Talk:Murder on the Orient Express/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

How is that interesting, Markalexander100, to remark on stupid viewers of an adaptation of this novel? I would not look for a source myself. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

UK date format?

Since this is an article about a UK-related subject, shouldn't it use the UK date format (day month year) consistently throughout per the Wikipedia style guidelines? If so, could an established Wikipedian make the fix? Thanks.... 75.44.37.47 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I did that today, put day month year format everywhere it was not, previously. And deleted periods after titles like Mr and Mrs and Dr, and spelled out Monsieur for the French M. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Benny Hill spoof

The Benny Hill Show made a spoof of this story, called "Murder on the Oregon Express," set on a steam train in the American West, but with the "cast" being mainly based on detectives on popular American TV series in the '60s and '70s (Barnaby Jones, Police Woman, Ironside, etc.). If there is some way that could be worked into the article, it probably should be. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express (2010)

I disagree with the assertion currently on the page that the ending of the 2010 TV adaptation was ambiguous; M. Poirot is clearly shown handing over the conductor's jacket and explaining how the button was lost etc. in accordance with the false explanation fabricated by the 12, who are then shown to appear relieved at his apparent mercy.

Absolutely right, changing it now. U-Mos (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I question much of the 2010 compilation section. "Faithful to the original" is a highly subjective opinion. I found it laughably out of touch from the first scenes where the officer's suicide is not treated as an englishman's honorable way out as it is throughout Christie, it went down hill from there with stoning a woman in the streets of Istanbul presumably to bash a Muslim country in light of 21st century red state sensibilities. It went down hill from there. However I am aware that this is MY OPINION and I'm not trying to pass it off as anything but.

No little gray cells, none of his famous arrogance, not a throw-away phrase of French. This "Poirot" is simply a man who has the same name as Christie's detective. The adaptation keeps none of him except the moustaches which it needs for reasons of plot. Oh but he's holding a rosary and praying himself to sleep. This is not typical of the Suchet portrayals before or after 2003, but the statement is in there with no attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.37.235 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While I'm quite a fan of this adaptation, which I see as a more complex take on the character—Poirot's depicted as being in a very bad place throughout the movie due to watching a guy kill himself in front of him, and his "arrogance" is reflected more in moral pretentiousness than goofy-ha-ha moments for that reason—I have to question the decision to eliminate all details on the changes from the original. This adaptation is important, whether you like it or not, and it made some seriously heavy modifications to the source material that should be acknowledged. Speaking as the guy who unknowingly set off the little edit war y'all had that eventually resulted in the whole section getting stripped, it seems excessive. It's a movie-length adaptation, and the controversy itself indicates it should be awarded a bit more attention. 207.55.107.7 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pera Palace Hotel

(same question both in Talk:Pera Palace Hotel and Talk:Murder on the Orient Express)

Is there any proof (other than what is alleged by Pera Palace Hotel) that Ms Christie really wtote Murder on the Orient Express while staying in this hotel? Did Janet Morgan give any clue about this in her Agatha Christie : a Biography, London: Collins, 1984, ISBN 0002163306 ? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why Cassetti Left the United States

He expected he would be lynched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.203.147 (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Error in Book?

Mary Debenham is stated to be 26 years old in Part 2 of Chapter 10, yet in Chapter 7 of part 3, when Mary states that she had not recognized Sonja Armstron's sister, she gives as the excuse that she had not seen her for more than 13 years. That would make Mary a 12 or 13 year old Governess at the time of the murder. (I am reading from the Spanish language edition, I assume I have read the translation correctly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.220.195 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In my English language edition (Fontana Collins, 11th impression, December 1974), Mary Debenham's words in Chapter 7 of Part 3 are "It may seem extraordinary to you, but I did not recognise her. She was not grown up, you see, when I knew her. That was over three years ago." Perhaps there's an error in the Spanish translation?Rithom (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alteration in novel text re: Description of Poirot

