Discussion:
The "eye should know this" Thread
(too old to reply)
B***@37.com
2018-10-09 21:11:40 UTC
Permalink
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...

In TV series, it's a called a What? …
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-09 21:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
There are now three different things at least.

(1) Revivals (Roseanne [next week we find out whether The Conners is the
same series, just with mom killed off]; Will & Grace; Murphy Brown

(2) Remakes (Hawaii Five-O, MacGyver, Magnum P.I.)

(3) Canceled on one network, picked up on another (this used to be common
but isn't any more, but Last Man Standing went from ABC to Fox [with a
year's hiatus] and Brooklyn 99 is about to have moved from Fox to NBC)

(4) And then there's Columbo, which was never actually a series but a part
of what were called "anthology shows," which rotated usually three different
series within the same weekly time slot. The shows changed their names,
the other components changed over the years, but Columbo was constant --
except that sometimes it was 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. Eventually it
became an irregular "movie of the week" a few times a season.
Tony Cooper
2018-10-09 23:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:42:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
There are now three different things at least.
(1) Revivals (Roseanne [next week we find out whether The Conners is the
same series, just with mom killed off]; Will & Grace; Murphy Brown
(2) Remakes (Hawaii Five-O, MacGyver, Magnum P.I.)
(3) Canceled on one network, picked up on another (this used to be common
but isn't any more, but Last Man Standing went from ABC to Fox [with a
year's hiatus] and Brooklyn 99 is about to have moved from Fox to NBC)
Sometimes this presents a problem to the fan of a show. "Nashville"
ran for four years on ABC, but moved to CMT for the fifth and sixth
season. Those without cable could not continue to watch the show.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(4) And then there's Columbo, which was never actually a series but a part
of what were called "anthology shows," which rotated usually three different
series within the same weekly time slot. The shows changed their names,
the other components changed over the years, but Columbo was constant --
except that sometimes it was 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. Eventually it
became an irregular "movie of the week" a few times a season.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-10 03:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:42:34 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
There are now three different things at least.
(1) Revivals (Roseanne [next week we find out whether The Conners is the
same series, just with mom killed off]; Will & Grace; Murphy Brown
(2) Remakes (Hawaii Five-O, MacGyver, Magnum P.I.)
(3) Canceled on one network, picked up on another (this used to be common
but isn't any more, but Last Man Standing went from ABC to Fox [with a
year's hiatus] and Brooklyn 99 is about to have moved from Fox to NBC)
Sometimes this presents a problem to the fan of a show. "Nashville"
ran for four years on ABC, but moved to CMT for the fifth and sixth
season. Those without cable could not continue to watch the show.
I learned from Connie Britton's appearance on Letterman that her character
had died.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(4) And then there's Columbo, which was never actually a series but a part
of what were called "anthology shows," which rotated usually three different
series within the same weekly time slot. The shows changed their names,
the other components changed over the years, but Columbo was constant --
except that sometimes it was 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. Eventually it
became an irregular "movie of the week" a few times a season.
B***@37.com
2018-10-10 20:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 11:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
verbatim ... with a new cast. I'm not aware of anyone having
essayed a similar project on TV. Sometimes the old cast is reunited
and the story is moved on, as most recently in Murphy Brown,
or new characters play out a previously unseen chapter in the
original show's 'Universe', or a new cast takes on old characters
but in new stories. Sometimes, as in the case of One Day At A Time
the link to the original show is nothing but 'similar circumstances'.
None of those seems like a genuine 'remake' to me.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-11 12:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.

Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.

There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
verbatim ... with a new cast. I'm not aware of anyone having
essayed a similar project on TV. Sometimes the old cast is reunited
and the story is moved on, as most recently in Murphy Brown,
or new characters play out a previously unseen chapter in the
original show's 'Universe', or a new cast takes on old characters
but in new stories. Sometimes, as in the case of One Day At A Time
the link to the original show is nothing but 'similar circumstances'.
None of those seems like a genuine 'remake' to me.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 12:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-11 12:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.

