Matt's assessment is essentially correct. Kirby Kirby McDaniel MovieArt Original Film Posters P.O. Box 4419 Austin TX 78765-4419 512 479 6680 www.movieart.net mobile 512 589 5112
On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Matthew McCarthy wrote: > 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 > > 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. > 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.
