House Of Frankenstein Daybill Major Problems ... Plus Others

HONDO · June 2016

The House Of Frankenstein ( 1944 ) Australian daybill appears to have had no original overseas material at the time to copy so something had to be created ( very good eh? ). First you take the monster's head from the 1943 artwork of The Ghost Of Frankenstein and then you add the image of the monster carrying the woman from the 1943 artwork from Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. If this isn't enough you add the image of Anne Gwynne taken off an unknown titled still which could be from any earlier film Anne appeared in. Finally the 1944 U.S. image poster billing of the actors has been altered around in order of billing on the daybill and drops off Elena Verdugo and replaces her name with George Zucco and the original U.S. taglines were ''All Together! - Frankenstein's Monster! Wolf Man! Dracula! Hunchback! Mad Doctor!''. It appears then that the only correct material on the poster that would have been there if the correct artwork for the correct film had been copied is the following wording - A Universal Picture, A Horror Film Suitable Only For Adults and Printed By W.E.Smith Pty.Ltd. Sydney along with the drawing of the Universal logo.

HONDO · June 2016

I will credit Paul with previously mentioning the two images that incorrectly appear on The House Of Frankenstein Australian daybill mentioned above that were taken from The Ghost Of Frankenstein and Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. artwork. One I was aware of and the other I wasn't until it was mentioned on the House Of Frankenstein thread a short time ago.

Charlie · June 2016

You guys know Reggie just found one of these... So the problem that I can tell is one of two things: Aussies poster artists are creative and innovative in a pinch or they are a bunch of lazy no talent bums...

Paul · June 2016

And I may have mentioned it the other thread, the guy playing the Monster carrying Ilona Massey in that still from Franky meets the Wolfman is actually stuntman Gil Perkins...

papergatherer · June 2016

I think it highly unlikely that Universal did not give any kind of publicity imagery to the AU artists (stills, US PB, or other materials) from which they could create a proper and correct daybill. Since SO much about it is wrong, it seems the artists just "winged it," grabbing images from earlier films to try and "fit the bill."

But maybe Universal didnt send anything on. That, tho, or someone dropped the ball.

HONDO · July 2016

Has anyone sighted or actually owns a daybill of The Ghost Of Frankenstein? Love to see an image.

papergatherer · July 2016

Ghost of Frankenstein daybill. (image c/o John Reid and moviemem.com)

So it looks like there is possibly no excuse, but maybe it was haste or laziness (?), as was suggested.

And what's with the Monster's blonde, pomade-laden, flat top haircut?

The artists looked at the US insert material from GOF (as well as FMTWM) and "created" something for House of Frank, "sewing it" together, a la Dr. Frankenstein :

Image: http://www.moviemem.com/files/photos/GHOSTOFFRANKENSTEINdb.jpg

HONDO · July 2016

Thanks for the image. The film is officially titled The Ghost Of Frankenstein and not Ghost Of Frankenstein as printed on the daybill. A minor point but it is something that should not have happened and the monster looks like he is about to perform in Las Vegas.

HONDO · July 2016

The original Australian newspaper advertisements have The Ghost Of Frankenstein printed on them plus the artwork is similar to the U.S. artwork and uses the actual TGOF monster artwork and also has the Universal logo appearing which doesn't appear on the daybill.

papergatherer · July 2016

The monster looks a little bit like an overweight Elvis, who is wearing a black turtleneck sweater.

David · July 2016

Yeah really bad, no one here would want that poster...

papergatherer · July 2016

I can't think of anyone that would want it, either.

papergatherer · July 2016

HONDO said:

The House Of Frankenstein ( 1944 ) Australian daybill appears to have had no original overseas material at the time to copy so something had to be created ( very good eh? ). First you take the monster's head from the 1943 artwork of The Ghost Of Frankenstein and then you add the image of the monster carrying the woman from the 1943 artwork from Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man. If this isn't enough you add the image of Anne Gwynne taken off an unknown titled still which could be from any earlier film Anne appeared in. Finally the 1944 U.S. image poster billing of the actors has been altered around in order of billing on the daybill and drops off Elena Verdugo and replaces her name with George Zucco and the original U.S. taglines were ''All Together! - Frankenstein's Monster! Wolf Man! Dracula! Hunchback! Mad Doctor!''. It appears then that the only correct material on the poster that would have been there if the correct artwork for the correct film had been copied is the following wording - A Universal Picture, A Horror Film Suitable Only For Adults and Printed By W.E.Smith Pty.Ltd. Sydney along with the drawing of the Universal logo.

The title on this daybill is "minorly" wrong, too. The original release title (House of Frankenstein) did not include the word "The" in the title, but even some of the US material (the insert) from the first release made the same mistake:

Image: http://www.emovieposter.com/images/transparencies_notstock/550/scanF103_20121030_152304.jpg

HONDO · July 2016

I am used to Australian printers getting things wrong so to see a U.S. mistake it is unusual. This now has my overactive mind wondering does anyone have any other examples of where the same American film had posters with a slight difference in the title ?

papergatherer · July 2016

This (described as 1970s) RR daybill for Son of Frankenstein has some major identity crisis issues going on. It is for Son Of, as the right director (Rowland V Lee) is credited. But an image of Lon Chaney Jr as the Monster (from Ghost Of), as well as an image from the original Frankenstein (with Dwight Frye included), in the lower right, make for a mish mash curiosity.

Thank goodness the art dept chose to use one correct image of Karloff from the right film (lower left).

But on top of it all, the name of the actual movie isn't even shown on the daybill at all.

Say what?

HONDO · July 2016

This daybill has always fascinated me. I don't believe it was produced for a theatrical re-release in Australia as there is no proof whatsoever one ever happened. I'm thinking it is a special poster printed for some unknown reason or another. Although the poster has a NRC censorship rating on it there in no record of it being submitted for classification from 1971 onwards except for in 2004 an M certificate was given to it for VHS exhibition. The original 1930's theatrical rating was Suitable Only For Adults and the VHS rating was the now equivilent M rating. My question now is why would the poster, that wasn't reclassified, have an incorrect NRC rating on it ? The history behind this poster is very elusive and very weird to say the least.

papergatherer · July 2016

You should inform Emovie, so they can update or correct their database information.

The question then also becomes: How did Emovie identify this daybill as a probable 1970's re-release, theatrical poster?

Could it possibly have been produced locally for a screening that happened around that time period?

HONDO · July 2016

I only inform Bruce when I know without doubt what I tell him is 100% accurate. In the case of this daybill I have a lot of facts but it doesn't prove anything in the long run. Bruce will have to answer your first question and in answer to your second question I really don't know.

Bruce · July 2016

This was auctioned a long time ago! I imagine we didn't put it under "Frankenstein" because of the credit.

I will "fix" it to whatever you think makes the most sense, given the limited info we have, but as Lawrence says, it will only be a guess whatever we put.

So what do you think? Of course, whatever we put, we will explain that it is a weird poster and we are only guessing.

House Of Frankenstein Daybill Major Problems ... Plus Others

Comments

Contact us

Get In Touch