James Bond You Only Live Twice ( 1967 ) Duotone Daybill Query
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 ? 0
Get In Touch
Comments
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 Apart from the 10 year old, out of date censorship rating being printed on the 1981 duotone poster why wasn't the ''Released thru United Artists'', also out of date, replaced by either the Transamerica logo if still applicable, or most likely just ''United Artists" that started being applied to posters starting in 1981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?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.