Why is the pale blue said to be 80s RR? I understand it is because this one sheet has been flagged as an 80s RR also, so as the colours are the same, assumed from the same year (I think I got it right)
I'm not sure that there is anything on the poster that actually proves that the Jaws 2 pale blue one sheet is a reissue. Bruce has sold a couple over the years and both are described as original.
So here is my two cents and details from the little investigation i have done. I was not able to find an official RR for Jaws...it was definitely reshown as a double feature when jaws 2 came out.
Now to the posters...as pointed out to me (I didn't see it) the tag line at the top of the two JAWS posters is slightly different. Now is one a RR or second printing or whatever? I have no idea.
I am not so sure that basing the fact that we can't pin the pale blue JAWS as an original, means that it is a RR (could be) then the pale blue JAWS 2 must also be a RR. I don't see a difference between the two JAWS 2 OS.
And as I said, I would love to see some corresponding daybills.
Well, there were two daybills printed for Jaws 2 but with different printers. In my opinion, Bruce is correct in saying that the pale blue style Jaws 2 1sh is original and that should remain the case until someone comes up with actual proof that it is a later printing. I guess Lawrence will have some thoughts on this.
Second one is marked as a 70s RR...why is that? Do we have a confirmation of an official RR? What year was it? 78 to coincide? IF yes why an 80s RR also?
Unfortunately, that thread also doesn't shed a lot of light on things. I am often asked about Australian posters and whether one sheets and daybills are original or reissues. I can usually go back them and give reasons why they are reissues eg censor or printers details, studio details and logos, etc etc. In the case of Jaws 2 one sheets I dont know the answer one way or another. I think it is important to be absolutely sure before calling a poster a reissue and have good supporting evidence.
This subject of multiple posters from Universal and Paramount Pictures that were released in Australia through Cinema International Corporation in the 1970s has been extensively covered here on the forum in depth through various threads in the past.
There isn't any evidence to prove with these Jaws titles, or in fact the majority of numerous other CIC titles with similat printed designs for the same film, if they were just second printings for the first release only, or perhaps for an official re-release ( usually not established that one did take place ) or maybe just an un-official re-release.
I don't believe that we will ever know for sure the definitive answer to what took place with the Jaws and Jaws 2 posters. These titles, along with a heap of other CIC released printed posters with similat multiple designs that were produced by the same printer, or where two printers were involved, why this ever took place.
So, it follows that there is no evidence that the Robert Burton printed Jaws daybill is a reissue, noting that Jaws 2 had alternative daybills also printed by Burton and MAPS ...
I still find it odd that if there was an official RR and the light blue were created for same, seems a very specific decision to make (colour wise) then where are the corresponding daybills?
Just spoke (via email )to the person who has listed the light blue poster as re release & he said that he brought the poster from a collector here in Australia and he also had the common known 75 one sheet as well and the collector who sold both posters worked in a cinema in 1980 and told him that the light blue was a re release which he paid less for which begs the question why would the collector say it’s a re release & get less money if it was an original release poster. Cam
Comments
There is also this one out there
I was not able to find an official RR for Jaws...it was definitely reshown as a double feature when jaws 2 came out.
Now to the posters...as pointed out to me (I didn't see it) the tag line at the top of the two JAWS posters is slightly different.
Now is one a RR or second printing or whatever? I have no idea.
I am not so sure that basing the fact that we can't pin the pale blue JAWS as an original, means that it is a RR (could be) then the pale blue JAWS 2 must also be a RR.
I don't see a difference between the two JAWS 2 OS.
And as I said, I would love to see some corresponding daybills.
Bloody aussie poster nonsense
You mean these two? Yah, I know those...I am wondering where are the light blue daybills? They only did OS for the RR? Is that what we are saying?
Second one is marked as a 70s RR...why is that? Do we have a confirmation of an official RR? What year was it? 78 to coincide? IF yes why an 80s RR also?
Lawrence! WE NEED YOU!!!!!!
https://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/1325/jaws-2-daybills#latest
Lawrence may have some more information on this.
This subject of multiple posters from Universal and Paramount Pictures that were released in Australia through Cinema International Corporation in the 1970s has been extensively covered here on the forum in depth through various threads in the past.
There isn't any evidence to prove with these Jaws titles, or in fact the majority of numerous other CIC titles with similat printed designs for the same film, if they were just second printings for the first release only, or perhaps for an official re-release ( usually not established that one did take place ) or maybe just an un-official re-release.
I don't believe that we will ever know for sure the definitive answer to what took place with the Jaws and Jaws 2 posters. These titles, along with a heap of other CIC released printed posters with similat multiple designs that were produced by the same printer, or where two printers were involved, why this ever took place.