Bruce should be sent a copy of the known HA '49 poster, as a comparison.
I would be curious as to his take on this, as well.
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:01 PM, David wrote:
Question to all...
Doesn't the BIDLL one look a whole lot like this 1949 version?
http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/archiveitem/12681291.html
David
Wim Jansen wrote on 21/06/2015 5:07 AM:
Okay this is bugging me, I have done a quick reference search
based on pics of Heritage (nice details!) and Emovie (aaargh not
enough detail) of London Films productions from Imdb.
Here we go:
FALLEN IDOL 1948 onesheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion
International Nottingham only
MAN BETWEEN 1953 one sheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion
International printer not visible
CAPTAIN�S PARADISE 53 halfsheet London Film credits no logo,
British Lion logo (actual lion) Nott.ham only
HOBSON�s CHOIce 1954 one sheet London Film logo, nothing on Lion
International probably just Nottingham - unclear
BELLES OF ST.TRINIANS 1954 3sheet London Films International and
logo printer not visible
RICHARD III 1955 onesheet �distribution controlled by London
Films International", no logo Nottingham and London
Kid FOR TWO FARTHINGS 1955 one sheet London Film logo Nott.ham
and London
IRON PETTICOAT 1956 six sheet Lion International, no London Film
printer not visible
I think I have solid ground for my position that it�s a
rerelease, I�d say after 1955. There�s a book on the history of
the Stafford Company by a local heritage writer, but there�s not
a copy available on the net. Grrr, I want that. However I would
not be at all surprised the Biddll one is printed in London in
late 1955 the earliest.
Wim
Op 20 jun. 2015, om 20:22 heeft Jeff Potokar <jpotok...@ca.rr.com>
het volgende geschreven:
From the British Lion website. A brief history of the company,
also mentioning that BL became a distribution company in 1955,
after it fell into receivership.
http://www.britishlion.com/british-lion-history.shtml
Jeff
On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Wim Jansen wrote:
I disagree, I think the absence off the London Film logo is
pretty crucial. Anyway I�m gonna find my Carol Reed book, maybe
that has some more details on the release schedule, probably not
though.
Looking at the re-release posters on Heritage and emovie I�m
wondering how sure are we that those are not international
releases and the Biddl one is the real English rerelease. That
would also explain the differences in the printer information.
W
Op 20 jun. 2015, om 19:49 heeft Simon Oram
<fab5fre...@btinternet.com> het volgende geschreven:
I'm more in the thinking that it's a International UK 1 sheet
for the first release in one of the colonies. Due to its
obvious closeness and decent printing standard it's very close
to the original release date. David said that The Third Man was
released in Australia March 1950. OK the poster is in New
Zealand but I think with that sort of info that sways me into
thinking that way.
Simon
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Richard C Evans
Sent: Saturday, 20 June 2015 18:06
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Reply To: evan...@mac.com
Subject: Re: [MOPO] [FA] ULTRA Rare English One Sheet - The
Third Man (1949)
The unfavourable scenario (presumably no one is thinking fake),
is that it could be an International RR?
(Prior to that horrible "RR" which is based on it. I think
based on the actual printed poster, and no connection to
original plates.)
Would they bother doing it for International RR? Especially
with decent quality printing, (as good as the domestic).
Everything points to it being contemporary to the domestic
printed version, and any variances between the posters make sense.
One print run for domestic version, one run for international.
Whether done at the same branch of the printers or not.
A different version would require a different set of plates to
be made up, hence any minor differences with illustration along
with required changes. (?)
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Jun 2015, at 16:40, Paul Gerrard <00000060c3f9be9c-dmarc-
requ...@listserv.american.edu> wrote:
Different companies! Eagle-Lion was Rank as you correctly say;
but Lion International was part of London Films/British Lion.
It's just that we can't be 100% sure when Lion International
started...
Paul
www.movieposterstudio.com
In a message dated 20/06/2015 15:19:47 GMT Daylight Time,
fab5fre...@btinternet.com writes:
Hi David,
I would presume Lion International was part of Eagle-Lion
owned by J. Arthur Rank. Eagle Lion were founded in 1946.
This is interesting from Wikipedia, especially the last part
�From 1946-1949 Eagle-Lion was under the control of Arthur
Krim who in addition to releasing films by Rank and reissues
of David O. Selznick films�.
Obviously I�m not saying the poster on Bidll is definitely a
reissue/re-release but I think it would be worth checking on
more.
Regards Simon
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?
SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?
SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?
SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?
SUBED1=MoPo-L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MoPo-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.american.edu/scripts/wa-american.exe?SUBED1=MoPo-
L&A=1
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