I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 13:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.

'Unwatchable' should be reserved for anything that literally is, due
to damaged stock, synchronisation errors and the like, IMNSHO.
RHDraney
2018-10-11 15:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.
How do you feel about the Jolson, Danny Thomas, and Neil Diamond
versions of "The Jazz Singer"?...r
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 15:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by RHDraney
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.
How do you feel about the Jolson, Danny Thomas, and Neil Diamond
versions of "The Jazz Singer"?...r
I feel nothing, sadly, as I have somehow failed to see any of them.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-11 16:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.
'Unwatchable' should be reserved for anything that literally is, due
to damaged stock, synchronisation errors and the like, IMNSHO.
Nonsense.

Have you never complained that some turgid prose, though perfectly
grammatical and perfectly spelled, is "unreadable"?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-10-11 18:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.
'Unwatchable' should be reserved for anything that literally is, due
to damaged stock, synchronisation errors and the like, IMNSHO.
Nonsense.
Have you never complained that some turgid prose, though perfectly
grammatical and perfectly spelled, is "unreadable"?
I have never. An essay, written in ink, which falls into a puddle is
unreadable. Turgid prose is turgid.
David Kleinecke
2018-10-11 21:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
There's now a fourth *A Star is Born*. There's little resemblance among
the four movies.
A fairly major resemblance in that the plot is fundamentally the same,
don't you think? Apart from a minor detail here and there you could
quite easily switch the plot summaries in IMDb between the four
without anyone being the wiser! In any case all four films credit
William Wellman and Robert Carson as the writers of the original
story so there's clearly enough resemblance to require reference to
long departed screenplay veterans.
That's the "plot" of dozens of Hollywood movies. The Janet Gaynor and
Judy Garland versions happen to be brilliant instantiations; the Barbra
Streisand one is unwatchable. To appreciate the new one, you might need
to have seen *LaLa Land* (Not the Best Picture) first to learn why they
bothered.
I have nothing to say about the technicalities of reusing material, and
credits.
You really have to come up with a word to replace 'unwatchable' in
your 'reviews'. Not only have many millions watched it without
appearing to suffer any ill effects but surely you must have watched
it, if only briefly, to reach your conclusion. Some people not only
managed to watch it once but multiple times and some even liked the
experience enough to have posted 10/10 ratings on IMDb.
'Unwatchable' should be reserved for anything that literally is, due
to damaged stock, synchronisation errors and the like, IMNSHO.
Nonsense.
Have you never complained that some turgid prose, though perfectly
grammatical and perfectly spelled, is "unreadable"?
I have never. An essay, written in ink, which falls into a puddle is
unreadable. Turgid prose is turgid.
Looks like PTD's fuse is shorter than yours.

I don't really have a category "unreadable". What happens is
rather that I can read anything but I may not have had any
reaction to what I "read". When I catch myself "reading" but
not getting anything I usually stop reading.

Lots of superficial story telling does that to me - especially
detective stories. Generally I will "read" long passages - but
essentially skip them. I suspect my response to romance novels
or western stories would be even more dismissive.

Turgid prose IMO loses all real content.
Don P
2018-10-14 20:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
I don't really have a category "unreadable". What happens is
rather that I can read anything but I may not have had any
reaction to what I "read". When I catch myself "reading" but
not getting anything I usually stop reading.
Unreadable is a convenient euphemism for "not worth reading." The
convenience is that it sites the categorization in the text, not the
reader's subjective judgment.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-10-15 04:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don P
Post by David Kleinecke
I don't really have a category "unreadable". What happens is
rather that I can read anything but I may not have had any
reaction to what I "read". When I catch myself "reading" but
not getting anything I usually stop reading.
Unreadable is a convenient euphemism for "not worth reading." The
Bzzt! Chomsky is well worth reading, but his style, or lack of concern
for explaining things clearly, renders him essentially unreadable.

