I'm guessing at the overly 'wordy' rating? Shouldn't it be 'Not Suitable For Children' or 'Suitable Only For Adults' as per Shotgun Wedding and Once Upon A Time In The West Daybills currently in Bruce's auction?
I'm guessing at the overly 'wordy' rating? Shouldn't it be 'Not Suitable For Children' or 'Suitable Only For Adults' as per Shotgun Wedding and Once Upon A Time In The West Daybills currently in Bruce's auction?
Spot on Wil. The 'Not suitable for general exhibition' censorship rating appearing on the two posters in discussion ceased being used in 1948 in Australia when in was replaced by the 'Not Suitable for children' rating. A mistake was made by uslng the old classification wording on the two posters of The Man In Grey ( 1943 / but this poster a 1953 re-release ) and The Devil's Eight ( 1969 ). I have a feeling there may be one or two more examples where this also happened with an old classification was used also, but they don't readily spring to mind at present.
Up to 1948. !948 -1971.
Introduced in November, 1971 to replace 'Not suitable for children'.
It appears the Rivoli cinema owners perhaps didn't wish to spend any money on ad mats for Key Largo, so they just recycled an old image of Bogie from Sahara ( 1943 ). I am fairly sure the panther image appearing on the Trader Horn re-release film advertising is also a recycled image from another, and unknown to me film. Following is the scene the used ad image was from.
Adapting earlier film advertising to cover a current film release, for whatever reason, seemed to be a common practice with a few cinema owners I have recently discovered.
A Yank In Korea ( 1951 ) U.S.A. insert poster and an Australian newspaper advertisement from 1951 for A Yank In Korea, again using Humphrey Bogart's image from Sahara from 1943. You will notice the early 1940's Columbia Pictures logo is used as well from the original Sahara advertisement.
Commandos Strike At Dawn ( 1942 ) early 1950's re-release duotone daybill featuring headgear that doesn't look right. The rifle looks a little wonky too.
World War 2 British Army Brodie steel helmet as worn in the film.
A repeat from an obscure thread from March 2015 titled ''Strange Daybill Design For Mother Riley Meets The Vampire'' that a lot of members, particularly the newer ones, may not have seen. As it is one the most blatant ripoffs that I have ever seen I thought it deserved a spot on this thread as well. The image on the bottom right hand side of the Australian daybill is from ''The Day The Earth Stood Still'', that was released by 20th Century Fox in Australia in 1951, and the daybill was printed for it's Australian first release in 1958 by small independent distributor Ray Films.
I had noticed the following daybill posters, Australian newspaper advertisements and an Australian trade magazine all have either wording or images that are incorrect or out of place in one form or another.
Some should be easy to work out, but the majority most likely not to be so, but let's see.
The Plunderers ( 1948 ). What is out of place with this Australian newspaper advertisement placed in 1949.
An Innocent Affair is a comedy, not a noir, right?
A comedy film it certainly is. The original An Innocent Affair title was changed to Don't Trust your Husband! in Australia. Our friends at F. Cunninghame in Australia really botched this one up big time by producing a completely different unrelated film noir / crime poster design.
Original release United Artists daybill and a 1950's IFD re-release daybill.
Great answer Matt and I hadn't picked up on that error.
There is still my original pick up though of something out of place still remaining on the poster. The problem with the poster is shown below. There is at least one member who should know the answer now.
Included on the Australian first release newspaper advertising artwork, designed for Dillinger using the new title The Mobster, is this image previously displayed earlier.
The image depicted originated from an earlier film and is not from The Mobster ( Dillinger ), and this scene appeared on U.S.A. and Australian daybill artwork, as well as in other countries around the world, for usage for a completly different film.
My problem with Reap The Wild Wind is that the film was set in the 1840s and the image of Ray Milland appearing on the Australian one sheet is either from the 1930's or early 1940's in appearance.
As seen on the U.S.A. one sheet Ray Milland is correctly porytayrf in 1840s dressed attire, and has an appropriate hairstyle from that period. ( Australia )
( U.S.A.).
Two different style daydills designed and printed fior Reap The Wild Wind, that has one image similar to the Australian one sheet artwork of Ray Milland and the other has full period dress images.
