Oh man, I thought we were talking about the Things to Come db not the Metropolis ones! Yeah best guesses for missing credit happen all the time...its either take a punt or leave it blank.
Dial M for Murder ( 1954 ) original Australian one sheet poster, along with a New Zealand printed one sheet.
The N.Z. ''A'' censorship rating, and the word the word ''REVISED'' are both printed on the poster.This is most interesting and any comments regarding the reason for the usage of the word ''REVISED '' would be appreciated.
Oh wow! I'd not seen the NZ one. Was the film heavily cut there?
I was originally informed that some minor cuts were made to the stabbing scene. On further investigation I have just received the following information stating the required cuts that the New Zealand Censor had ordered to be completed in 1954 to the submitted 16mm version.. No record available for the 35mm version, but being the year of the first release one has to believe the 16mm classification would also have applied to the 35mm version as well.
I was also informed that there are no records held that mention the reason why the word ''revised'' would have been printed on The N.Z. one sheet film poster.
Oh wow! I'd not seen the NZ one. Was the film heavily cut there?
I was originally informed that some minor cuts were made to the stabbing scene. On further investigation I have just received the following information stating the required cuts that the New Zealand Censor had ordered to be completed in 1954 to the submitted 16mm version.. No record available for the 35mm version, but being the year of the first release one has to believe the 16mm classification would also have applied to the 35mm version as well.
I was also informed that there are no records held that mention the reason why the word ''revised'' would have been printed on The N.Z. one sheet film poster.
Thanks Lawrence Great research as always. It is a unique poster and no surprise that the NZ censors would mutilate the most pivotal scene in the movie.
Grace Kelly's top half has been altered on the NZ poster, that's the most interesting thing. They did such things on posters in Ireland, the Catholic influenced censorship was strong there.
Also unusual is that a full colour one sheet with revised artwork would be printed specifically for NZ release. They usually just altered original posters.
I will share some more information on this subject soon.
Before I get to do this though are there any comments to be made regarding the following poster image?
The phone is on the hook but not on the other images?
I suppose that is because is no space to show the phone off the hook, the canvas is too narrow vertically. Also, the "controversial" parts are in deep black as the only light comes from the right, wich, curiously, I prefer in this case, because gives to the scene more intrigue and darkness. I like this poster image better. Cheers !
I will share some more information on this subject soon.
Before I get to do this though are there any comments to be made regarding the following poster image?
I suppose that is because is no space to show the phone off the hook, the canvas is too narrow vertically. Also, the "controversial" parts are in deep black as the only light comes from the right, wich, curiously, I prefer in this case, because gives to the scene more intrigue and darkness. I like this poster image better. Cheers !
I will share some more information on this subject soon.
Before I get to do this though are there any comments to be made regarding the following poster image?
From the US half sheet? Am guessing its also due to the space restrictions...might not make sense image wise as you wouldn't see the receiver if its hanging off.
From the US half sheet? Am guessing its also due to the space restrictions...might not make sense image wise as you wouldn't see the receiver if its hanging off.
Yes this particular image was used on the U.S. half sheet, along with it also appearing on the U.K. quad poster as well,
The Australian artwork using the rare more exposed Grace Kelly artwork was also used on the U.S. window card. This artwork is hardly found anywhere else on any other film poster artwork from around the world..
New Zealand opted instead for the alternative similar image design version that used the assailant's arm and wrist, which replaced the Grace Kelly shoulder. This design of the two slight variations was the more commonly used version around the world.
Two Australian one sheet posters of the same design of Stakeout On Dope Street ( 1958 ). The designs have three differences when compared.
The first example has the word WARNER BROS and also the WB logo printed on the poster, whereas the second version is missing this important information. Then also the following bottom lines of the credits do not align with each other either.
I'd imagine they'd reset the bottom text to accomodate the extra information. More info on the printing process would certainly help to know how easy that process would be.
I can't speak for this example, but at least 90% of the time (and maybe closer to 99%) when I am presented with two posters, and one has the original releasing studio and the other does not, the one WITH the studio proves to be first release, because studios ALWAYS handled the first release, while often they handed off re-releases to smaller companies. This is especially true with United Artists, which in the 1920s and 1930s did the first release and almost never did any re-releases.
