Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Hondo's Daybill and One Sheet Q&A [Re-Titled]

15678911»

Comments

  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 118 ✭✭ One-Sheeter
    I'd say full colour was produced first, then duotone. Wouldn't make sense the other way around.
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    I'd say full colour was produced first, then duotone. Wouldn't make sense the other way around.
    Yes this makes perfect sense that the full colour  W & B Litho one was the poster produced for the Australian October 1, 1981 first release ( IMDB ). 

    Actually certain facts that I have noticed do help regarding both the posters timelines.  The MAPS version has 'Distributed By United Internationl Pictures' printed on it, but the W & B version doesn't have this information printed on the poster at all. 

    Some history regarding UIP. Originally Cinema International Corporation ( CIC ) was formed to release Universal and Paramount product overseas in 1970 and lasted until 1981.Then on November 1,1981 the company was reorganised as United International Pictures ( UIP ). Prior to the merger United Artists product was distributed overseas by their own branches, including Australia, but then after the merger 1981 UA profuct was handed by UIP overseas. 

    As Eye Of The Needle was released in Australia a month before the merger, it would be safe to say then that the W & B Litho daybill was the one that would have been printed for the Australian 1981 first release commencing October 1,  1981, as it is pre UIP involvement. The MAPS version containing the UIP credit therefore certainly would have to then be a second printing of the poster.
      
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    Murder She Said... ( 1961 ) original Australian daybill and the same style poster that was censored for the New Zealand release.

    The interesting thing here is that it certainly appears to me that  the censoring of the original  tagline is in excess of any requirements that would have been requested by the N.Z. censorship department at that time. 

    On wonders the reason why two areas out of the three that were blacked out were completely just covering  over blank areas. By doing this, it just attracted more attention to the censoring of the poster. Had it only been the word ' strangler' covered over it would have surely attracted a little less attention. Was it perhaps altered this way to balance out the poster tagline presentation?

    Any other thoughts on why this would have taken place?


    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    edited November 2020
                                                                                                             

    The Sundowners ( 1960 ). Australian release one sheet and daybill posters produced for the 1961 first release. Although both posters are credited as being from A & C printers the one sheet artwork is certainly far superior to the daybill artwork.



    The Sundowners was re-released in the late 1960s with the above daybill that was designed for this re-release titled only as Sundowners. I prefer this daybill design over the original produced daybill.


     

    Now to focus on this daybill version. Any thoughts as to when this poster may have been printed? Robert Mitchum looking a little sinister I must say.

    All four images courtesey of Ves, and originating from her wonderful Australian film poster collection.

    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,694 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Same year as the original?  The years recod shattering tops in entertainment?
  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 118 ✭✭ One-Sheeter
    It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    Same year as the original?  The years recod shattering tops in entertainment?
    Possibly too soon for the same year. The film was released in Sydney only on November 30, 1961 with most venues most likely playing the film would have been 1962 one has to think.

    It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
    The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required. An eafly reprint at an unknown date is more than a distinct possibility as the film fared very well at the Australian box office.

    A major disappointment hindering the ability to narrow down the printing period on obviously follow up printed posters, is the lack of a printer's credit appearing on the later printed posters. The 1960s is a decade where Australian posters are easier to identify reasonably well a time period, but only when a poster has a printer's name on the poster. Without a printer's name appearing it is then a major problem to accomplish this aim.  



    An Australian The Sundowners one sheet, most likely printed around the time of the daybill under discussion. It has the same style logo and also no printer's credits appear on the poster.
    Lawrence
  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 118 ✭✭ One-Sheeter
    The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    edited November 2020
    HONDO said:
    It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
    The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required. 

    The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
    Tomorrow I will detail some information, as I had mentioned earlier may take place, about the Warner Brothers Australian poster logos. This should prove to be of interest, but it will rule out the thinking that an old logo was mistakingly used on the original release Australian daybill and the one sheet.
    Post edited by HONDO on
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    HONDO said:
    HONDO said:
    It has the same WB shield but could just have been copied form the original? Or perhaps a quick reprint for the original release when they ran out of daybills?
    The WB shield logo on the daybill design in discussion is a little different in design from the original daybill logo. The original design has the word Warner Bros apprearing printed across the centre of the WB letters in the shield, whereas the later poster only has WB in a shield, without the word Warner Bros appearing on the logo. More details about this difference at a later date, if required. 

    The logo looks like it was probably mistakenly used, that's quite an old version so I think it might just be due to laziness on the part of the printer.
    Tomorrow I will detail some information, as I had mentioned earlier may take place, about the Warner Brothers Australian poster logos. This should prove to be of interest, but it will rule out the thinking that an old logo was mistakingly used on the original release Australian daybill and the one sheet.


