James Bond You Only Live Twice ( 1967 ) Duotone Daybill Query

HONDO

 You Only Live Twice ( 1967 ).  Film released in Sydney Australia December 14, 1967. Both films due to the ''Released thru United Artists'' name appearing in this form mean they should have both been printed in 1967. Within a few months in early 1968 the ''Transamerica Corporation'' name appeared alongside ''United Artists'' on all UA posters. There is a fly or two in the ointment here to spoil this line of thinking though. Any thoughts ?

John

The problem with the one on the right is the censorship which would normally indicate pre 1971. However, at the bottom of the poster it clearly says that the film was distributed by United International Pictures which was only founded in 1980. I think the daybill was printed for the re release of the film in 1981.

The images seem to have been copied directly from the original Australian one sheet with the censorship logo mistakenly added. The big question is why didn't they correct the censorship on the posters? Mistakes like this have nearly always been corrected in some way in the past with stickers or stamps, etc.

And, no, they did not use the same plates as the original for the reissued poster. That couldn't have happened because the original is a hand litho and the plates would have been wiped after printing.

HONDO

John said:

The problem with the one on the right is the censorship which would normally indicate pre 1971. However, at the bottom of the poster it clearly says that the film was distributed by United International Pictures which was only founded in 1980. I think the daybill was printed for the re release of the film in 1981.

The images seem to have been copied directly from the original Australian one sheet with the censorship logo mistakenly added. The big question is why didn't they correct the censorship on the posters? Mistakes like this have nearly always been corrected in some way in the past with stickers or stamps, etc.

And, no, they did not use the same plates as the original for the reissued poster. That couldn't have happened because the original is a hand litho and the plates would have been wiped after printing.

Very good summing up John. A little fine-tuning. United International Pictures ( UIP ) was formed in 1981. UIP didn't begin to use a logo until 1982. UIP of course replaced CIC. I too believe the film was re-released in Australia in 1981, possibly along with some other James Bond titles as well. More to come regarding these possible re-releases  soon. Of significance also is that in 1981 Transamerica sold United Artists. Apart from the 10 year old, out of date censorship rating  being printed on the 1981 duotone poster why wasn't the ''Released thru United Artists'', also out of date, replaced by either the Transamerica logo if still applicable, or most likely just ''United Artists" that started being applied to posters starting in 1981 just after the sale of U.A. took place?

David

I think one has to be careful of not using a hammer to fit a square peg fit into a round hole - sometimes these things do just fall under the title 'we may never know' or as even the horse once said: "printers made mistakes"

http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/comment/33545/#Comment_33545

HONDO

David said:

I think one has to be careful of not using a hammer to fit a square peg fit into a round hole - sometimes these things do just fall under the title 'we may never know' or as even the horse once said: "printers made mistakes"

http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/comment/33545/#Comment_33545

John said '' I think '' and I said ''I too believe''. Both the information previously supplied by us based is on factual information and proved facts so no '' hammer to fit a square peg fit into a round peg'' here at all. Agree that printers made mistakes and quite a few over the years. As far as your ''we may never know'' statement goes - true - but a more than logical explanation has been provided here.

David

HONDO said:

John said '' I think '' and I said ''I too believe''.

Semantics.

Logic only explained part, and asked more questions than it answered but as the link to the other conversation pointed out, a lot of thought is going into this that is actually asking more questions than answering and yet in the end could have been simply a mistake in printing.

My logic suggest that on reprints/reissues not a lot of care goes into the proofing of the poster. I imagine an order came on Friday " Ahh bugger I forgot to get this over to you on Monday, quick, whip us up a few hundred duotone daybills for the movie You Only Live Twice will ya? Just use the same art we used on the (Aussie) 1SH art, she'll be right. Oh and I need 'em this arvo. Cheers You coming to the BBQ on Sunday?".

And so they did, and that is why all the mistakes because no one has pointed out the art of the dutotone is pretty much the same as the original AU1SH, which might  explain many of the mistakes including the out of date censor's mark. 

