Sorry, I forgot that after the Warner Hollywood Cinerama Theatre finished its 80 weeks of 2001, it started playing at the Beverly Hills for 23 weeks. So that would make it 103 continuous weeks in LA.
For some cities/theatres it would be looked at as a re-release, others it would not. ________________________________ From: Roland Lataille <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:43:28 PM Subject: Fw: [MOPO] 2001: a space odyssey continuous release Obviously depending on where you lived determined how long 2001 played continuously. In New York, it played at the Capitol Cinerama theatre for 24 weeks. At the Warner Hollywood Cinerama theatre it played for 80 weeks. The Golden Gate Cinerama theatre in San Francisco played 2001 for 73 weeks, ending on November 11, 1969. On December 18, 1969 the Cinema 1 in the San Francisco area opened with 2001 on a reserved seat basis. ________________________________ From: Brude <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 3:00:08 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Any bets on METROPOLIS? If memory serves me correctly, 2001 was NOT in continuous release from April 1968 to (a minimum January) 1970. It premiered in NYC the same week as Planet of the Apes. I saw both within two weeks time in 1968. While Planet of the Apes scored high audience response, 2001 perplexed moviegoers and disappeared pretty quickly from first-run theaters. Planet of the Apes continued to roll for several months before it too was 'retired' from first-run release. Maybe some of the old-timers can back me on this, but when "Star Wars" hit the one-year-in-release mark in 1978, the industry proclaimed it as the first movie since Gone With the Wind to stay in continuous release for a FULL year. While I don't own one, I've seen 2001 R1970 posters clearly marked as such. This poster appears to be an anomaly if the 'R' is not present. --- On Sat, 3/20/10, Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> wrote: >From: Bruce Hershenson <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [MOPO] Any bets on METROPOLIS? >To: [email protected] >Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 2:32 PM > > >This is a valid point. But in these circumstances it is also vital to include >the original release date as well, and to explain what you explain below on >the auction description, especially on a $2,000 poster. > >When I sell GWTW items from either 1940 or 1941, I have a lengthy explanation >that explains that the movie was in continuous release during those years, but >that new posters were prepared in 1940 and 1941, and I add it to those items. > >Similarly, when I sell items from Wings from the 1928 or 1929 releases, I >explain that with a similar long saved explanation detailing all that happened. > >I think it would be irresponsible and deceptive to sell a 1940 GWTW item or a >1928 Wings items and solely give the year, and trust that "everyone" knows the >original release date or the entire story, and not mention it. > >Penny wise and pound foolish! > >Bruce > > >On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Smith, Grey - 1367 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>The film “2001; A Space Odyssey” was NOT rereleased >>in 1970, as far as all of my research tells me. It was in continuous >>release from its 1968 debut up through 1970. They did revamp the campaign, as >>almost all are aware, in 1969-1970 to include the “Star-Child” >>artwork and the “Psychedelic Eye” design. The half sheet we sold >>yesterday, which I have never seen before and I am a “2001” >>collector, was dated 1970 but note there was no R before the date on the >>poster. >>That is because the poster was part of the same continual release of this >>film. >> >>In fact , many of the one sheet posters with the 1970 date have >>the 1968 NSS stamp on the backside. The “Starchild” one sheet from >>that printing have been known to have the Style “D” on them as well >>as that would be the style not used in the 1968 release. >> >>I know that some would perhaps claim that since it is not from >>1968, it must be rerelease but would the same people claim that the 1940 >>release of Gone with the Wind is a rerelease? >> >> >> >>>> >>From:MoPo List >>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Hershenson >>Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:27 AM >> >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] Any bets on METROPOLIS? >> >>>> >> >>Questions: >> >>>>Why was it not described as a re-release? I thought that was the scurviest >>>>eBay >>trick (listing the year only, but not the re-release aspect). >> >>WHO determined THIS is the "Holy Grail" piece for 2001 >>collectors? >> >>>>How and when did it get a $2000 reserve? Before or after the bid of $2,000 >>>>was >>placed? >> >>>>If I were a rich casual collector, I might well bid on this poster, never >>realizing I was bidding on a re-release, or that the piece is a "Holy >>Grail" in the minds of the consignor and the auctioneer only. But once I >>found out the truth, I would be mightily pissed off. >> >>>>Penny wise and pound foolish! >> >>>>Bruce >> >> >>>> >>On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Brude <[email protected]> wrote: >>Waaaay over-priced for a 1970 RR half-sheet. >>>> Opening bid of $200 is more in line (and I still wouldn't buy it). >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> --- On Sat, 3/20/10, Helmut Hamm <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> From: Helmut Hamm <[email protected]> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [MOPO] Any bets on METROPOLIS? >>>> To: [email protected] >>Date: Saturday, March 20, 2010, 12:08 PM >> >>Of course, we won't hear the end of every story out there, >> but I'm pretty optimistic, that the majority of 'recorded' sales actually go >> through. Of course, sometimes the same copy of a poster comes back to >> auction, but I'm under the impression that quite a number of high-priced >> posters >> are not nearly as rare as they are (were?) assumed to be. >> >>>> Be that as may, what do you guys think of this $2,000 poster: >> >>>> I think I've seen it somewhere before, but $2,390 for an R70 halfsheet on >>>> A >> SPACE ODYSSEY? And only one bidder. >> >>http://movieposters.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=7019&Lot_No=85470 >> >>>> I think I've seen it somewhere before, but I'm not sure. $2,390 for an R70 >> halfsheet on A SPACE ODYSSEY? And only one bidder. >> >>>> HH >> >>>> Am 20.03.2010 um 16:45 schrieb Bruce Hershenson: >> >>>> > Remember that items that "sell" for high prices often return >> to the auction block in the very next auction (or a couple of auctions >> later). Maybe the buyers never paid, or maybe the consignors bought their >> own >> items, or whatever. We are never told "the rest of the story". >>>> > >>>> > But LOTS of people have been sucked in to buying a poster for say, >> $2,000 because it is a bargain since it previously "sold" for >> $4,000, when it may well be that the $4,000 "sale" was never >> consummated. >>>> > >>>> > Bruce >>>> > >> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >> >>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. >> >>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. >>>> >> >>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. > >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. 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. 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.
