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)