** Hey Dave Lieberman of Scottsdale -- on the contrary -- when it comes to Dan Rickard and Bob Brooks -- while initially skeptical of their analysis of some titles, particularly minty white inserts -- I was turned around 100% after their investigation turned up other major discoveries, particularly the Pulp Fiction advance. I don't believe I'm undercutting their knowledge or contributions to our hobby -- by raising questions about your website, specific to "E.T." only. ** Meanwhile, your "bait-and-trap question," "Now I'm wondering.....do you think those guys are full of shit??" -- is in my view, ridiculous. It's also my view that it's a dumb defense of your representations about this title -- because it never answered my original question, e.g., "what were the measurements of the E.T. bike poster consigned to you by the woman from ILM?" At worst, you're not properly attributing information on your website about alleged "first and second printings of the E.T. bike poster" -- or at best, you're hoping it won't get noticed by consumers, that your high-profile presence on eBay and other intangibles are equivalent to having authoritative words stamped in gold. Even the best dealers and buyers (including myself, mostly a buyer) -- have admitted we might be "unsure" or at times even dead wrong about what we write or say. ** My views are based on what I've actually handled since 1982, measuring tape in hand. The idea of a sanctioned "second printing" of a "studio issue" poster never intended for theatrical use -- doesn't make sense. It further doesn't make sense based on what we know of Amblin Entertainment's operations (and Amblin personnel will never confirm anything about the design/distribution of its marketing materials, in "mock-up internal" or "final external" form). I'm willing to be corrected if anyone has handled a genuine 27 x 41 "first printing bike poster" -- but until then -- I'm sticking with the simpler and more common-sense (to me) position -- that there was only one printing of the E.T. bike poster -- and that poster has always been 26 3/4 x 40 1/2 -- like the VERY POSTERS now offered on your site for $1,595. ** Dave, as a reliable buyer of your material in the past, I've had zero problems with you. But am suggesting that you could be wrong -- while I myself concede (though not readily) -- that despite what I've written and researched -- despite all my fact checking in California specific to "E.T." since 1982 -- that I too might be wrong. But again, "a second printing" of a studio issued poster NEVER INTENDED to be used theatrically? The idea of Spielberg handing out a batch of "27 x 41 first printings" -- and none leaking out at Comic-con in 1982 or elsewhere in the subsequent 30 years -- is astounding to me, a certified "E.T." NUT. What you have on your site right now -- are all ORIGINAL FIRST PRINTINGS -- and anything else in a larger size would be immediately suspect to me. -kuz w/the news.-----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:15:26 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected]
I actually got that info from Dan Rickard and the other canadian poster terrorist bob. Now I'm wondering.....do you think those guys are full of shit?? David Lieberman CineMasterpieces.com | 15721 N. Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260Vintage Original Movie Posters | 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By Appt. Only.-----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:50:54 -0800From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected] Dave -- I just read your note below and visited your website page... http://cinemasterpieces.com/cine_E.htm ...and you declaratively state that 27 x 41 E.T. posters not only exist -- but that they are considered "first printings" -- "One printing measures a full 27" x 41" and the other measures 26 3/4" x 40 1/2". The full 27" x 41" version is rarer than the 26 3/4" x 40 1/2" version." Well, this is new information to me after nearly 30 years. What were the measurements of the E.T. bike poster consigned to you -- by the woman you mention below -- who said she got it from ILM? Beyond her statement of provenance/origin, upon what are you basing your declaration that there was a first printing 27 x 41 that is "rarer" than what you state is a "second printing" measuring 26 3/4 x 40 1/2? This is impossible for me to reconcile -- and in my view, further confusing to collectors -- given what I've viewed and handled related to E.T. material here in San Diego -- since the film's original 1982 release. -kuz. -----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:55:20 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected] A client of ours who consigned one to us a few years ago got it while she worked at ILM back when it came out. As she came in to work one day they were in the lobby all rolled up ready to take home..... and everyone who worked there was allowed to take one. It is considered a STUDIO ISSUE.......probably the most desirable one there is. Not meant for theater display.......but still considered an original movie poster. The star wars chaykin however is not a studio issue....it is commercial.....but still highly sought after (obviously). David Lieberman CineMasterpieces.com | 15721 N. Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite 105 -- Scottsdale, Az 85260Vintage Original Movie Posters | 602 309 0500 | Office/Gallery Open By Appt. Only. -----Original Message-----Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:15:46 -0800From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected] Thanks everyone for expressing their appreciation. In sum about the E.T. bike poster -- I think it's best to regard it as a rare specialty item -- similar to the first Star Wars 20x29 promo poster drawn by Howard Chaykin. The BIG difference is Chaykin's Star Wars poster was a true commercial poster -- sold openly by the hundreds for under $2 (I believe it had a flat retail price of $1.75) at Comic-Con here in San Diego in 1976. The E.T. bike poster was never to be sold and showed up at Comic-Con in scattered numbers. IF a 27x41 or 27x40 bike poster exists, in nearly 30 years, no one has stepped forward here in CA with one in hand for me to measure and inspect. And I think that would've happened long ago. It would've been easier to print and cut this poster standard size, but Spielberg has a long history of advance paranoia about his pictures. None of the original '82 issue lobby cards and posters show E.T.'s face, let alone the bike image. The bike poster's smaller width and length thwarted standard theater display frames in 1982 -- so if anyone displayed it, most likely it was in their homes or offices. Combine this with what I saw at Comic Con in 1982-1983, I can't think of too many alternate scenarios that'd make sense to me. -kuz.-----Original Message----- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:23:32 +1100From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected] David's incisive reporting on this poster is terrific. Thanks very much for that. Knowledge is knowledge to be shared, it's not power. As for Bruce's NSS book - what about scanning the pages and making available as a PDF file? Phil -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Ball To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ? Thanks David, Doug, & Bob, for thanking the time to share all your information on this wonderful, but mysterious poster. While I am disappointed that I did not receive a Spielberg personal released poster, I feel a little better that it is at least an original 2nd release. Doug -----Original Message----- From: David Kusumoto To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:22 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ? ** I would be very suspicious of any E.T. bike poster measuring 27 x 40 or 27 x 41. ** For nearly 30 years, stories about "origin" of the E.T. bicycle poster have circulated -- but the consensus is they were NEVER issued to theaters in 1982 (vs. subsequent re-issues) -- because Spielberg thought the image gave away a key moment in the picture. They were designed and marked by "B.D. Fox and Friends, Inc." -- but they all have the MPAA's PG rating, suggesting there was pre-release thought by Spielberg reviewing poster "mock-ups" -- that this version "would be the one." Instead, they were specialty printed and given to cast and crew and VIPs, of which there were many, but certainly under 1,000. ** The ones I saw and bought at Comic-Con in 1982 were all rolled, never folded and beautifully printed. You could buy them for $40 -- but at Comic-Con, they were FEWER in number than the Alvin-designed spaceship advance -- and FAR FEWER in number than the standard 27x41 "touching fingers" design. I bought three "bike" designs in 1982-1983 -- but THEY ALWAYS MEASURED 26 3/4 x 40 1/2, give or take 1/16" to 1/8." You don't think of measuring these things until you decide to frame them. I vividly remember because like an idiot, I had a local framer in San Diego dry-mount one of them and the frame was much smaller than my other framed 27 x 41 posters. We're talking decades ago. But this memory stuck. The bike posters appeared purposely under-sized; they would not fit in standard U.S. theater display frames at the time. TOO SMALL. ** I have NEVER seen a genuine 27 x 40 or 27 x 41 E.T. bicycle poster. NEVER. Even though Orion and Tri-Star dabbled in 26 3/4 x 39 3/4 one-sheets by 1984 to save paper, smaller sized posters by Universal Studios didn't make sense in 1982). Both the E.T. spaceship advance and standard style A measure 27 x 41. The bike style is a rare specialty poster with no relationship to the film's "official" list of 1982 theatrical release posters and lobby cards. A press kit I saw more than 20 years ago confirmed this. ** What makes matters worse -- is some sellers don't have time -- (or are TOO LAZY, when they shouldn't for this poster) -- to accurately measure the bike one-sheets. During the past 15 years, I've seen these listed on eBay or in catalogs -- as 27 x 41. They may be original -- but they confuse or anger the hell out of buyers, esp. "post-sale" -- by stating they measure 27 x 40 or 27 x 41. The only legal and licensed repros of the bike design are 11 x 17 master prints. That's it. Everything else in MY book, based on what I handled in 1982 -- is supposed to be 26 3/4 x 40 1/2. Bruce has sold this design a number of times -- and they have been original -- and I noticed he's one of the handful of sellers who always gets the measurements RIGHT. The only reasons the bike poster hasn't been as widely tarnished as the "minty white inserts" or "bogus Star Wars" posters are its abberational dimensions and pristine printing & sharpness.-kuz w/the news. -----Original Message-----Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 08:31:50 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: E.T. Bicycle 1sh. ?To: [email protected] What is the true story behind the E.T. bicycle style poster? The rumor is that Spielberg had made up 27 x41 versions that he passed out personally. These I understand are extremely hard to find??? I just bought one from a MOPO dealer which stated it was guaranteed 27 x 41, but was really 26 3/4 x 40 1/2. rumor is that these posters where made for first release, but never really released??? I also believe Dan Rickard had something on his site years ago about there being a reprint??? Does anyone really know the truth or strong opinion about this poster? Thanks, Doug 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.