There is a baffling alteration to the text of the novel that I have noticed. In the editions I have, in the 1st chapter, 2nd paragraph, Hercule Poirot is described as 'a small lean man' in both a US Harper paperback from 2011 and a British Harper paperback from 2015. However, a British Fontana/Collins paperback from 1974 and a British Collins hardcover from 1987 both omit the word 'lean', so Poirot is just 'a small man'. The same goes for the facsimile of the 1st edition, which can be seen in the 'Look inside' feature of amazon.co.uk. Both the 1974 paperback and 1987 hardcover are clearly printed from type, the facsimile is clearly copied from a type-set page, and just as clearly both the 2011 and 2015 paperback have a digital page layout, most likely from a text file that has been scanned off some earlier printed edition. But the difference in text seems mysterious. The only possibility that comes to mind is that the word 'lean' has been added to the later, scanned-text editions, either deliberately or as a result of some kind of error - after all, scanning errors do occur in reprinted classics. However, it would be hard to imagine a scanning error that would result in a completely new word being inserted, although likewise it is hard to see why a deliberate alteration like that would have been made by the publisher. I am at loss with this discovery, and I think it should be worked into the text of the article, but I don't quite see how. Link to the amazon.co.uk page mentioned: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007234406/ref=s9u_simh_gw_i2?ie=UTF8&fpl=fresh&pd_rd_i=0007234406&pd_rd_r=AWQT30GJ7SQMJGPE93R1&pd_rd_w=Xxm39&pd_rd_wg=aBb4F&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=&pf_rd_r=S7MH6J9VJERS1XQJTS1S&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=e586113b-1187-49e7-b25c-760581bc9374&pf_rd_i=desktop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkankaanpaa (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Publishers make frustrating mistakes now and then, as do Wikipedia editors. Poirot is not lean in any description I have read, so consider it a simple mistake, Jkankaanpaa. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Additions to 2010 TV production description

I made additions to the description of the 2010 TV adaptation which are accurate and reflect the production's changes to the character list, yet someone saw fit to remove them without explanation. I would appreciate it if these additions were left in place as they are correct90.192.14.248 (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

"Plot detail"

This section was basically an unnecessary extended plot summary combined with orginal research (including the graphic of the coach). I've removed it. Casual readers of an encylopedia looking up a novel do not expect to find this amount of unsourced analysis and nor does anyone need this much plot detail. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that readers don't want an encyclopedic plot summary, more than a few sentences seemed appropriate and I have added them here. Ljadwin (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Simplon-Orient Express Calais coach

I made a couple of simple corrections to this section but question whether it should be there at all. How does it inform, given that almost everybody named in this grid is not mentioned elsewhere in the article?

Alternatively, if others feel this section should be kept: can anyone verify the the cabin numbers are indeed out of numerical sequence, as shown?

Nick Levine (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Your instincts are good. It's part of the massive amount of detailed original research I removed the last couple of weeks (noted just above this section); that's why so much is there that is not referenced anywhere else: it was in the so-called plot detail which basically had so much you didn't need to bother reading the novel at all, which is not what an encyclopedia is for, of course: we're here to tell you about a book, not provide a Cole's notes length of detail so someone can get away with not reading the book for a course or something, or whatever it is that motivates people to write five-page summaries of a novel and schematics of cabin plans which amount to OR. Even not considering that, if a plot summary cannot possibly mention the names of all the suspects, what possible use is it to show where they are in their cabins? It's a level of detail completely unncessary. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder on the Orient Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927034134/http://www.fathom.com/course/21701725/session3.html to http://www.fathom.com/course/21701725/session3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This article needs a Character list for the novel

I stopped at this article hunting for already formatted versions of the references in the lead, not because I just read the novel, or I would do this myself. There is no character list for the novel. The adaptations mention characters and substituted characters, so I think a simple list of the characters would be an improvement. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I added this list. Ljadwin (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Japanese Translation

@Prairieplant:, what exactly is it you have tagged for translation here, I can't see anything requiring translation--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Jac16888 I can make no sense of this "The title was Orient Kyuukou Satsujin Jiken (オリエント急行殺人事件),{{not English-inline}}" Orient Kyuukou Satsujin Jiken seems like Japanese transliterated to the Latin alphabet, and it is followed by the Japanese characters. Do those words have meanings in English? I have no facility in Japanese, words or characters. The template means that phrase exactly and not the whole paragraph. Relying on google translate again, from the Japanese characters, the meaning seems to "Orient express murder case", which, if that is a proper translation, what I would like to see in the text, either in the order Japanese (English) or English (Japanese).

I added a trans-title to the citation preceding this sentence, using google translate, or the citation would have been wholly in Japanese characters. Accurate in Japanese, I assume, but not legible to me. Foreign language sources are great, but this is English Wikipedia where people come to read in English. Clearer now? --Prairieplant (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That phrase is essentially just "Murder on the Orient Express" or "A Case on the Orient Express" is probably closer. It is basically just "Murder on the Orient Express" translated into Japanese and then Japanese characters--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)