Talk:Kolchak: The Night Stalker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The New Night Stalker

So anyone catch the new revival, or re-imagining Kolchak? I saw the preview clips on the web, formed my opinions, and then saw the last 45 minutes of the pilot, and had my opinions confirmed.

“Re-imagining a classic series” usually means removing all charm, lightheartedness, and uniqueness of the original series, and replacing it with sex, gore, more sex, and immature concern for being considered serious art. Witness the redone Battlestar Galactica .

As I was watching, I had two thoughts. First, this is so different from the original series, why bother with the franchise? All it will do is confuse people, and anger the loyal fans. Remember—fans pay the bills.

Second, it seems more like an episode of the

X-files and The Lone Gunmen . Same camera angles, same pacing, same lighting, and the same characters (believing guy, skeptical female), and same feel. So why not call it “X-files: Los Angeles
 ?” You have the name recognition and the ready-made fan base, all without poisoning the original series?

Yeah, I know it is on ABC , and not Fox Broadcasting Company , but any good lawyer and enough money can get you anything you want.

There is too much

Asimov
’s book, and got confused.

All of these new series are strong enough to be their own franchise, and if they weren’t, then don’t make them. There is no reason to go

grave robbing
a cancelled series, and take their names in vain.

Señor Cardgage 03:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, caught this incarnation of Night Stalker, having not seen the original. My understanding is that the 2005 series borrows from The X-Files, which in turn borrowed from the original Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Frank Spotnitz was a chief creative force in The X-Files and the Night Stalker revival/reimagining/whatever-you-call-it, so the similarity seen in the two is probably as much his responsibility as anyone else's. I do agree with your points, Señor Cardgage, about both the intellectual cannabilism and the validity of creating the new series as an independent franchise. I say this, though, even as I admit to liking remakes in general that honor the creative spirit of the original work and provide an innovative spin on the original.
The new series was very dark in tone to me, which doesn't detract from quality in my mind. But also, it was literally too dark to see some of the action of the episodes, proving a bit of a stumbling block. And like The X-Files before it, I could tell there were quality elements to be found, but it was a show that would have to grow on me a bit. Turns out, it didn't get the chance.
Also, I like the new Battlestar Galactica, but that's for another talk page. — ArkansasTraveler 14:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussion of the article and related Wikipedia activities. It's not a place to host your blog on what you hate about modern television. This isn't a fan appreciation site, it's an encyclopedia. Canonblack 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1974 show

I'm slowly going through and mapping out Kolchak's personal life through the two movies and the television series. I thought that this would provide an intersting insight into the character. What do you guys think? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-31 T 02:06:05 Z

I think this is an excellent idea. Before someone complains that you're creating a Carl Kolchak article that will be too long and should be spun into its own article, there really isn't a lot of detail about these characters' pasts. Most of the characterization was in the performances, not in the writing, and a lot of character history that was introduced in the scripts tended to be ignored or discarded later at the writers' convenience (e.g., Gail Foster was the love of his life and he wanted to marry her, yet she's never mentioned again after the initial film). But it would be useful to gather whatever there is and present it in one place. Canonblack 17:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the image for the Night Stalker DVD cover, and I have moved the Primetime Thursday template to the section devoted to the 2005 series. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-31 T 15:26:10 Z

Spoilers? From 1974? Are you kidding?

Someone wants to add "spoiler warnings" for Night Stalker movies from thirty years ago. Adding a "spoiler warning" for a movie from 30 years ago is simply ridiculous. Personally, I'd cap "spoiler warnings" at 30 days, but 30 years is clearly way, way past the point of meriting a "spoiler warning". -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 03:00 Z

