If it wasn't when it was new, it was nearly new - 20 years ago or so or more. That is what it looked like though. The show was weird and bad enough without it.

The one time I watched "Charles In Charge" I noticed something weird about the picture. It seemed like there were frames missing, which I knew wasn't the case because it was obviously shot on videotape.

The one time I watched "Charles In Charge" I noticed something weird about the picture. It seemed like there were frames missing, which I knew wasn't the case because it was obviously shot on videotape.

I always wondered that too. I guess it's in case the picture starts going bad, so you can correct it, but it's just a guess.

I always wondered that too. I guess it's in case the picture starts going bad, so you can correct it, but it's just a guess.

It also used to be common for well-known country artists to re-record their hits for a new label when they change labels. I hate it (I can always tell instantly), but I understand why.

It also used to be common for well-known country artists to re-record their hits for a new label when they change labels. I hate it (I can always tell instantly), but I understand why.

I…I always thought they were saying "Bee-utiful woman". Always.

I…I always thought they were saying "Bee-utiful woman". Always.

Did not enjoy it at all, did not care for it, and then could not stop thinking about it for weeks.

Did not enjoy it at all, did not care for it, and then could not stop thinking about it for weeks.

@openid-111502:disqus YES thank you - Welles was one that I was thinking of - the other wasn't Tati (I'm sure he's a great example, but I'm not familiar with much of his work). Maybe it'll come to me.

@openid-111502:disqus YES thank you - Welles was one that I was thinking of - the other wasn't Tati (I'm sure he's a great example, but I'm not familiar with much of his work). Maybe it'll come to me.

That's what I mean by it didn't work like he thought it would. It so effectively drains the suspense from the movie that when I finally read that he thought it would jack the suspense UP, I thought - huh, I wonder why he thought that.

That's what I mean by it didn't work like he thought it would. It so effectively drains the suspense from the movie that when I finally read that he thought it would jack the suspense UP, I thought - huh, I wonder why he thought that.

The reason "sloppy" is a difficult adjective to take seriously is because Hitchcock is one of about four directors who were famously meticulous about planning every single image in their films (Kubrick, and two other examples I had earlier but just can't seem to remember now…).

The reason "sloppy" is a difficult adjective to take seriously is because Hitchcock is one of about four directors who were famously meticulous about planning every single image in their films (Kubrick, and two other examples I had earlier but just can't seem to remember now…).

Revealing the "mystery" is a daring move on Hitchcock's part, but I don't think it necessarily pays off in the way he thought it would. In a later interview he said he revealed when he did because it fit his theory of suspense, which (simplified) is knowing that a bomb will go off, but not knowing when it will go off.

Revealing the "mystery" is a daring move on Hitchcock's part, but I don't think it necessarily pays off in the way he thought it would. In a later interview he said he revealed when he did because it fit his theory of suspense, which (simplified) is knowing that a bomb will go off, but not knowing when it will go off.

Don't be fresh!