Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Hondo's This And That

1910111214

Comments

  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    John said:
    The "mystery" daybill is rare and some were clearly printed for NZ without censor details but it was also printed for the Australian release with Australian censorship.

    Excellent John as I have never sighted this daybill printed with Australian censorship ratings before ( that is to the best of my knowledge ). We now know definitely that the film this poster was printed for was released in Australia. The big question is still when? 

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    Regarding the U.S.A. release the following insert poster was used in the 1964 general release. Interestingly no mention on this poster about the Academy Awards or on any other U.S. insert posters either. 

     

    ''How the West Was Won, the classic 1964 (the movie had a limited release in 1962 to special theaters, but I know of no confirmed posters from this release, and the earliest known posters are from the 1964 general release)''  -emovieposter.com quote.

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    A scene from the British made 1948 film Againt The Wind showing Jack Warner at the bar with a great product placement for Smith's Crisps.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    It would appear that  U.S.A. printed one sheets that were marked as being English International one sheets began being used exclusively for some film titles released in Australia in at least the 1970s, particularly Warner Brothers product.  The following Australian one sheet was produced for the 1981 release of the 1980 film Raging bull.

     

    In the case of Raging Bull I definitely know that there was also an International British Style B one sheet imported  and used here as well as the Australian printed one. The image depicted below is solely an example of the poster style that was released in Australia, and I am not suggesting this exact poster example was ever used here.



    As the International British Style B one sheets used here didn't always have the Australian censorship snipes or stamp applied, it is near impossible to have an idea of  just how many other examples there are where both Australian and International one sheets were used for the same film.

    Here is something that can be done to assist me with my research. Any examples of Warner Brothers films from the 1970's where Roadshow commissioned an Australian printed one sheet  to be used here would be appreciated. I am only aware of less than ten titles at the present time



    McCabe & Mrs. Miller ( 1971 ) International one sheet with attached censorship snipe attached for Australian release. An early example of a U.S. printed  International one sheet poster being used here, but no proof of an Australian printed one sheet version being produced.

    I am wondering if Roadshow Distributors when they began distributing films in Australia were watching their budget and found it cheaper to use the U.S. printed posters rather than go to the trouble and cost to design and print Australian versions. They certainly didn't opt for quality with their Australian daybills, using more than often black and white versions instead of colour versions of their posters.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    Clockwork Orange ( 1972 ) had numerous daybills produced and printed over the years. There is one only version though that would have been used for the original release in Australia and it certainly appears to be very rare. or were there perhaps three original versions printed?

     







    This classification which appears on the three posters above has listed restrictions following the R certificate. Apart from the three daybill examples shown above all other follow up versions dropped the added details and just printed the capitol letter R encased in a rhombus shape on them.

    I believe that the colour version printed by MAPS was the only original daybill version printed for the original first release. The two duotone versions not credited with a printer's details most likely were early second printings from the same printer. The remaining numerous daybill posters in existance today I believe were all printed most likely much later on.
    Lawrence
  • RickRick Member Posts: 899 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    I also have an orange-shaded reissue
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    ''24-Sheet Grim Game Poster found in Australia

    Here is an incredible photograph found in the June 5th, 1920 Moving Picture World magazine that shows a 24-Sheet Grim Game Poster on a stand at the Broadway of Leichart, New SouthWales: https://harryhoudinicircumstantialevidence.com/

     

    Two 24 sheets of The Grim Game ( 1919 ) & It Pays To Advertise ( 1919 ) films appearing side by side in Leichhardt Sydney in 1920 on a large billboard. 

    Leichhardt spelt twice incorrecrly above as being Leichart with two letters missing. The comment under the image regarding import tax is interesting. The two well dressed gentlemen certainly highlight the huge size ot the billboard.



    An enlargement of the Houdini film The Grim Game image showing some great artwork that must have made for spectacalar viewing in colour in 1920.



    A clearer image that I found of the 24 sheet poster of The Grim Game sourced from a U.S.A. press book.

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          British adaptation of the German film which records the U-35 sinking merchant shipping in the western Mediterran and west of Gibraltar, 31st March-6th May 1917. The captions describe heroic fights put up by British vessels with additional film of U-boats at Harwich after the Armistice, proving that "Britannia rules the waves"





     Exploits Of The German Submarine U-35 original 1920 U.S.A. release advertisement ( film a.k.a Der Magische Gurtel and also as The Log Of The U-35 ).


