Talk:Murder on the Orient Express (1974 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Leitch, Thomas (2002). "Murder on the Orient Express, Blue Velvet, and the Unofficial-Detective Film". Crime Films. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 170–191. ISBN 0521646715.

Suspension of Disblief[edit]

  • A good story and Movie-yet if defies belief that the "unknown killer' theory can stand up forever when certain clues point to the other passengers-by 3 Police jurisditions {US; YOugoslav; French}:
  • the knock-out drug in Rachett's body-which could only have been given to him by someone he knows-either his valet or his secretary {who have connections with the Armstong case};
  • the 12 wounds-which point to stabbings done by different persons {right and left handed}: that at least 3 suspects are too physicaly weak to make more than effective cuts {Princess Dragonoff; Miss Ohlnson; and Denenham} and that three other wounds would point to someone with military {Arbotnott and Bedoes} or police training {Hardman}
  • finally when the fact of Rachett's true identity eventually exposed as Cassetti-and that fact that of the 13 suspects-8 would have been prominetly featured in newspapers as being imvolved with the Armstrong case {except prehaps Michael; Arbotnott; MAcqueen; HArdman romance with the maid while Denenham could or could not have been identifed as Mrs Armstrong secretary by name} they happened to be in the same coach as the "Repulse murderer" just too much of coincidence...

Kevin Bacon and other trivia[edit]

I've removed the list of actor collaborations as inane trivia. At best, it's material for the actors' pages. Point to a GA or FA and maybe I'd reconsider.

As for the list of differences between the novel and movie: lacking citations, it's superfluous original research and trivia. If a third-party scholar has observed that changes between the media, or in transitioning from one medium to another, had a significant impact on the narrative, then great -- cite and include it. Otherwise, again, it's an indiscriminate list of first-hand observations. --EEMIV (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does wikipedia have to be so formal? What about the fun element? I do find it interesting to know how often the actors and directors have worked together over the years and find it quite ironic that Balsam (investigating a murder) should again suspect Perkins whom he suspected in Hitchcock's Psycho. The differences between the novel and the film are not indifferent. Some historical films entries on wikipedia do point out the differences betweeen fact and fiction, so why not fiction and fiction?--Marktreut (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of things like content guidelines -- e.g. WP:MOSFILM -- that are derived from editor consensus. If you think things like quotes, actors' other shared projects, etc. are appropriate for an encyclopedic entry, bring it up on the film project's content guideline talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Marktreut, your question about WP's "formality" is pertinent: this is an encyclopedia with guidelines and rules developed by consensus among the editors. Relevant to your ideas for enhancing this article with "fun" information, it has a guideline about film adaptations, which strongly recommends against "differences between novel and film" sections unless they contain real-world context and are supported by credible sources. For instance, it might be interesting that the film's plot development is streamlined in comparison to the novel's pace (but isn't that true of almost every adaptation) if additional information about why and how it was streamlined was included. This would be valuable to an "Adaptation" subsection in the "Production" section. What decisions did John Brabourne, Paul Dehn, and Sidney Lumet make in bringing Christie's story to the screen? Do those decisions detract from or enhance the viewing experience? Combine that perspective with information like Christie's opinion and the article really becomes "fun".
Initially, these observations such as yours are the seed for enhancements like this. However, rather than placing an editor's personal analysis (comparison) and opinion – and contextless – statement in the article, start looking for some credible sources that support (or counter) your observation and use them to develop the article further. Why did Dehn choose to to open the story on the ferry and not the train? Do the differences in ages of some of the actors (film characters, actually) make a difference in the effectiveness of the story in comparison to the novel? And who thinks so? Providing context for the issues you've identified will most certainly add to this article and make it more fun.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather than get into an edit war on this, let's discuss. Marktreut has listed a number of "differences" between the novel and its adaptation. Since there must be differences in any adaptation given the limitations and opportunities inherent in each format (print vs. film in this case) and the authors' (novelist vs. producer/screenwriter/director/actors) creative actions, by definition an adaptation will necessarily be "different". Consequently, there are an infinite number of "differences" between the two works, so what is the threshold for deciding what is a difference appropriate for inclusion in a WP article? Fortunately, we as WP editors don't have to make that decision — because we can't. So we must rely on credible sources (i.e., critics) to make that decision.
For example, in the No Country for Old Men film article an editor thought that the Coens's deletion of a hitchhiker character from the novel was an adaptation difference worth noting. However, the editor failed to note that the Coens also added a similarly minor female character (poolside sunbather) into the film who some have interpreted as fulfilling the same function of sexual temptation for Llewelyn. Yes, the character's location has changed from truck cab to poolside and put on a bikini, but how are those "differences" significant in comparison to the fact that the Coens retained the "fall-from-grace" theme of the novel in the film with relatively small changes? So what's the real difference there? It might make interesting dinner-after-theatre conversation to say, "Did you notice that they cut the hitchhiker out?" (maybe). However, even in a ninth grade English classroom few teachers would accept that answer when asking students about differences between the novel and film. Let's just say the teacher is looking for Differences, not differences. The ninth grade teacher would ask why were the superficial changes made? What effect do those differences have on the impact of the relevant theme? She would not be satisfied with the surface changes, especially when the more significant theme is retained (or not).
I don't remember a similar level of detail about The Orient Express to know if some of the differences Marktreut has identified have relevant Differences attached to them, but that would be the more valuable information to know. Do Hubbard's and Foscarelli's name changes matter to the reading/viewing experience? By themselves, not likely. But it might be interesting to know why those changes were made (and, then again, maybe not). But let's put things truly in perspective. Sixteen "differences" were identified in the article. And in the same article — ironically just before them — it mentions that Christie — who had been regularly dissatisfied with film adaptations of her works — could note only one difference that mattered to her: the film version of Poirot's mustache. That from Christie herself. So how can we attach any significance to those 16?
That's my two cents without even dwelling on the fact that WP editors can't make these qualitative comparisons (one editor says the hitchhiker is gone, I say she's still there but drinking a beer next to the pool – therefore is she really gone?) because of WP:SYN. Noticing these adaptation changes is a great way to start research which will lead to further development of the article, but that development must include substantive comparisons noted by credible sources, not the superficial changes inherent in any adaptation process. We must recognize that each work stands on its own in the minds of the artists creating them, so identifying relationships between similarities and differences and their significance (or lack thereof) is the work of others, not Wikipedia editors.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As Agatha Christie herself made major plot changes in novels that she adapted for the stage (for example: Appointment with Death), there is perhaps a special case in favour of mentioning major changes in other people's adaptations. To my knowledge, nobody has objected to this in the multiple articles relating to Agatha Christie's Poirot]. Machiajelly (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to add adaptation "differences" is encouraged to join in this discussion before adding.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fes and İstanbul[edit]

