Second printing versus Re-Release?

Pancho

Hey gang!

I emailed eMovieposter the other day to tell them that, in my opinion, some daybills they had listed as second printings were most likely RRs instead. My thought process was simply because the film (Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed) showed around Australia from 1969 into the mid 1970s and surely it wasn't in cinemas the entire time - hence RR.

Matt from eMovie came back to me to query how I determine the difference. In his view, a RR would have been likely to attract an updated rating (e.g. from SAO to M). Films re-released such as Jaws don't appear to have been re-rated.

I was curious as to what you guys and gals think? Are / were movies re-rated by the OFLC each time they were released back in cinemas? 

I get the feeling that there may be no definite answer, but happy to see what people think!

  

Paul

Not sure about other countries, but in the UK, it happens quite regular. A first release, either takes off and a second batch are done/needed, or when it drops on to another Cinema chain, a demand creates the need for more. All still in the first release, but slightly different, hence several posters are called RR, when they are still actually first.

John

I spoke to a cinema owner who had regular contact with the distributors in the 60s and 70s. He said that there were many occasions when the original full colour daybills ran out due to unexpected popularity of films and they printed additional cheaper one or two colour versions of the original poster. Many other people I have spoken to over the years have said the same thing. I think these are best referred to as second printings and not reissues.

HONDO

My thoughts.
 
The three poster images displayed above oF Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed! all have the classification oF ''Not suitable For Children'' printed on them. The film was released in Sydney only on the 20 August 1970, so the full colour version would have been printed for that release. The two duotones versions would have had to have been printed sometime after but before November 1971 when the rating for this film would have been advertised as being NRC. This must place these two posters into the second printing category. 
 
The only films that were re-classified appear to have been where the distributor on the odd occasion  changed or where a version with a different running time was submitted for classification.

For any re-releases, which were extremely rare from the 1970's onward due to early television exposure, and where nothing changed from the earlier original release it certainly appears that new applicants wern't required by the Australian classicication department to submit films again that had previously been classified from 1971 onwards.

I believe that the majority of Australian  film posters from the 1970s onwards  where multiple style posters were printed were either original release or follow up printings for the same release, but some of them are often mistakenly referred to these days  as being  re-releases instead of  second or follow up printings from the first release.. 

Pancho

Just browsing some old threads...

Is it fair to assume that any second printing would have to be rarer than the initial printing? Not suggesting, they'd necessarily be worth more, but purely from a collectors point of view, there would of had to have been less printed?

jayn_j

Quite possibly, but as we all know, rarity and value don't really go hand in hand.  Although the reprints are rarer, I expect the original printings are more desirable as they display better in full color.