    1920 U.S. glass slide.

    Any  original U.S., or from any other country poster material from this film appear to be non existant.
     


    Australian release title appearing in this newspaper advertisement for upcoming screenings in September 1920 titled as being The Exploits Of A German submarine U35. ''Every Britisher will want to see it'' mention is great. What about the Australians then? 

    A big thank you to a member of the staff at the National Library Of Australia / Trove section for making this previously unavailable image that was only available to see on their website or in person at the library, was organised to be sent to me to be available to present it here now.
     






    Two Australian Trove sourced newspaper advertisements placed for different venue screenings in earlier months of 1920. You will notice the film was advertised then under the more attention grabbing title of Hun Monsters Of The Deep. This post war title usage of Hun Monsters Of The Deep one could understand being applied to a film released during World War 1 ( 1914 - 1918 ), but in post war 1920 one has to wonder why, particually when this wasn't the official name of the film? To attract more bums on the seats one has to think.


    Lawrence
  • PanchoPancho Member Posts: 668 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Certainly is a catchier title!

    Great research as always!
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
     

    HONDO said:


    A scene from the British made 1948 film Againt The Wind showing Jack Warner at the bar with a great product placement for Smith's Crisps.
    An explanation as to what happened in the above scene.The actor Jack Warner's character is in the pub bar looking over to a seated Simone Signoret's character. He then says to the bar attendent ''Light ale please miss'', and he  proceeds to lift the lid of the Smith's Chrisps box when the female bar attendent immediately says ''sold out of them, sorry'' and removes the tin and places it behind the bar. Not only did the product get great placement in the film it also got to show how popular Smith's chips were.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

                                                                                              ( IMDB  image )






    Ace In The Hole ( 1951 ) . Advertising for the film when first released in the U.S.A. Bad reviews and poor box office receipts had Paramount then alter the film title to The Big Carnival in an attempt to attract audiences. 



    In Australia the film was released under the new title of The Big Carnival. The following Australian posters are interesting.



    The Australian one sheet was apparently printed early on with the Ace in The Hole title appearing on it. Rather than have to produce a new poster, the new title of The Big Carnival was painted over Ace In The Hole.



    With the Australian daybills it has been found that on a number of occasions in the 1940s for Paramount to have not finalised  the Richardson Studio daybills until after the Australian one sheets had been completed. It would possibly appear that in this case a delay in the start of the designing and printing allowed the new title information to have been received in time and to be printed on the daybill.



    From a Lucky Jordan ( 1942 ) Paramount Australian pressbook announcing that that daybill images were not yet available. 

    Lawrence
  • CSM_2_Point_0CSM_2_Point_0 Member, Super Sleuth Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭✭ Three-Sheeter
    Oh that’s fascinating Lawrence.  Thanks for posting

    I love the movie but have always MUCH preferred the original Ace in the Hole title (it is really clever when you consider the plot and the meaning of the phrase)

    Although the daybill is nice it obviously has the less attractive title. I’ve always felt the artwork was rushed since there is seemingly a huge gap top left that is basically blank.  Your post about the daybills coming after the OS May explain this!
    -Chris

    There's a street of lights

    A long dark night
    Restaurant scenes
    And dark machines...

  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    Revisiting my thoughts on the two Annie Get  Your Gun ( 1950 ) Australian daybills.

    February 2016 -  MY ENTRY FROM ‘’HONDO’S DAYBILL Q & A ( RE-TITLED ).

    ''I have always wondered about the Simmons daybill of Annie Get Your Gun being an original. Now that I have been informed about a W.E.Smith daybill as well and there happened to be one on eMovieposter.com that I have checked out. No definite proof but I firmly believe the following.The W.E.Smith  version is the original daybill as they were the preferred printer at that time. Simmons printed a good number of MGM daybills in 1956 which co-insides with a 1956 re-release around Australia of Annie Get Your Gun. The Simmons version is more available to obtain than to the rare W.E.Smith version and usually re-release posters are more easily available.''


                                                                                                  W.E.Smith daybill.


                                                                                                   Simmons daybill.




                                                        Australian newspaper advertisements for Melbourne screenings in 1956.


    Another newspaper advertisement this time advertising later 1958 screenings in Canberra ACT, Norice the ''Re-Presenting'' tagline.  

     To sum it all up I wish to confirm that I am of the firm belief that the W.E.Smith daybill was printed for the 1950 release and that the Simmons version, for all the reasons and information that I have provided here, was the Australian 1956 re-release version.