He'd never have gotten anywhere with his first publication in linguistics,
*Syntactic Structures*, if Bob Lees hadn't written a dozens-of-pages
"review article" in *Language* explaining what it was about. Ever after,
he had graduate students who would work out and/or explain his ideas for
him. (I often say that if he had concentrated EITHER on linguistics OR on
politics, he really might have made something of himself.)
Post by Don P
convenience is that it sites the categorization in the text, not the
reader's subjective judgment.
b***@gmail.com
2018-10-16 09:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Why do newspapers call themselves The Times?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-10-16 11:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Why do newspapers call themselves The Times?
From:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/16634/why-do-so-many-newspapers-use-the-word-times-in-their-names

The name originally comes from the British newspaper The Daily
Universal Register founded in 1785, which changed it names to The
Times in 1788. Since then it has lent its name to papers all over
the world.
Wikipedia: The Times

The original meaning of time is to happen, so the times means that
what has happened, which is a fitting name for a newspaper.
Online Etymology Dictionary: time (v.)

The OED has:

6.a. A period considered with reference to its prevailing
conditions; the general state of affairs at a particular period.
Usually in plural.

So, a description of the "times" is a description of prevailing
conditions and current events.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2018-10-16 12:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by b***@gmail.com
Why do newspapers call themselves The Times?
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/16634/why-do-so-many-newspapers-us
e-the-word-times-in-their-names
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The name originally comes from the British newspaper The Daily
Universal Register founded in 1785, which changed it names to The
Times in 1788. Since then it has lent its name to papers all over
the world.
Wikipedia: The Times
Even in France.
The French journal Le Monde is sometimes nicknamed Le Temps.
There was a French newspaper 'Le Temps', until 1942.
After the liberation, in 1944, its assets were confiscated
for having collaborated with the German occupation.
The newly created 'Le Monde' got it,
and it kept most of the general appearance of 'Le Temps',
but not the name,

Jan

RHDraney
2018-10-11 15:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? …
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
You must have not seen many "remakes" and their originals.
Some famous director made headlines by redoing *Psycho* shot for shot --
but in color.
Gus Van Sant....

With Halloween approaching, I was thinking about the '70s film "Blacula"
and how it has counterparts of almost every major character in the 1931
"Dracula": the count himself, Van Helsing, Jonathan and Mina Harker,
Lucy...there is, however, no equivalent of Renfield, although there were
two stereotypically gay antique dealers in the sequel "Scream, Blacula,
Scream" who effectively fill that role....r
Janet
2018-10-11 14:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by B***@37.com
Post by B***@37.com
In feature films, it's called a "remake"...
In TV series, it's a called a What? ?
TV series reboot?
I'm not sure that there really is an exact equivalent in TV. A film
remake is essentially identical or near identical to the original ...
same story, same characters, often employing the original script
verbatim ... with a new cast.
The several film remakes of "39 steps" and "Rebecca" show new cast,
different scripts, not quite the same story.

Hitchcock's film made many changes from the book. Not least, the death
of Rebecca.

Janet.

I'm not aware of anyone having
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
essayed a similar project on TV. Sometimes the old cast is reunited
and the story is moved on, as most recently in Murphy Brown,
or new characters play out a previously unseen chapter in the
original show's 'Universe', or a new cast takes on old characters
but in new stories. Sometimes, as in the case of One Day At A Time
the link to the original show is nothing but 'similar circumstances'.
None of those seems like a genuine 'remake' to me.
Richard Tobin
2018-10-11 14:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
The several film remakes of "39 steps" and "Rebecca" show new cast,
different scripts, not quite the same story.
Hitchcock's film made many changes from the book. Not least, the death
of Rebecca.
Not to mention the plot - Mr Memory, and the 39 Steps being a secret
organization.

-- Richard
Loading...