The external stages of the film show 1930's İstanbul. But one thing seems highly unrealistic. All men wear fez. This is impossible. Because in Turkey fez is banned after 1925. (28.11.1925 to be precise). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


This film be 'the' film of this book. So what on earth possesed others to imagine they could improve on it ? ! The all star cast (and their excellent performances), the brilliant score (RRB second only to JBP of English film score composers - and then only by output). Alfred Molina and David Suchet (the quintessential Poirot - now) are fine, but, as one said... Anorakery (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

US distributor[edit]

User:Schrodinger's cat is alive keeps removing the name of the US distributor of this film. As this is an American site, it is quite usual to list this detail (Paramount for this movie) in film articles. It also prevents the common practice of other users from indicating the American distributor of films made in the UK (or elsewhere), but not specifying that the indicated company was the American distributor. I find this is a common fault with articles about films, as though individual titles have no existence outside the States. The template page on infoboxs for films states: "If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article". It does not say they shouldn't be included in infoboxs, and this detail is indeed going to be notable for a high proportion of users who are living in America, and are a larger number/percentage of users than people from the UK. Philip Cross (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we are supposed to serve English-language readers, not primarily American readers. I have no strong feelings about what should go in the infobox as I've seen too much edit warring in so constricted a space. I have a suggestion instead. Why not have a release-based section? Presently, we have nothing specific in the body about when the film was released, either in the United Kingdom or in the United States. If we highlight when the film was released in each territory, we could mention as part of that coverage that Paramount distributed the film in the US. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
PMSL - an American site? No, it's the global English language wiki. Murder on the Orient Express is a British film, so why would the US distributor need to be mentioned in the infobox? It's not an important fact for the film. If you add the US distributor, why not France, or Australia, or Outer Mongolia? The answer is because they are not important in the context of the film. You want to have the distributor listed in the article text, go ahead, but to bloat out the infobox with meaningless, unrelated fluff? Pointless. I'm really not sure what the film release dates have to do with this either: we're talking about the distributor, but if you want to use that as the basis for crow-barring this information in there, then read the line before "dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release ... and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film". It doesn't say "add your own home country if you want to". Too much information in an infobox bloats it to the point where it is counter-productive. See MOS:INFOBOX: "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I had to look up PMSL... is that really warranted? I can see an argument for covering the release of this film in the United States based on the portion of box office performance there. The release date or the distributor do not have to go in the infobox, but we can cover it in some capacity in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Homages and references to other films[edit]

Perkins' character speaking about being attached to his deceased mother - a Psycho reference LeapUK (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)