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector





                                                   Any thoughts about the origins of the above Australian daybill and one sheet?
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    edited February 5


    Last Holiday ( 1950 ) was first released in Australia in 1951. I have never sighted an original daybill or one sheet or any other Australian material from this release.

    My posted images above of Last Holiday were designed and printed for the 1959 Australian re-release of the film by Warner Brothers.

    The original Australian release would have been through 20th Century Fox  who distributed Associated British Pathe product at that time. Warner Brothers only acquired Asssociated British product, taking over from 20th Century Fox, starting in 1957.

    The Last Holiday daybill was printed by Chromoprint. The Chromoprint company only printed Australian film posters between 1957 and very early 1960. The one sheet was printed by Offset Printing

     

    These printer's details were taken off another daybill poster image image of Last Holiday and not the one displayed above. Thanks Matt at.eMovieposter.com for the enlarged image.

      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Image enlarged from the one sheet of Last Holiday but not the full image that is displayed above. Thanks to Matt once more. 
                           
                           

    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    For Whom The Bell Tolls ( 1943 ). Two Richardson Studio Australian wartime 10'' x 30'' daybills. These two days were previously mentiond by Ves on the '' Two different original styles of the same daybill designs.'' thread in  June 2015. Ves was wondering about the two different Richardson Studio designs being printed by two seperate printers and not the same printer.
     


    1945 first release  Australian printed press sheet showing only one daybill design, thus surely indicating that only one design had been originally planned.



    This design was printed by Hollander And Govett Pty.Ltd. Sydney, so it has to be the first one printed.

    Where then does the second designed daybill fit into the puzzle then?



                                                                       This design was printed by Simmons Limited Sydney.

    For Whom The Bell Tolls was first released in Australia in Sydney N.S.W. on March 7 1945. As 10''' x 30'' size daybills ceased to be printed in this smaller size by Paramount and MGM ( the only two Australian distributors who used this size ) in 1945. This would indicate to me that possibly  due to the films huge success at the box office a second design was commissioned and perhaps because of a heavy work load at Hollander and Govett  the job was given to Simmons. There is another possibility though, with that being that as the 10'' x 30'' daybills were being discontinued towards the end  of 1945, Hollander And Govett were also dropping out of the film poster printing business around that time and  so perhaps they were unable to complete this request if they had been asked. Whatever the reason for there being two versions designed and printed there is certainly one thing that is clear to me here and that is the the two posters were both printed very closely together in 1945 for the Australian first release.


    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector


    Images presented above not watermarked by Bruce are courtesy of John.

    Examples appearing are of the three distinct different styles printed for 10 x 30 Australian daybills during only a very brief period of time.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Australian wartime 10 X 30 daybills new and more detailed researched information.

    Australia wartime 10 x 30 daybills information will be presented here on this thread in a number of parts over a period of time, with part one commencing hopefully soon. This subject becomes more interesting to me the more that I research into it. 

    Lawrence
  • RickRick Member Posts: 899 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    Here's one i just added to my collection.

    Image may contain 3 people child and text
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector







     

    Australian wartime 10 X 30 daybills new and more detailed researched information.

    Examples above of an MGM colour daybill ( no duotone in this size produced ) and three different examples of the styles that Paramount  produced in the 10 x 30 size.

    I intend to publish all the information that I have discovered regarding 10 x 30 Australian daybills produced in Australia during World War 11.

    First off I wish to state that I don't know for sure the reason why this poster size was implemented in Australia. The common thinking is that due to paper shortages during the war period that the smaller narrow size allowed an additional daybill to have been printed from one 40 x 30 sheet. This theory sounds logical so it well may have been the reason why this narrow format was introduced in Australia. 

      

    April 1943 Australian newspaper story regarding paper shortages in Australia.

    My exhaustive research has found  for the 10 x 30 format daybills produced in this size, that the films they were printed for were released in Australia in only the years of 1943, 1944 and 1945. For whatever reason the only two Australian distributors that implemented this format were Paramount ( commencing late 1943 - part 1945 ) and MGM ( 1944 - part 1945 ). The total time period for this poster size distribution appears to be around 20 months only with the bulk of the posters produced and distributed during 1944. 

    Part 2 will cover in more detail  the less complicated MGM involement in this poster size. 