Spoilers aren't time-sensitive. If you don't think that the template should be used like that, general Wikipedia consensus disagrees; see what other articles Template:Spoiler [1] and Template:Spoilers [2] are used on. -Sean Curtin 07:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course spoilers are time-sensitive. Things "spoil" on their own when they are old enough. You can't "spoil" them further. Darth Vader is Luke's father. Rosebud is the sled. Dil's a dude. The logical result of having things kept supposedly "fresh" forever is that you'd have "spoiler warnings" plastered all over every article devoted to anything fictional. I hope we can all agree, that is simply ridiculous. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 07:55 Z
And yes, I can see rom your links that there are a few people who have foolishly plastered "spoiler warnings" on works of fiction even older than Night Stalker. I am not going to make it my mission in life to correct that nonsense, but I can certainly put forth an effort to keep such foolishness out of this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-12-9 T 08:00 Z
Sorry, totally disagree with Bblackmoor. Kolchak is a cult success, but there are a number of people who've heard of it but never seen it or who have never heard of it. If you think otherwise, you're spending too much time with genre geeks (I am one, it's not meant as an insult). The release (finally) of the entire series on DVD opens up the series to a new audience and a new generation of potential fans. Do you want to spoil it for them? Despite its age, The Night Stalker is still a very watchable film, and I still recommend it to people. I certainly wouldn't want plot details spoiled for me if I was watching it for the first time. That said, I don't see anything in the article that would actually qualify as a spoiler, except perhaps for labelling Janos Skorzeny as a vampire or mentioning immortality-through-alchemy, but anyone picking up the DVD is going to know that just from reading the back cover notes. Canonblack 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I concur. I have only recently discovered "Kolchak" and I love it. Not to mention there are literally thousands of films and books that I have never seen because of my young age. Any time you are gouing to reveal a plot you need that warning, in case some people don't want to know it in advance. This is true if the series is 30 or 100 years old. (
rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I did some work on several Dickens articles around the turn of the year, and even those have spoiler warnings. That's 130 to 160 years ago. Canonblack 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC) [EDIT] Plus, the items BBlackmoor mentions (Darth Vader, Rosebud, Dil) were spoiled by the body of pop culture references, and anyone coming along now who hasn't seen those revelations has already had it ruined for her by the repetition of those references. Other works, such as cult TV, classic lit, etc., have not been so exposed. Even so, I would still put spoiler warnings on articles for those "ruined" stories, simply because there may be a handful of individuals who have been oblivious to the pop cultural revelations, or because someone not oblivious may not know all the details of the story or those identity revelations and may still want to see it for herself. Canonblack 13:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unwilling to reprise"

In light of McGavin's recent passing, I was perusing this page and was struck by the phrase "unwilling to reprise his Kolchak character." Does this mean he was asked to actually REPRODUCE THIS SPECIFIC CHARACTER in the X-Files? This phrasing suggests that he was, and that the copyright was cool with it, but that McGavin, personally, felt sorta iffy about this and didn't want to go that far (for whatever reason). If this is so, I think it should be rewritten as such, and if not, some clarity is in order. Wencer 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't recall Carter actually trying to shoehorn Kolchak into The X-Files, but McGavin was recorded as stating he had no interest in revisiting Kolchak. I think this is two separate ideas that were confused by the writer, or perhaps Carter pitched the idea to McGavin as a Kolchak-like character, and McGavin insisted that the character not be like Kolchak. This needs not just clarification but also source citations. Canonblack 17:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not being too rude jumping in the conversation here, but that's right about McGavin being asked to reprise his "Kolchak" character for the X-Files and not wanting to do so. (Just call me 216)

Okay, but we need a source for verification. Can you link a website that has that information? Not to sound insulting or distrustful, but your say-so isn't proof. We need something like a news story or a quote by someone involved with the programme. Canonblack 04:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unwilling to reprise" earlier

I have a source that makes the following claim: When the CBS Late Movie reruns were a huge hit, ABC wanted to revive the third TV movie that had been previously jettisoned in favor of the weekly series; McGavin said no because of the way the network had treated the series (his view). How are we to reconcile this with his having already (according to our article; I did not encounter the film [singular deliberate; just wait] until much later, and I do not recall the CBS repeat run missing four episodes) provided in-character voice-overs for a pair of ersatz movies cut from the series? Besides, I am aware of only one such film, Crackle of Doom. Can the other be documented? Ted Watson (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Scenes?

According to the article, the Jimmy Stacks scenes were restored to The Night Strangler prior to the DVD release. However, I have the Universal DVD and there are no such scenes, nor do I see any options to view such scenes. Is this just factually inaccurate, or am I missing something?

