i agree that 2001 was likely still in release in 1970. 'star wars'
may have been the first 'wide release' film that was still in (some
of) the same theaters after one year, but it wasn't until the early
to mid 1970's that release patterns really changed. prior to that,
it wasn't unusual for major films to be playing in first release for
more than a year - some popular films (such as 'sound of music',
'funny girl', 'how the west was won') played in the same theater for
a year or more. i believe the los angeles premiere engagement of
'around the world in 80 days' played for two years straight at the
same theater.
while 'planet of the apes' would not have been released as nearly as
wide as movies today, i don't think (i could be wrong) that the
initial release was as limited as 2001, so it probably made its
money faster and was gone quicker than 2001. we know that some 2001
posters have the 'cinerama' logo which would mean something like a
roadshow release. and kubrick was very controlling - even 'clockwork
orange' a few years later was only released in a handful of
theaters, where it was rated X. and he had to pull the film from
release for a set amount of time after he trimmed the film for an
''R" rating - only then was it sent into saturation/general release.
but even that wasn't unusual - 'the exorcist' debuted in december of
1973 and stayed in very limited release for months, and didn't go
'wide' until spring or summer of 1974.
beyond those 'event' films, there were others that caught on through
word of mouth and played continuously for more than a year - 'billy
jack' is one famous example but there are others, too.
as 2001 was both a roadshow-type/limited release and a word-of-mouth
film, it very likely could have played from 1968-1970 and even beyond.
Mat McCarthy
FILM/ART
Original Film Posters
www.filmartgallery.com
http://www.facebook.com/filmartgallery
[email protected]
[email protected]
323.363.2969
----------
From: Brude <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:01 PM
To: [email protected]
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>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
<http://www.filmfan.com>www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed
to:
<http://mc/[email protected]>[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
<http://www.filmfan.com>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
<http://www.filmfan.com>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
<http://www.filmfan.com>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.