    Part 3 will cover the more complicated Paramount involvement which includes, apart from the full  10 x 30 colour versions, the  similar duotone versions produced by Richardson Studio also in both 10 x 30 and also 13 x 30  b&w and also colour versions of the same design.  I will also cover the limited number of 10 x 30 photographic style non Richardson Studio duotone style versions that were  produced in blue and white versions. Overall I found the Paramount details far more involved than the MGM details.

    My thinking is that the paper shortage may have resolved itself circa 1945, thus allowing both MGM  and Paramount to revert back to printing 13 x 30 size daybills once more. The question that needs to be asked is - why was it only MGM and  Paramount that had daybills printed in the smaller size  and yet none of the other Australian film distributors became involved in using this size?  Was is that MGM and Paramount were trying a little harder to help in the war effort to save paper or was it just a simple case of their paper suppliers letting them down?



             The MGM involvement.                                                                      .




    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    HONDO said:







     

    Australian wartime 10 X 30 daybills new and more detailed researched information.

    Examples above of an MGM colour daybill ( no duotone in this size produced ) and three different examples of the styles that Paramount  produced in the 10 x 30 size.

    Part 3 will cover the more complicated Paramount involvement which includes, apart from the full  10 x 30 colour versions, the  similar duotone versions produced by Richardson Studio also in both 10 x 30 and also 13 x 30  b&w and also colour versions of the same design.  I will also cover the limited number of 10 x 30 photographic style non Richardson Studio duotone style versions that were  produced in blue and white versions. Overall I found the Paramount details far more involved than the MGM details.
                                                                        .

    Some additional information that I have just located is that there was a fourth different style of a Paramount 10 x 30 size daybill printed.  A no frills non Richardson designed duotone version with no printer's credits. The following two poster examples of this style printed in this size by Paramount are extremely rare and these are the only examples that I am aware of. This daybill style version will now be covered in my part 3 Paramount participation as well.


    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector

    Australian wartime 10 X 30 daybills new and more detailed researched information.






                                                                                   ( John )
                                                                         
    The following information was gathered from numerous sources. and only after after extensive and comprehensive research into the MGM 10 x 30 size involvement in Australia, I can now sum things up.

    1 )  Only late 1943 MGM U.S.A. releases ( Part November & then December ) and the whole it appears of MGM's 1944 U.S. releases were printed in the smaller 10 X 30 format in Australia.

    2 )  The above mentioned  product was released in Australia during 1944 and 1945 only.

    3 )  The only two printers MGM used to produce this size format were Offset Press / Printing & Marchant.  

    4 )  No MGM duotone daybills have surfaced printed in this format size, so unlike Paramount it certainly appears that none were actually printed by MGM.

    This information regarding MGM has been easier to compile than the way the forthcoming  Part 3 - Paramount Pictures project is currently travelling.The Paramount  involvement in the 10 x 30 format is certainly proving to be a much more challenging task to sort out.

    To label this project as complicated would be a major understatement. The printing order of similar designs by the Richardson Studio in the 13 x 30 format for some titles is certainly proving to be the most demanding part of the puzzle to solve. On saying this though, a pattern is starting to form and I can see a light at the end of the tunnel.
    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,516 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    John has a Blonde Fever up on his site, which ties into the wonderful information above.
  • jayn_jjayn_j Member, Singin Dancing Fool, Lobby Master Posts: 721 ✭✭✭ Daybiller
    The Meet Me in St Louis appears to be simply a copy of the US insert with the rating attached.  That could explain why it was produced in that format.

    - Jay -
    Curmudgeon in training 
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    edited May 31



    Australia wartime 10 x 30 daybills new and more detailed researched information.








    The above images are of the four styles of 10 x 30 size daybills printed by Paramount Pictures during a a short period during World War 11.

     The Australian printers that Paramount Pictures used to print the Richardson Studio colour daybills, along with some similar designed duotone artwork daybills were Hollander And Govett, Simmons and Offset. For the non Richardson limited designed photographic style duotone images Offset was used. Finally for the limited produced fourth syle which were barebone hand drawn designs, the printer or printers identity remain unknown.

    Something interesting came to my attention while researching this topic. Of the total of 42 Richardson designed 10 x 30 original colour daybills that I have sighted, 38 have Australian censorship ratings printed on them, and 4 have no censorhip prinyed on them at all. The following One Body Too Many daybill is of special interest as seen below. A rare see-through censorship rating appearing on one Simmons daybill and a snipe attached on a second Simmons daybill of the same design. The third version shows a poster where the snipe has been removed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       A completely different story though with the similar Richardson designed and printed duotone versions. Of the 22 duotones that I have images of, not a single one had any censorship rating printed on them. Of these 22, only two have censorship snipes attached to them. The two titles are Happy Go Lucky and Night Plane From Chungking.