Yes, I also feel that this is an error. I own both the individual Night Stalker/Night Strangler dvd as well as the series compilation, and neither contain the Jimmy Stacks character. Is there a chance that a UK release is in existence? Otherwise I would suggest dropping the claim. Pjg1066 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced
original research

I've removed all of the following from the article, for reasons outlined below:

Nicolas Cage credits Kolchak: The Night Stalker for his inspiration in producing the new TV series, The Dresden Files, about a private detective/wizard who investigates crimes involving the supernatural.[1]

The impact of Kolchak in popular culture has been substantial. [2] The following is but a partial list of how widely this series influenced other creative artists and subsequent projects:

  • As part of their "Flashback" series in 1997, Marvel Comics published a one-shot comic book called Venom: Seed of Darkness Minus 1. In this story about the Spider-Man comics characters, reporter Eddie Brock investigates a series of strange cases with possible supernatural ties. In one scene he goes to a bar and meets with a very Kolchak-like reporter who bemoans that his career was ruined by investigating stories that were out of the ordinary. He warns Brock that he is heading down the same path.
  • An episode of the animated television series
    Question
    , a tightly-wound conspiracy-theorist who is a mixture of Kolchak and Mulder.
  • The 1987-1988 Fox network television series Werewolf featured the adventures of Eric Cord (played by John J. York), a reluctant werewolf on a quest to rid himself of his curse by killing the originator of his "bloodline." The show's recurring werewolf villain, Janos Skorzeny (played by Chuck Connors), was named after the vampire encountered by Carl Kolchak in the original Kolchak TV movie The Night Stalker.
  • In the miniatures game
    Mech
    called a "Night Stalker."
  • In the Corner Gas episode "All My Ex's", Hank refers to Lacey's ex-fiance as Kolchak, implying he is a stalker.
  • In the Italian Martin Mystery comic-books, one of the episodes is about a vampire who is hunted by a police inspector.
  • In the MMORPG Shadowbane, the founder of the Nighstalker order is a man called Colshak.
  • A "regulation Paranormal Investigation Hat" appears throughout the nonfiction
    porkpie hat
    .
  • Kolchak makes a brief appearance in
    Britain
    .
  • Sylvester McCoy's portrayal of the 7th Dr Who bears more than a passing resemblance to the Kolchak character, due not only to McCoy's acting style but also to the similarities between the the two characters' costumes.

None of these is sourced, and most rely on similarities and the same name; sorry, but that's just not good enough. We need

reliable sources to draw these conclusions for us as we cannot do that for ourselves. Some (Martin Mystery and Sylvester McCoy, for example) are particularly limp. Please feel free to adequately source these references before replacing them. --Rodhullandemu 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. ^ TV Guide article
  2. ^ Night Stalker (2005) - The Complete Series

___________________________________________________________________________________

The characterization of Carl Kolchak removed

I commented out The characterization of Carl Kolchak for two reasons. First, there was far too much detail given. A simple description of the character should be sufficient. Including specific incidents and numerous quotations goes too far and starts to approach copyright infringement. Second, all the material listed is from the TV movies and not the actual series. The article is about the series and so the description of the character should be about the character as he appears in the series. There is no guarantee of continuity between the movies and the series. I'm leaving the material in but commented out because some of it may be incorporated into articles about the movies or perhaps a separate article about the character

Carl Kolchak if one is created. I will continue to review the material, move what seems appropriate to other sections or articles and delete what seems to be too detailed.--RDBury (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Finished this review, merged about half of the material into other sections or articles. Removed all quoted lines and alternate endings from novelizations. The Night Strangler should probably be split into it's own article but not by me.--RDBury (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new article has been created by Floggolozzo (thanks). See
The Night Strangler (telemovie).--RDBury (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Question on origins

Hello, I'm here copyediting the article as part of my duties with the

Guild of Copyeditors
. I have a question. This section states:

The Kolchak character originated in an unpublished novel,

Las Vegas newspaper reporter Carl Kolchak tracks down and defeats a serial killer who turns out to be a vampire
named Janos Skorzeny. Although the main protagonist in the novel uses the name "Carl," the book reveals that his birth name is "Karel".

The novel was finally published by Pocket Books as a mass-market paperback original under the title The Night Stalker with a Darren McGavin photo cover to tie in with the movie. The book, as well as the novelization of the second television movie, was republished by Moonstone in 2007 as an omnibus edition called The Kolchak Papers.

