Talk:Evil Under the Sun (1982 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evilunderthesun.jpeg
Image:Evilunderthesun.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Format
The current format of this article is very plot-heavy and in-universe, and not in line with the standards set for articles on films, or even novels. Death on the Nile is an acceptable example. I'm going to start making the appropriate changes. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored the cast section, unlinked redundant actor links in the subsequent pgh and pressed all the unencyclopedic "Act of Murder"—"Alibi"—"Solution" business into an appropriate Plot section.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Locations

 * From User talk:DenbySpinks:

Regarding Evil Under the Sun (1982 film): though you may recognize certain locations while viewing the film, it is inappropriate to add this information to the article without a reliable source. Phrasing such as "the locations were well stitched together" are particular examples of editor opinion being weaved into the article. Even with my edits there are no citations asserting that these locations were used, or that the coordinates (!!) are accurate, but I'm assuming these are obvious to viewers of the film who are familiar with the locales, and not likely to be challenged. However your editorializing of what can or cannot be seen in the background of certain scenes is unencyclopedic and, frankly, trivial. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Response from User talk:TAnthony
 * Firstly, what a pretentious response.
 * Secondly, I didn't just, "recognize certain locations while viewing the film", as you surmise, but actually spent TWO MONTHS ON THE ISLAND, specifically for the purpose of identifying the said locations. A lot of the locations VISITED, had printed references to their inclusion in the film, with pictures of Ustinov et al, in character, on display at the location. (Unless of course they'd just photo-shopped the images, and it hadn't actually happened at all). There is a myriad of pages on Wikipedia without many references, but I seriously doubt that any of them have been as comprehensively researched as this piece has been. It's quite difficult to cite 'a reliable source', when the 'reliable source' is oneself, and/or an acquired, related leaflet. THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THESE LOCATIONS ARE ACCURATE! If nothing else, pictorial evidence can verify this. I'd hate to see two months of research go to waste.
 * Thirdly, phrasing such as "the locations were well stitched together", ARE NOT just "editor opinion" being "weaved" into the article, as you so grandiloquently put it, but are references to the fact that the various VERIFIED locations are actually up to forty miles apart. However in the film, the very same locations are made to appear very close together, (as you would know if you were familiar with the film), hence the phrase, "the locations were well stitched together". Nothing will ever be "challenged", with or without your pointless intervention. Indeed, this paragraph had stood unmolested for years before you decided to 'improve' it.
 * Finally, your assertion that, "what can or cannot be seen in the background of certain scenes is unencyclopedic and, frankly, trivial", is, "frankly", the most misplaced, erroneous, and preposterous comment that you have made. Your obvious ignorance as to why this comment is a little more than 'trivia', exposes your complete lack of knowledge of either the film, or the geography. Originally, this scene, (where Mr Blatt is on his yacht talking to Poirot, supposedly in the South of France), was listed, (quite wrongly), as being filmed off the coast of the north eastern part of Mallorca. It was actually filmed inside the bay of Sant Elm, on the other side of the island. The reference to "what can be seen in the background", (OF THIS SCENE IN ISOLATION!), serves two purposes. As it is Sa Dragonera that can, WITHOUT QUESTION, be "seen in the background", it places the scene at Sant Elm WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT. For an American, it's rather like the Empire State and Manhattan. Therefore this so-called "trivia", is as good as any citable 'reliable source'. In addition, it also verifies without question, that the north of the island was not used for this scene. As Sa Dragonera and its surrounds on the main island were used for the setting of 'Daphne's Island', it may interest other readers to know that this scene, supposedly set in the South of France, was actually filmed where everything else was filmed. (Europe isn't a country by the way). Mallorca is a holiday island, and Evil Under the Sun is a popular film. I'm sure that more than one person has been interested by the combination whilst on the island. Maybe now even you can appreciate that this aside was a little more relevant than just "unencyclopedic trivia".
 * It astounded me that you have the audacity to draw attention to your own pedantic demeanour on your page. It doesn't readily align with the lazy intervention on this subject. "Even with my edits............"? All that your edits have done is detract from the article without due cause. As a (claimed) writer, you surely must appreciate what it's like when you invest a lot of time into a piece, then someone 'comes along', who hasn't got a clue, and attempts to 'improve' it.
 * Nb: There is English English, and wrong! Nothing else.
 * Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenbySpinks (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is quite a response. I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your contributions to the article, but unfortunately you didn't familiarize yourself with Wikipedia content rules first. I'm very familiar with the film and I don't doubt that your observations and extensive research are correct, however you're missing the point. Per WP:No original research, you could be Peter Ustinov himself, but your personal observations of the film, as "obvious" and "verified" as these locations may be, are not appropriate for the article. If there is an interview or magazine article or other reliable source that says, "the film was shot on this island" or "at this estate", then fine, but an editor asserting something from personal experience or research is not allowed. I'm leaving the basic locales in the article, but technically I could remove them because there are no reliable sources at all. Your stating "as seen in the background" is your personal "testimony" of what is being seen. You are drawing conclusions based on your personal observations, and whether you are correct or not, you cannot do that. It doesn't matter if a location is "obvious", this is not how content here is presented. The fact that this inappropriately presented content has been here "unmolested for years" does not change that fact that it violates the Manual of Style and other rules. Further, when you say the locations were "well stitched together", you are writing your personal opinion of how the director made disparate locations seem like the same island (see WP:POV). It is enough to say that the film was shot in such-and-such locations and leave it at that. Your extensive research of the minutae of filming locations is the perfect thing for the trivia section of the film at IMDB.com, I encourage you to add it there. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 04:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You have restored the same unsourced material and I have removed it again. Unfortunately, you have made no attempt to address any of its issues. You have said there are written materials establishing the various filming locations. Sources do not need to be available online, can you attempt to reference these pamphlets, signs etc. using cite sign, cite press release, or similar? I do have to object to the specific phrasing "the locations were well stitched together" (unless attributed to another source besides yourself) because that is your personal observation of the effectiveness of the film in making the disparate locations seem connected. Same goes for the observation that "Brabourne and Goodwin kept to their formula of using exotic locations for their Christie productions", true as it may be. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 04:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)