    The two daybill posters with the attached censorship snipes, along with the earlier original 13  x 30 colour versions.

     The artwork on these two duotones and all other Richardson 10 x 30 duotone that I have sighted  have slightly inferior artwork when compared to the originals. Due to the reduced size the 10 x 30's  lose a little of the original design. In the case of Night Plane From Chungking half of the soldier on the far top left is missing and about a third of, and a complete image of two women on the far right of the poster  weren't included. The plane image behind Robert Preston's head on the original is partly obscured and also the plane is shown flying at a different angle on the duotone version. 

     For some completely unknown reason at least five non- Richardson 10 x 30 photograpic style daybills were printed by Offset, and there has to be at least three others, if not more that were printed as well. Worth noting is that no Australian censorship ratings were printed on these designs or had any snipes attached.



    Interestingly there was also a 10 x 30 Richardson designed duotone daybill of Bahama Passage ( 1941 ), and different in design to the original 13 x 30 Richardson full colour design, thus making three different versions printed for this title. 


     
    Now to mention that there were at least two other non Richardson or photograpic style 10 x 30 duotone daybills produced. Both The Jungle Princess ( 1936 )  and Pirates On Horseback ( 1941 ) have no printers credits and has a style of artwork that became commonplace throughout the forties and beyond. There was a re-release in Sydney circa early 1944 of The Jungle Princess so this daybill was possibly produced quickly for this re-release.



    Now to cover the information that a lot of people are probably most keen to learn about. This is of course is to know when the 10 x 30's  were in circulation and what is the order of when the 10 x 30 and 13 x 30 posters of similar designs designed by Richardson studio were printed.

    Backtracking somewhat now to establish a timeline for the product release dates in the U.S.A and here in Australia.

    The Paramount product that was produced as full colour first release 10 x 30 size daybills were for films that were released in the U.S.A. during part of 1943, all of 1944 ( less one it would appear that was released in Australia December 21 1944 in 13 x 30 and three only from 1945. Remember that I am talking about first release colour daybills with no duotone versions included here.

    The colour first release product was released in Australia it would appear et the beginning of September 1943, then all throughout 1944 ( one exception being Going My Way released on December 21 in the larger 13 x 30 format ) and partly in 1945 until the 13 x 30 size replaced the smaller format probably due to the World War coming to an end and paper supplies again being boosted again. The biggest mystery is why were Paramount and MGM the only film distributors to use the 10 x 30 daybill size.
     
    All 10 x 30 size daybills that were were released by Paramount appear to have taken place  during the period starting around September 1943 and then ceasing production of them in 1945. MGM as previously  mentioned only used this size in 1944 and 1945.

    Full colour 13 x 30 and duotone 10 x 30 versions.  All full colour 13 x 30  versions printed for films released in Australia prior to around September 1943, were printed for the original Australian first release. The 10 x 30 duotone similar designs and any other designs including photographic styles would have been printed at a later time, sometime during the period  I had mentioned above. 

    Full colour 10 x 30 and duotone 10 x 30 versions. Rare and only one title located with this being So Proudly We Hail released in Australia in  December 17 1943. I am thinking that the duotone would have been printed in either 1944 or 1945. The fact that the full colour version was printed by Hollander And Govett and the duotone by Simmons would support my belief that the two posters weren't printed at the one time. Again the duotone version is missing any Censorship classification 



    Full colour 10 x 30 and duotone 13 x 30 versions, e.g. Aerial Gunner. For the full colour 10 x 30 versions that had 13 x 30 duotone versions printed for them I am sure that these  would have been printed in 1945 or possibly later than that.  No censorship classification on the Aerial Gunner 13 x 30 duotone.



    Aerial Gunner ( 1943 ). Much more to be seen of the three main people in the duotone version,

     Interestingly with the original colour version, although from the Richardson Studio, they didn't receive a credit. Never seen this to have occurred on any other Paramount daybill designed by them during five decades they designed their posters.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
    High Explosive ( 1943 ).  One of the last Richardson Studio 13 x 30 daybills produced before the  Pre 10 x 30 period commenced. The 13 x 30 duotone was printed by a different printer most likely sometime in 1945 or later without any censorship classification. 