We start off stating that it was unpublished, then in the next paragraph say it was published not once but twice. I'm assuming the original author meant that the novel was unpublished at the time the movies first aired, but that's unclear. Can someone shed some light? Also, when was the Pocket Books edition put out exactly? — e. ripley\talk 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've basically finished copyediting the article, beyond the contradiction that needs to be cleared up as I mentioned above (and also the references need some work). Once that's done, then I'll change the GOCE review tag above to a completed tag. — e. ripley\talk 21:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleared up the contradiction myself, though the references still need some work. Marking this as done. — e. ripley\talk 14:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Emily"

Ruth McDevitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_McDevitt), "Elderly Woman" in first episode, Emily Cowles (Miss Emily) in later episodes. Is it worth noting that the elderly lady in the first episode (The Ripper) who's letter to the "Miss Emily" advice column proves instrumental in Kolchak tracking down the Ripper is the same lady that actually plays Emily Cowles aka "Miss Emily" in later episodes? Swampy 1.144.96.51 (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)As a note, the "elderly woman" in RIPPER is "Miss Angulalis" (not sure of spelling, but that's what Kolchak calls her). As for Miss Emily, she's a different character. Going through all the episodes, and combining all the names used for her, her full name is (get ready!) "Miss Emily Edith Cowels Cowles Fenwick"! Edith is usually used for Emily (like Jack is used for John) and the Cowels name is just a different spelling (Cowles). Fenwick comes from RIPPER (she's on vacation in that one). Perhaps Fenwick was her married name at one time. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

I've placed a contradiction template because the paragraph immediately following the template appears to contradict itself. The offending passage:

Because of this re-purposing, four episodes were removed from the syndication package and remained unavailable in their original format until Columbia House released them on VHS. Neither has been released on home video.

In addition to a number problem ("neither" compares negatively two objects or groups, yet you are talking about four episodes), you've just said that the missing episodes were released on VHS by Columbia House, then you unequivocally state that they've never been released on home video. That is an absolute, fist-in-the-face contradiction. Either the missing episodes were released on home video, or they were not. One of these statements has got to go. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed offending sentences - I have no idea which parts of it were right. ツStacey (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the "two" was the two KtNS CBS Late Night Movies they made by clobbering together 4 original episodes so that they could get 2 tv-movie 90-minute length items to run on Friday nights on CBS at 11:30 pm EST back in the Eighties. And (rightfully so) neither of those hack-jobs was issued on home video. 68.19.6.187 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Just a note, CBS FRIDAY NIGHT MOVIES never ran CRACKLE OF DEATH or DEMON AND THE MUMMY. These were made in 1976 and never aired on CBS. Source is the Dawidziak KOLCHAK book. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)BTW, if you can get your hands on the FIRST VHS tape release of NIGHT STALKER: TWO TALES OF TERROR, you'll see the original opening theme, just the words THE NIGHT STALKER appear on screen. But be warned -- you have to get the FIRST tape of it. Universal quickly re-issued it without the original opening theme & that's when the KOLCHAK: began showing up as the opening theme for all the segments. I seem to recall (not sure about this) that the original VHS tape had some Hitchcock film trailers on it (PSYCHO, maybe) and the re-issue didn't. But, yup, the show began as THE NIGHT STALKER (first 4 one-hour shows) then was taken off the air for a month, then returned as KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER (for 16 more one-hour episodes). On an old MIKE DOUGLAS Halloween episode from 1975 (or 1976, not sure) Darren read a Poe story (HEART) then talked to Mike. They talked about how the show had been cancelled. Darren mentioned he had just finished doing a couple of "new" STALKER films. No titles were mentioned, but he must have meant CRACKLE OF DEATH and DEMMON & MUMMY. As a PS, I personally wish both of these were out on DVD, as they contain scenes and narration that can ONLY be found in them, so you don't have every scene, or hear every word Kolchak (as well as Vinchenzo & Updyke) utter, unless you have these. I'm glad I have them on DVD-R (recorded off Sci-fi channel back when they actually ran GOOD stuff!). It's a shame the DVD set doesn't include these 2 movies, or the original opening theme, or those great "next week on the Night Stalker!" teasers. But at least the DVDs are now single-sided, no more 'flipper' junk. Abbythecat Abbythecat (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolchak: The Night Stalker. 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:

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pilots

Shouldn't we include the 2 pilots in the episodes list section? "The Night Stalker" (pilot 1) and "The Night Strangler" (pilot 2).

They are considered as "tv movie" in the article, but aren't they really episodes?

Add a description of Kolchak's standard outfit?

