Talk:The 39 Steps (1935 film)/Archive 1

Requested move
The 39 Steps (1935 film) → The 39 Steps – Follows film naming conventions, will put a dablink notice on the top of this and The Thirty-Nine Steps novel page, perhaps to a disambiguation page, but it'll be easier to link to this way. —Fitch 19:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Oppose - There are (or will be) three other remakes with the same or a similar title The 39 Steps (1959), The Thirty-Nine Steps (1978), and The 39 Steps (2006). Although Hitch's 1935 version is the most famous and the best, there is sufficient ambiguity warranting the "(1935 film)" tag. LuiKhuntek 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - With so many versions of the same name, this is certainly the best place for this article. Also, there are links to this page from the general 39 steps page. There could easily be pages about the other films in the future, especially if there is a brand new version. Rob 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Regarding the fact that there may be other articles, wikipedia is fluid like that. If there could be articles with those names, create them, but we shouldn't name articles in preperation that someone may decide to write one. —Fitch 08:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Result
Don't move. Someone made another article for another year. Awesome. —Fitch 07:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Remakes
Is it accurate to describe the other 39 Steps moves as 'remakes' of this film? Surely they're adaptations of the novel, not remakes of Hitchcock? Cop 633 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The title should be changed to "Other novel adaptations". Clarityfiend 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Rossrs 03:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Cop 633 14:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

copyright status
I've removed the statement that the film is currently in the Public Domain, as the US Copyright Office lists the film as having it's US rights restored (see document dated 22/Aug/1997). Davepattern 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:56 feature 350x180.jpg
Image:56 feature 350x180.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed plot summary
The plot summary was of the book, which is very different from the film. I don't have time at the moment to write a new one, but I removed it on the theory that it's better to have no plot synopsis than one that is inaccurate in almost every respect.

I'll try to write a synopsis soon. &mdash;Chowbok 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, great, that would be fab. Bob Castle 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a few corrections to the Plot Summary (I was not logged in, it will be registered under an IP address). Let me know if you disagree with any changes. Smeagolisgood (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested deletion from "Hitchcockian elements" section
Hitchcock's cameo appearance in The 39 Steps is mentioned in this section. Although such appearances are obviously a signature of this director, I don't believe its existence in this film qualifies as a "Hitchcockian element" in the same way that the "wrong man pursued" theme certainly does. Barring objection I propose the removal of this paragraph. The News Hound 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The News Hound (talk • contribs)
 * The distinction you are making seems sound, but why not just move the material to a parenthetical addition after the first sentence of "Plot", rather than delete? Readers expect to see mention of the cameos: it might be wrong to exclude this all together. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Cast" section would be a better place to mention the cameo. The "Plot" section is meant to be a summary of the film, and a cameo is not part of the summary. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing my mind: now as User:Erik. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Adaptation ~ Plot hole
Some 15 years ago while on holidays I came across an early edition of the Novel The Thirty-Nine Steps (along with various other novels of John Buchan) inside were "maps" and "notes" relevant to the adventure. One map had the circled Scottish town which would explain away the "plot hole" that is suggested on the article page's adaptation section.

My 1946 Hodder & Stoughton Limited copy alas does not contain any maps either as inserts or printed within the story.

Unfortunately I couldn't justify the purchase of the set at the time and have been searching for a copy ever since.

Timelord2067 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
According to |The New York Times, MGM is credited as the film's "Theatrical Distributor". Therefore, I'm pretty sure that it's implied that the rights to the film are owned by MGM. After all, the film has its own "article" at the MGM website.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The 39 Steps (1935 film). 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/20120310093203/http://ewds.strath.ac.uk/space/OnDemandSeminar/tabid/4560/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Travelling-at-the-edge-of-space--10-March-2010.aspx to http://ewds.strath.ac.uk/space/OnDemandSeminar/tabid/4560/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/288/Travelling-at-the-edge-of-space--10-March-2010.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Autogyro
Perhaps it's my eyes (this one is a difficult one to a handle on) but as an aficionado of VFX, I would question that the autogyro in the film is real. It's not discussed in the text, only that Hitch was keen to include one and the link is audio podcast.

There are several revealing mistakes which have made it from script (I don't have the book) to screen. Hannay is offered a "revolver" to kill himself with but the prop is quite clearly a compact semi-automatic pistol.

Later (possibly due to the Hays Code) two women make several references to skirt Pamela is wearing, but she refuses to remove it possibly due to the not being able to show off Pamela's legs while risking more. Pamela is wearing a full dress, typical for middle-class ladies of the period which could not be removed due to them sharing a pair of handcuffs. 92.41.111.253 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)