Talk:The Mousetrap

Am I missing something?
I haven't watched the play. But from the plot summary, I gather something is awry: If Metcalf is the "real" policeman, he must know that Trotter is an impostor. So how can he proceed to allow Trotter to kill Mrs Boyle, rather than arresting him immediately? (After all, Metcalf must know Trotter is up no good.)

So, either the plot summary is somewhat incomplete, or this is a substantial plot hole -- or I am missing something obvious. Which is it? --Syzygy (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a substantial plot hole. However, plot holes are not generally not considered encyclopedic information, unless there has been a lot of coverage of the plot hole, so please do not make a not of this plot hole in the article. JDDJS (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. I was mostly concerned about the plot summary being wrong, or poorly worded. --Syzygy (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw the play and this plot hole was so apparent I could scarcely believe it. 146.199.178.128 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen the play. Metcalf is as cut off as everyone (because of the weather) so is unsure what to do when Trotter arrives and says he is the policeman sent to investigate. 2.27.21.157 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are interesting- intentional?- double negatives there…”plot holes are not generally not considered encyclopedic information” e.g. ELSchissel (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Twist Ending
Despite all the warnings on the talk page, there are still people who make edits removing the twist ending. (see | this and | this) Is it possible to get an edit notice on the page itself like we have for this page? I feel like a slight modification of the template on this will do. RteeeeKed 💬📖 00:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC) OK, I've seen the huge warning when I try to post here, so I know it might not end well, but respectfully, is there anything the can be done to satisfy everybody? The play has run since 1952 miraculously without the plot twist becoming general knowledge. The article itself says that the audience is traditionally asked not to reveal the murderer's identity after leaving the theatre, and that Agatha Christie's grandson was "dismayed" (which I assume means "angry") to see the twist described in this Wikipedia page, so the feelings of those staging the play and the holder of its copyright are well known, but the answer seems to be a blunt "this is an encyclopaedia, so our job is to openly blurt out the twist in a very famous play, despite the production relying on holding it secret for its continuing commercial viability". The warning here on the talk page doesn't explain what the "encyclopaedic benefit" is for people who won't see the play to know its plot in full. It also says that the paragraph heading "Identity of the murderer" is sufficient warning, but a casual reader could see it as a general discussion of that identity rather than a complete revelation of it. I expect this has been asked many times and disregarded on each occasion, but is there a way of obscuring the paragraph in question unless the reader clicks on an explicit link saying that the twist will be revealed? I hope this doesn't cause offence. Peter Galvani (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No, such an obscuring of the material is not an option. The encyclopedic benefit for people who won't see the play to know its plot in full is simple. TO KNOW ITS PLOT. Why would anyone who has not seen the play and who wishes to someday see it without having the plot "spoiled" for them read an encyclopedic article on it? If I read an encyclopedic article on ANY work of fiction, I would consider it deficient if it did not include the ending. Many articles here on Wikipedia are deficient in this manner, but that is no reason to make this article worse. I think the problem is that too many people refuse to see anything on the internet as serious or scholarly. This is NOT a review site attempting to convince people to go see the play. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did want to see the play and automatically assumed this entry would NOT reveal the outcome. Now it is spoiled for me
 * At the very least, shouldn't it state at the top CONTAINS SPOILERS? Caelon (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No. Any encyclopedic article on any work of fiction should be expected to cover the plot in full. Not in absolutely complete detail, but "who dunnit" is far too basic to the plot to leave out. I find it impossible to believe that anyone could seriously not expect this to be here.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, most people reading a section clearly entitled "Identity of the murderer" would expect it to include .... the identity of the murderer. - Arjayay (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of performances when it went on hiatus
Was it stated how many performances there had been when it went on hiatus in 2020 ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Film rights
It's widely claimed, including here, that no film adaptation can take place until no West End production has been staged for at least six months. However, our repetition of that claim doesn't actually cite any sources. Whence did this claim originate, and is it actually an official position of the play's producers?

Assuming that there is any truth to this claim... - Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A recent BBC report claimed that the six month period has never kicked in, yet the COVID pandemic meant that performances were halted from March 2020 to May 2021, i.e. for 14 months which is more than twice that period. Does this mean that a) there's a force majeure clause somewhere that prevents such production closures from counting towards the six month period, or b) that they're trying to treat the attempted 23 October 2020 reopening as having interrupted the six month period despite that reopening ultimately not going ahead, or c) that at some point the producers moved to counting any old production as something that puts the brakes on any film adaptation (see also Beardo's query), or d) that the BBC and/or its reporters just don't know what they're actually talking about?
 * What happens when the play's copyright expires and the material is then up for grabs as much as any other public domain work is? Would there still any avenue for the six month period to be enforced in terms of basic contract law or would the play's producers finally be powerless to stop any film adaptation going ahead?
 * Finally, aside from the usual repetition of the claim, how does See How They Run figure into all this? Since it uses the play as its backdrop, some plot points must inevitably be referenced (however indirect said references might be).

Just realised that even if they did try to count the attempted October reopening as an actual production, there's more than six months between the March 2020 closure and that date. Ditto for the gap between the attempted October reopening and the eventual May reopening. - Dvaderv2 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)