I think a sentence should be added re. Kolchak's standard outfit, especially if a Wiki page/entry is made for Kolchak himself. His outfit is distinctive and immediately recognizable as that of the character. IMO, at minimum it consists of: (1) a hat (I do not know the type/style); (2) a blue & white

Oxford shirt; (4) a plain black knit tie; (5) black leather belt; (6) black socks and (7) Adidas Stan Smith tennis shoes/sneakers. Since, in the series, Kolchak is "the *night* stalker," he also usually has a flashlight or at minimum, a penlight (penlight used in The Devil's Platform, Bad Medicine, Primal Scream, The Knightly Murders). (The character description currently mentions his "Everyday carry" camera and handheld cassette recorder
.)

If anyone knows the type/style of hat he wears, please post it here.Phantom in ca (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a close up picture of the camera, flash and hat used by Carl in the series. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/12/bb/ab12bb86451f6236bbc5390550a28b6a.jpg https://durnmoosemovies.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ns013.jpg

This hat maker claims that Kolchak wore a modified Pork pie hat made of straw. http://baronhats.com/product/the-kolchak-the-night-stalker/

But this image of a straw Fedora looks quite similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_hat#/media/File:Straw_Harvest_Hat,_International_Hat,_ca._1960s.jpg

Does anyone know if Carl's hat was custom made for the movies/series or it's origin? Phantom in ca (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a webpage that says his camera was a Rollei 16S but comparing the image of a 16S there to the image of Carl using his camera in the link above I don't see a "S", so I think Carl used a Rollei 16. (https://www.cameraquest.com/rollei16.htm)

I also noticed that Carl's hat changed from more a fedora style with a band is colored very thin blue, thin red, thick blue, thin red and very thin blue with the brim not turned up at the front (from The Night Stalker: https://noirencyclopedia.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/the-night-stalker-1-darren-mcgavin-as-carl-kolchak.png). Compare that to the more comical, Pork pie style of hat with upturned brim all around and band of thin blue, thick red, thin blue (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51sqhKyLMAL.jpg).

Phantom in ca (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

themes/elements incorporated into stories from other shows/movies

Currently, under "The Sentry" in the Episodes section, it says "This episode is noted for being very similar to the Star Trek episode "Devil in the Dark."" I've noticed in other episodes similarities to other TV shows or films. The way the murderous monster is the involuntary creation of a subconscious mind in "The Spanish Moss Murders" is similar to "the monsters of the Id" in Forbidden Planet (1956) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet

The way the monster in "Horror In The Heights" can take an image of a trusted friend from the victim's memory and implant that into their mind in place of the monster's image is similar to what the salt vampire does in the original series Star Trek episode "The Man Trap" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Trap Phantom in ca (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kolchak's car: a blue 1st Gen convertible Camaro in the 1st movie, none in the 2nd movie, and a yellow 1966 base model convertible Mustang in the series

In the original TV movie, The Night Stalker, about 3.5 minutes in, Carl is driving down a main road in Las Vegas during the day and there's a close up of his car's front. If you compare that to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro#/media/File:'67_Chevrolet_Camaro_(Cruisin'_At_The_Boardwalk_'12).JPG and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Camaro_(first_generation) you will see it is a blue convertible, first generation Camaro. If and when a Wiki page is made dedicated to the Kolchak character, this should be noted and an attempt to identify more about his car (exact year, 6 or 8 cylinders, etc). I don't recall Carl driving his own car -- or any car -- in the 2nd movie, The Night Strangler.

In the TV series Carl drives a yellow, convertible Mustang. I think it looks like a first generation Mustang, specifically a 1964 1/2 to 1966 base car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)#/media/File:'66_Ford_Mustang_Convertible_(Centropolis_Laval_'10).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)

About 10 min in on "Bad Medicine" there's a close up at night of the front end of the Mustang as Carl pulls up and parks. You can see the small "gill slit" like design impressions in the metal between the single headlight and grill. About 14 min in on the same episode there's a close up during the day. In neither of those do you see a large, chrome horizontal bar going across the grill. ETA: I just saw that at about 14 min in to "The Knightly Murders" there is an excellent shot of the front of his Mustang. Therefore, I believe his Mustang was a 1966 base model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)#/media/File:1964-1966_styles.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)#/media/File:1967-1968_styles.jpg Phantom in ca (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kolchak:_The_Night_Stalker&oldid=1206406398"