John

David said:

HONDO said:

John said '' I think '' and I said ''I too believe''.

And so they did, and that is why all the mistakes because no one has pointed out the art of the dutotone is pretty much the same as the original AU1SH, which might  explain many of the mistakes including the out of date censor's mark. 

Actually, I did point that out in my earlier post ..........  "The images seem to have been copied directly from the original Australian one sheet with the censorship logo mistakenly added."

HONDO

David said:

HONDO said:

John said '' I think '' and I said ''I too believe''.

Semantics.

Logic only explained part, and asked more questions than it answered but as the link to the other conversation pointed out, a lot of thought is going into this that is actually asking more questions than answering and yet in the end could have been simply a mistake in printing.

My logic suggest that on reprints/reissues not a lot of care goes into the proofing of the poster. I imagine an order came on Friday " Ahh bugger I forgot to get this over to you on Monday, quick, whip us up a few hundred duotone daybills for the movie You Only Live Twice will ya? Just use the same art we used on the (Aussie) 1SH art, she'll be right. Oh and I need 'em this arvo. Cheers You coming to the BBQ on Sunday?".

And so they did, and that is why all the mistakes because no one has pointed out the art of the dutotone is pretty much the same as the original AU1SH, which might  explain many of the mistakes including the out of date censor's mark. 

All very well but in the instance of the You Only Live Twice daybill how was it possible to have had printed '' Distributed By United International pictures '' on the poster in 1967 when UIP only came into being and established in the early 1980's ? 

David

John said:

David said:

HONDO said:

John said '' I think '' and I said ''I too believe''.

And so they did, and that is why all the mistakes because no one has pointed out the art of the dutotone is pretty much the same as the original AU1SH, which might  explain many of the mistakes including the out of date censor's mark. 

Actually, I did point that out in my earlier post ..........  "The images seem to have been copied directly from the original Australian one sheet with the censorship logo mistakenly added."

Apologies, missed that.

David

HONDO said:

All very well but in the instance of the You Only Live Twice daybill how was it possible to have had printed '' Distributed By United International pictures '' on the poster in 1967 when UIP only came into being and established in the early 1980's ? 

Because it was a printer's mistake.

They may have been supplied with the art for the distributor previously and as the distributor was asking for the poster to be printed then that make sense doesn't it. 

Again, why over think it? You've got such a mishmash of errors on the poster a printer's error seems to be the only logical explanation. 

HONDO

David said:

HONDO said:

All very well but in the instance of the You Only Live Twice daybill how was it possible to have had printed '' Distributed By United International pictures '' on the poster in 1967 when UIP only came into being and established in the early 1980's ? 

Because it was a printer's mistake.

They may have been supplied with the art for the distributor previously and as the distributor was asking for the poster to be printed then that make sense doesn't it. 

Again, why over think it? You've got such a mishmash of errors on the poster a printer's error seems to be the only logical explanation. 

Only a printer's mistake in the fact that the United Artist and the Not Suitable For Children rating weren't picked up and  altered in 1981. No one is disputing it was a printer's error, but in 1981 and not 1967 as you had suggested earlier.

David

Don't be silly Lawrence, you are obviously drinking the eggnog a little early because I never said 1967 anywhere in this thread and no where did you say it was a printer's error.

HONDO

David said:

Don't be silly Lawrence, you are obviously drinking the eggnog a little early because I never said 1967 anywhere in this thread and no where did you say it was a printer's error.

Apparently you were silly earlier when drinking your eggnog a little early when you said ''apologies, missed that'' to John. My apology to you as you are right in the fact that you didn't say 1967. My fault was in the interpution of what you said. You are correct in stating that but nowhere did I say it was a printers error, but on the other hand nowhere did I state that it wasn't one either. All I was trying to accomplish was to state all the facts. I will repeat what I mentioned a short time ago ''No one is disputing it was a printer's error, but in 1981 and not 1967 .....''. Remainder of that sentence retracted.