    A question directed to Dede. I wish to clarify which poster logo you were referring to. I am thinking now that perhaps I misunderstood which poster logo you had in mind. I thought you were referring to the original poster logo with the word Warner Bros included within the shield, but I now think you it was the following logo from the later printed posters.



    Please notify me which of the two different logos is the one that you were alluding to?


    Lawrence
  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 118 ✭✭ One-Sheeter
    That's correct, it's the shield without Warner Brothers across it. I don't know how accurate it is but this website shows variants of the shield and looks like that version is from 1937, although the solid version of it could be from 1953-1967 and might have been drawn in reverse to suit the printing.



    from: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Warner_Bros._Pictures

  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    dedeposter said:
    That's correct, it's the shield without Warner Brothers across it. I don't know how accurate it is but this website shows variants of the shield and looks like that version is from 1937, although the solid version of it could be from 1953-1967 and might have been drawn in reverse to suit the printing.



    from: https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Warner_Bros._Pictures


    You can disregard the website's accuracy regarding what  happened with logo's used on Australian film posters. A different application of logos occurred in this area a good number of times over the years..



    This logo was used sparingly in 1959, then extensively in 1960 and part of 1961 by Warmer Bros. Australia short lived preferred poster printer Chromo Print. 



    After Advertising & Commercial Printers ( aka A. & C. ) succeeded Chromo Print in 1961 as preferred Warner Bros. Australian poster printers, they reverted back to using the above pictured W.B. logo, used previously by W.E.Smith  around 1959 on Warner's Australian posters. 

    In 1963 Robert Burton Ltd. Sydney became the preferred Warner Bros. Australian film poster printer and they continuued to use the A. & C. Warner's used logo on their imput.

    Out of interest the following different logo was used by the then preferred Warner's printer Victory Publicity Pty.Ltd. on Stage Fright in 1951. The poster then included the wording Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. in the shield.




    Lawrence
  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 118 ✭✭ One-Sheeter
    Fascinating stuff. Do you think they had an official WB logo here in Australia (was it a different company that the US parent company with different logo?) or do you think they were just using the logo they liked?
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    Fascinating stuff. Do you think they had an official WB logo here in Australia (was it a different company that the US parent company with different logo?) or do you think they were just using the logo they liked?



    The original logo used on the Stage Fright insert in the U.S.A., wiich is different from the one used on the Stage Fright daybill here in Australia. 





    The French used logo is different from the U.S.A. and Australian ones applied to their posters. Although the Swedish logo is similar to the U.S. one, the border is a little different in design. It would appear to me each country was free to use the logo of their choice, as long as it was a U.S. sanctined logo in the first place.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    A lot of information and discussion has taken place but we still don't know for certain when the queried daybill and one sheets of The Sundowners raised on this thread were printed. The best I can speculate on is they were printed as very early second printings, but in the process used an earlier style logo.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    This poster image is currently appearing on Google.com on the Pinterest.com.au website. It is credited as being -  ''Australian daybill HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM released April 29, 1959.''

    First of all one then could believe that this film was released in Australia on April 29, 1959. The problem here is that the film was never released theatrically in Australia.The date quoted was for the U.S.A. release It appears as previously mentioned elsewhere on the forum by me that the film was most likely banned in Australia.

    Secondly the poster is actually an English 3 sheet ( 41'' x 85'' ). The size of an Australian daybill at that time was around 13'' x 30''. There is a huge difference in size between the two posters, and seeing that the above poster has a  British X certificate printed on it, along with the British film distributor's name, how then did the poster come to be credited as being an Australian daybill is way beyond my comprehension.


    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector




    The Sting ( 1973 ) Australian one sheets printed during the first release. The posters were printed by MAPS, Robert Burton and the remaining one from an unknown non credited printer.

    One could ponder the order in which the three posters were printed. I am sure we will never find out for sure though exactly when this happened. I have my own thinking on the matter, but would like to hear anyone else's comments.
    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,694 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Was there one without the Academy Award info up top?
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    Was there one without the Academy Award info up top?
    This is a section of a reply to a question that was asked of me regarding The Sting Australian one sheets recently.

    ''The Sting was released in the U.S.A. on the 25th of December 1973. The film was scheduled to be released in Australia on the 5th of April 1974. My belief is that the Australian distributor had all the main artwork done early, leaving space for the anticipated Oscar win details to be added at the last minute. It would have been tight, but I think that they had the printer on standby to do the emergency run.

    To the best of my knowledge there appears there isn't any Australian daybill or one sheets of The Sting ever printed without the Oscar wins information.''
    Lawrence
Sign In or Register to comment.