such as Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin generally gave the film favorable reviews while noting its plot similarities to Caine's 1972 film Sleuth.

I am open to not specifically naming Ebert or Maslin if people have reasonable grounds to disapprove of that.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The case for inclusion in the lead

As editors, we need to remember what our purpose is here. It's not to preserve our ideas of what should be editing doctrine, it is to create an encyclopedia that provides useful information for anyone, including non-Wikipedians, who come here looking for information on a subject. A very common reason the average person accesses articles on older films is they are trying to remember a film they saw a long time ago. They may not remember the title, and only half-remember the plot, but probably remember at least one lead actor, and may be trying to find that film's title so they can put it in their Netflix cue. So it is not at all an unlikely scenario that someone could land at the Sleuth article because they googled "Michael Caine fake murder", and the Wikipedia article for Sleuth is the first result (and the article for Deathtrap doesn't even show up[1]). So they click the top result, scan over the lead and the beginning of the Plot section, see it's about a writer who lives out in the country and conspires with another man to murder his wife, the other man appears to be murdered but turns out to be still alive, but the writer ends up killing him for real, that's what they remember, and so they don't bother reading down to the Reception section before clicking over to Netflix, so they never see that there is another movie starring Michael Caine about a writer who lives out in the country and conspires with another man to murder his wife, the other man appears to be murdered but turns out to be still alive, but the writer ends up killing him for real, this one co-starring Christopher Reeve, and THAT is the one the person was actually looking for. But if the link to the similar movie is up in the lead section, this casual visitor to our fair site is sure to see it and leave with the right movie title.

Now I am not saying that every time an editor thinks there are similarities between two movies, he should put them in the lead, because that is his completely subjective opinion, and we can't allow original research. But we don't have that problem here. I am not interjecting my opinion that these two movies are similar, I am reporting the reactions of multiple prominent critics that were published in reliable third party sources, so we have the Wikipedia Pillar of Verifiability covered.

Again, our purpose here is to write articles that provide useful information quickly and easily to the average person. Putting the information on the similarity of the two movies upfront in their leads makes the articles more useful. Can anyone here really provide an argument that it makes the article less useful? Can anyone here really provide an argument of a harm that having this info in the leads could do to these articles or Wikipedia in general (remembering we will still always demand verifiability and delete original research) that would outweigh the usefulness of this information? Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion per Mmyers1976. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Outlining the similarities between Deathtrap and Sleuth

I previously refused to explain the similarities to Ring Cinema, because his opinion on whether the two movies are similar isn't the point, the point is multiple reliable sources say the films are similar, but as an olive branch I would like to do so now.

Setting

Deathtrap: The country home of a writer, decorated with various weapons, handcuffs, etc.
Sleuth: The country home of a writer, decorated with "elaborate games and automata"

Basic Act I plot overview

Deathtrap: The writer invites a younger man to his house supposedly so he can kill him and steal the young man's play, but it turns out the writer really invited the younger man to his house to help him kill his wife
Sleuth: The writer invites a younger man to his house ostensibly to help him kill his wife, but it turns out he really invited him there so he could kill him for sleeping with the writer's wife, then make it look like he shot him in self defense.

Initial fate of younger man

Deathtrap: He appears to die but turns out he was just faking it to scare writer's wife to have a heart attack
Sleuth: He appears to die but turns out he was just faking it to escape the writer.

Ultimate fate of younger man

Deathtrap: Writer really kills him after all
Sleuth: Writer really kills him after all

Plot Wrinkle

Deathtrap: A suspicious person (psychic neighbor) starts nosing around because of initial fake murder of young man, making things difficult for the writer
Sleuth: A suspicious person (police officer) starts nosing around because of initial fake murder of young man, making things difficult for the writer

Can anyone really deny the strong similarities now?Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is all OR, right? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OR applies to articles, not talk pages. It says "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" right in the first paragraph of the policy. This was all done as a courtesy to you, since you asked: "What actually is the similarity that you want to mention? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)" I never wanted to mention any specific similarities (only that there are similarities), and am not suggesting putting any of this in the article; you seem to have such a hard time understanding what similarities Janet Maslin, Roger Ebert, and several other critics and film historians are talking about, I am trying to spell it out for you so maybe you'll finally get it,and stop claiming the parallels are "trivial". Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think this stuff is interesting, so it's not that. But still, there is a good chance that your comments are pushing an interpretation. Is that a fair characterization? Could you source some of it? That would add something to two articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by my comments "pushing an interpretation." There is a basic set of facts about each film that can be observed by watching or reading the plot summary of each film, that plainly parallel each other, I don't see a lot of interpretation required. It is enough to just provide the information that reliable sources have noted similarities, I really don't think we need to get into describing the similarities in either film. That's starting to get into the realm of comparative literature analysis. The way I see it, our job is to tell the reader what the subject is - and that includes helping them avoid confusing it with another subject - not tell them what to think about the subject. I think we get into a lot of trouble on this site when we go beyond that. Themes and analysis of No Country for Old Men (film) is an example of what can happen. It started out as a section on the article for the film, and got so cumbersome and troublesome that it got forked off into its own article, but then because it took on the task of providing interpretation and analysis of a literary work (which is always a subjective endeavor) while still trying to maintain the encyclopedic standards of NPOV and Verifiability, it was nothing but a quote farm and a major violation of non-free content use policies, it had to be slashed down to bare bones, and now it's pretty worthless. I have no appetite for trying to catalog the similarities between these two movies in a verifiable way, I think it's enough to say published sources have noted the similarities and leave it at that. They aren't that important films. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References