Comments
Spot on Wil. The 'Not suitable for general exhibition' censorship rating appearing on the two posters in discussion ceased being used in 1948 in Australia when in was replaced by the 'Not Suitable for children' rating. A mistake was made by uslng the old classification wording on the two posters of The Man In Grey ( 1943 / but this poster a 1953 re-release ) and The Devil's Eight ( 1969 ). I have a feeling there may be one or two more examples where this also happened with an old classification was used also, but they don't readily spring to mind at present.
Up to 1948. !948 -1971.
Introduced in November, 1971 to replace 'Not suitable for children'.
Up The Down Staircase ( 1967 ). This Australian daybill, printed for New Zealand release, has something out of place. An easy one to answer surely.
It appears nobody picked up the error here.The question here is why was a version of this logo copied onto an Australian daybill ?
1951 Australian newspaper advertisement. Spot the error or maybe errors ?
Where are the Bogie fans?
It appears the Rivoli cinema owners perhaps didn't wish to spend any money on ad mats for Key Largo, so they just recycled an old image of Bogie from Sahara ( 1943 ). I am fairly sure the panther image appearing on the Trader Horn re-release film advertising is also a recycled image from another, and unknown to me film. Following is the scene the used ad image was from.
Adapting earlier film advertising to cover a current film release, for whatever reason, seemed to be a common practice with a few cinema owners I have recently discovered.
A Yank In Korea ( 1951 ) U.S.A. insert poster and an Australian newspaper advertisement from 1951 for A Yank In Korea, again using Humphrey Bogart's image from Sahara from 1943. You will notice the early 1940's Columbia Pictures logo is used as well from the original Sahara advertisement.
Commandos Strike At Dawn ( 1942 ) early 1950's re-release duotone daybill featuring headgear that doesn't look right. The rifle looks a little wonky too.
World War 2 British Army Brodie steel helmet as worn in the film.
I had noticed the following daybill posters, Australian newspaper advertisements and an Australian trade magazine all have either wording or images that are incorrect or out of place in one form or another.
Some should be easy to work out, but the majority most likely not to be so, but let's see.
The Plunderers ( 1948 ). What is out of place with this Australian newspaper advertisement placed in 1949.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don't Trust Your Husband ( aka An Innocent Affair ) ( 1948 ). Re-release daybill. Major problems here. Any thoughts ?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Borderline ( 1950 ). Re-release daybill. Is it just me or does the top image remind you of another film ?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Call Northside 777 ( 1948 ). Obvious mistake here on this Australian one sheet stock postter.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Drums Across The River ( 1954 ) Australian duotone daybill. Somrthing here isn't accurate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What's out of order here ?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What isn't accurate with this Australian trade advertisement from 1951?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reap the Wild Wind ( 1942 ). What is looking out of place here?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A Yank At Eton ( 1942 ). Someone having fun perhaps? Not the sale bargains snipe though.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Something different here in this newspaper advertisement from 1945.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Another newspaper advertisement, this time from 1954 advertising The Mobster showing something borrowed. A clue is it is not in any wording.
An MGM film with no connection whatsover with Universal. The Universal logo had been attached for whatever odd reason.
A comedy film it certainly is. The original An Innocent Affair title was changed to Don't Trust your Husband! in Australia. Our friends at F. Cunninghame in Australia really botched this one up big time by producing a completely different unrelated film noir / crime poster design.
Original release United Artists daybill and a 1950's IFD re-release daybill.
Great answer Matt and I hadn't picked up on that error.
There is still my original pick up though of something out of place still remaining on the poster. The problem with the poster is shown below. There is at least one member who should know the answer now.
Clue for this one then.
Included on the Australian first release newspaper advertising artwork, designed for Dillinger using the new title The Mobster, is this image previously displayed earlier.
The image depicted originated from an earlier film and is not from The Mobster ( Dillinger ), and this scene appeared on U.S.A. and Australian daybill artwork, as well as in other countries around the world, for usage for a completly different film.
Let's finalise this one.
My problem with Reap The Wild Wind is that the film was set in the 1840s and the image of Ray Milland appearing on the Australian one sheet is either from the 1930's or early 1940's in appearance.
As seen on the U.S.A. one sheet Ray Milland is correctly porytayrf in 1840s dressed attire, and has an appropriate hairstyle from that period.
Two different style daydills designed and printed fior Reap The Wild Wind, that has one image similar to the Australian one sheet artwork of Ray Milland and the other has full period dress images.