HAS lifetime guarantees on every item - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
I can't speak for this example, but at least 90% of the time (and maybe closer to 99%) when I am presented with two posters, and one has the original releasing studio and the other does not, the one WITH the studio proves to be first release, because studios ALWAYS handled the first release, while often they handed off re-releases to smaller companies. This is especially true with United Artists, which in the 1920s and 1930s did the first release and almost never did any re-releases.
Agee in general with what you have to say, but in this case the situation is I believe completely different.
Three Australian Don't Bother To Knock ( 1952 ) first release film posters, with correct and also incorrect depiction of clothes that Marilyn Monroe wore in the film
The daybill and the one sheet display a more revealing dress that wasn't worn in the film at any time by Marilyn.
The Australian three sheet displays the more accurate depiction of what Marilyn wore in the actual film. A publicity taken photograph confirms this.
Comments
What was the general hoo-ha about?
Yeah best guesses for missing credit happen all the time...its either take a punt or leave it blank.
The following Bernie Bragg newspaper artwork was produced for the Melbourne Victoria 1928 first release.
The following newspaper advertisements were placed for the April 1928 Sydney first release and are all courtesy of Everyones / Trove )
This great double feature was only screened in this format at The Regent Theatre in Sydney Australia,
Dial M for Murder ( 1954 ) original Australian one sheet poster, along with a New Zealand printed one sheet.
The N.Z. ''A'' censorship rating, and the word the word ''REVISED'' are both printed on the poster.This is most interesting and any comments regarding the reason for the usage of the word ''REVISED '' would be appreciated.
Was the film heavily cut there?
I was originally informed that some minor cuts were made to the stabbing scene. On further investigation I have just received the following information stating the required cuts that the New Zealand Censor had ordered to be completed in 1954 to the submitted 16mm version.. No record available for the 35mm version, but being the year of the first release one has to believe the 16mm classification would also have applied to the 35mm version as well.
Dial M for Murder (1954) - Excision notice #1 (18 November 1954) (2) (16).pdf ( Courtesy of the New Zealand Classification Office. )
I was also informed that there are no records held that mention the reason why the word ''revised'' would have been printed on The N.Z. one sheet film poster.
Before I get to do this though are there any comments to be made regarding the following poster image?
The Australian artwork using the rare more exposed Grace Kelly artwork was also used on the U.S. window card. This artwork is hardly found anywhere else on any other film poster artwork from around the world..
New Zealand opted instead for the alternative similar image design version that used the assailant's arm and wrist, which replaced the Grace Kelly shoulder. This design of the two slight variations was the more commonly used version around the world.
Two Australian one sheet posters of the same design of Stakeout On Dope Street ( 1958 ). The designs have three differences when compared.
The first example has the word WARNER BROS and also the WB logo printed on the poster, whereas the second version is missing this important information. Then also the following bottom lines of the credits do not align with each other either.
Peter
I am not an expert regarding the printing process, so perhaps someone more familiar with this subject would like to make a comment.
Peter
HAS unrestored and unenhanced images - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 100% honest condition descriptions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS auctions where the winner is the higher of two real bidders - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS up to SIXTEEN weeks of "Pay and Hold" to save a fortune on shipping - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS real customer service before, during and after EVERY auction, and answers all questions - IS eMoviePoster.com
HAS 25% or 26% "buyers premiums" of any kind (but especially the dreadful "$29 or $49 minimum" ones) - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "reserves or starts over $1 - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS hidden bidder IDs - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS "nosebleed" shipping charges - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS inadequate packaging - NOT eMoviePoster.com
HAS no customer service to speak of, before, during and after any auction, and answers almost no questions - NOT eMoviePoster.com
My current thinking is that Peter's above suggestion sounds the most logical explanation.
The daybill and the one sheet display a more revealing dress that wasn't worn in the film at any time by Marilyn.
The Australian three sheet displays the more accurate depiction of what Marilyn wore in the actual film. A publicity taken photograph confirms this.