    I thought I would include this image here as well of a China ( 1943 ) 13 x 30 duotone daybill. Unknown if the original full colour version was a 13 x 30 or a 10 x 30 size poster as it a borderline case. Leaning slightly to it being a 13 x 30 size poster, but only time will tell when hopefully a copy turns up some day to let us know.

    The reason I have included this image here is to point out  how out of place the colour of the snipe looks against the poster background.

    Two titles of interest and with missing images it appears that are more than likely to have been printed in the 10 x 30 size are Five Graves To Cairo ( 1943 ) along with The Uninvited ( 1944 ), which had a 13 x 30 duotone version printed most likely printed in 1945 or later.

     The following Richardson 13 x 30 image certainly points to the original  colour version being a nice looking poster. The Australian censorship rating is again missing from this poster.



    One other film title I would like to mention that appears to be  missing a daybill image of,  and sure to be a 10 x 30 size poster, is Submarine Alert ( 1943 ). Just by looking at the Australian one sheet one would certainly believe that a full colour Richardson daybill version of this title should be impressive.  



    If there are any Paramount films that were released in the U.S.A. between 1943 and 1945 that images don't seem to be available for at the present time and you would like to know if they were printed in 10 x 30 or 13 x 30 format, I should be able to inform you of the size for most of the releases from those years, with only a few borderline cases where they could turn out be either size.

    Well folks that's about all I feel that I need to inform you about regarding  this subject. All the information that I gathered  on this subject has been thoroughly researched and gathered over many decades with a huge increase in checking out material over the last few months. All information included here has been checked and double checked.  Roughly 77% of Paramount films that should  fall within the 10 x 30 poster printing period I have images of in this format, and their Australian release dates have been checked out and confirmed.

    I wish to acknowledge that the daybill images used are from Bruce, John and Ves among others and am I am also very appreciative of any assistance rendered to me over the years and for any material supplied to me. This subject has been a project long in planning and more so in researching that has been very time consuming, but ultimately most rewarding now it is completed and available for all to have access to.

    Any questions ?  I am only too happy to attempt to answer them for you.

    Post edited by HONDO on
    Lawrence
  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,516 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Five Graves to Cairo - I can't remember where I got the image from.

  • theartofmovieposterstheartofmovieposters Member Posts: 4,516 ✭✭✭✭✭ Elite Collector
    Such wonderful information!  Thanks for sharing.
    I have to re-read a couple more times to get the dates clear in my head, but is there any thinking around why the duo tones have no rating?
    Also, is it possible that the vast majority of film output during this time simply came from those two studios? 
  • dedeposterdedeposter Member Posts: 36 ✭ Mexican Lobby Carder
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    Five Graves to Cairo - I can't remember where I got the image from.

    Nice rare image of Five Graves To Cairo. Thanks for revealing it Ves.

    As I had thought it turns out to be 10 x 30 in size. 

    The interesting thing here is that the poster doesn't have Richardson Studio name appearing on the poster. I earlier had mentioned that Aerial Gunner also had the Richardson Studio credit missing off its 10 x 30 daybill. This prompted me to check other 10 x 30 Paramounr daybills from around that period of time. I then also found the Salute For Three daybill was missng the Richadson credit also.

    What these three titles of Aerial Gunner, Five Graves To Cairo and Salute For Three have in common is that they were all printed by Offset Print around the same time in late 1943. This would certainly lead me to think that there would be at least one other Paramount 10 x 30 daybill image from around that period of time that is yet to surface, that also should be minus the Richardson Credit. Just out of interest the vast majority of Paramount 10 x 30 original colour daybills were printed by Hollander and Govett followed then by Simmons. Offset, apart from a small amount of colour Richardsons along with the non richardson photograpic styles. mainly created full colour 10 x 30 daybills for MGM. 



    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    Such wonderful information!  Thanks for sharing.
    I have to re-read a couple more times to get the dates clear in my head, but is there any thinking around why the duo tones have no rating?
    Also, is it possible that the vast majority of film output during this time simply came from those two studios? 
    Appreciate your kind words Ves.

    I really don't know why the duotones were minus having the censorship ratings printed on them. It would only have me guessing, so I will refrain from doing so.

    It certainly appears that Paramount and MGM were the only film distributors that used the 10 x 30 size.
    Lawrence
  • HONDOHONDO Member Posts: 8,899 ✭✭✭✭✭✭ Le Grande Collector
    Great research!
    Thanks a lot for letting me know.
    Lawrence
Sign In or Register to comment.