What a wonderful site, Jerry. I've been a supporter
of restoring the old movie theatres in Los Angeles.
It's a shame that some of these glorious movie palaces
are now swap meets.
I've also been heartbroken over the drive-in. there
was a lovely one, THE FIESTA which we attended up to
three years ago. The neon sign and the decor in the
stands were amazing.
It was torn down for a warehouse.
Toochis
--- 42nd Street Memories <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Great story, Joe. I have often wondered if I would
> EVER find a poster with a direct connection to my
> childhood theaters. And I lived in Manhattan! I
> thought the odds would be in my favor.
>
> Off topic but anyone interested in movie theaters
> should check out www.cinematreasures.com
>
> Jerry the K
> www.42ndstreetmemories.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joseph H. Bonelli
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [MOPO] MyMoviePosters Weekend Update
> November 28th 2004
>
>
> Dear Dan,
> These posts are very interesting and informative.
> You wrote:
>
> <When I think of what an original movie poster is
> in my mind, it's
> probably one that you or I (or for that matter any
> of us who collect
> movie posters), might have stood staring at - in
> awe maybe -
> outside/inside of a cinema as a kid. When I think
> of what an original movie poster is in my mind, it's
> probably one that you or I (or for that matter any
> of us who collect
> movie posters), might have stood staring at - in
> awe maybe -
> outside/inside of a cinema as a kid. >
>
> One of my prize possessions is a half-sheet from a
> film called "Seven Cities of Gold"-- an early Fox
> CinemaScope release. It's a nice poster, but what
> makes it special to me is that on the back is
> written in pencil, "Joy Theater- Vicksburg,
> Mississippi." Which means that this particular
> poster was displayed there during the original run
> in 1954 or 1955 and that eleven or twelve-year-old
> Joe Bonelli stared at it-- the very poster that I
> own fifty years later.
> It's not framed but will be one day-- with the
> back visible.
> It always reminds me that I've loved the movies
> since I was five.
> Thanks and keep it up!
> Joe
>
> PS-- Please excuse the abrupt change in fonts, but
> computers do what they want!
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MyMoviePosters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MyMoviePosters Weekend Update November 28th 2004
>
> New this week...
>
> I was really impressed by all the responses that
> were sent in on last week's question.There were some
> really great points made! Thank you all for your
> input.I was very pleased!
>
> Here are just some of the comments......
>
> For me, original has to be first print run for
> the first release of the movie. The only difference
> between
> a used and an unused original is in the rarity
> value of the unused poster, although the romance of
> having something which was actually displayed at
> the time is also a draw.
>
> Actually "Sent" out to a theatre, overseas,
> etc., by the Studio for the theatrical presentation
> of the film.
>
> When I think of what an original movie poster is
> in my mind, it's
> probably one that you or I (or for that matter
> any of us who collect
> movie posters), might have stood staring at - in
> awe maybe -
> outside/inside of a cinema as a kid. That's
> obviously not a technical
> definition of what is, or is not, original. just
> a nostalgic
> definition or something.
>
> But I guess original would be any poster that
> was printed for that
> first release. Or any subsequent poster printed
> specifically for a
> rerelease...??
>
> I think an original movie poster is any poster
> that was manufactured
> exclusively for the purpose of promoting a movie
> release.It doesn't matter
> if it was sent to movie theaters in my view for
> example, the studio-issued
> Empire Style A one sheet is a valid as an NSS
> one), or used or displayed.
> In terms of the original release only, I think
> that does not matter as long
> as the poster is clearly different or otherwise
> marked as being from a
> subsequent re-release. In other words, I
> consider the Empire R-81 and R-82
> to be originial movie posters, if that's what
> you are getting at.
>
> I am of the mind that it has to have been issued
> by the studio for the films theatrical release.
>
> I include re-releases in the "original"
> definition, but the poster has to have been printed
> with
> the intent to use it to promote the release of
> the film in theaters (either original release or
> re-release).
> it can't be a "special edition" printed up and
> sent to club members, or made specifically to be
> sold
> over-the-counter through various stores. it has
> to be the poster specifically printed to be sent to
> theaters and should be from the print run done
> for that purpose, not from a subsequent print run
> that was done to provide additional copies to
> dealers. that part is the hardest to identify and
> deal with,
> I know, and we'll probably never get it all
> down, but it's worthwhile to try.
>
> I feel that for a poster to be "original" it has
> to
> have been an authorized printing by the studio
> for use
> as promotional material ONLY(i.e.: sent to
> theatres,
> handed out at screenings, premeires, etc.)
> before/during the release of the film.
>
> At least it has to made for a theater.
> Re-releases are
> ok. The printer running off "extras" for
> dealers/friends are more questionable, but
> impossible
> to differentiate.
>
> I'd say for 100% accuracy, it had to be used at
> a theatre, pinholes and all.
>
> For 99% accuracy, it had to be intended for use
> at a theatre. Evidently there are finds in
> warehouses where posters were printed but never
> sent off for use. Great to own,
> but there's something not quite right about a
> poster which never saw the inside or outside
> of a cinema.
>
> In my opinion, an original movie poster is one
> that was made with the intent
> that it was only to be used for theatrical
> promotional use.This doesn't
> mean that the poster actually had to be used by
> the theater or even sent to
> the theater, but that it was made for that
> purpose.If someone happens to
> snag one off the printing press, it is still an
> original poster in my book.
>
> The issue of a re-release can also be answered
> by the above definition of an
> original. A re-release is still an original
> movie poster with the intent to
> be used by theaters.Of course, the poster should
> be designated as a
> re-release, but it is still an original film
> poster by my definition.
>
> Original posters were printed at the same time
> (same plates, same measurements, etc)
> as the posters that were sent to theaters, but
> the poster doesn't actually have to be theater-used
> ...it just helps when determining originality.
>
> I usually think of an original as 1 that was
> printed to be used as A movie poster in a theatre.
> This could include recalled posters, advanced,
> or
=== message truncated ===
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
