All Poster Forum
Common Poster Subjects => Authentication => Topic started by: raulleaf on July 27, 2011, 11:08:17 PM
-
A thought has been creeping in my head since the Mad Max info came to light. I have noticed there are three versions of Apocalypse Now and then there are the Dreamworks Crisp line and not so crisp line for Saving Private Ryan.
I checked IMDB and Both of these films had re-releases:
Apocalypse Now:
USA 15 August 1979
USA 28 August 1987 (re-release)
Also found these box office numbers:
$78,784,010 (USA) (31 March 1980)
$322,489 (USA) (19 August 1979)
From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/releaseinfo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/releaseinfo)
The Three Variations
A.(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_No_Title.jpg)B.(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_Title.jpg)C.(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_NoWARN.jpg)
Two Others: Review and Advance
D.(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/Apoc_Advance.jpg)E.(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_Reviews.jpg)
I would say the B, C, and E came out at the same time having the same title text weight and size.... D has darker text and is in quotation marks...
Could one of the three variations be a re-release? If a movie is a re-release is there need for the title? All are folded image up so the title would help the exchange houses...
Need some zoomed in images of "Litho in US" I have Version C and it is GAUI logo.... So pre-1987/1983.... But why no NSS Warning?
Saving Private Ryan:
USA 24 July 1998
USA 5 February 1999 (re-release)
From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/releaseinfo (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/releaseinfo)
Check Dave's Explanation of the Dreamworks Line: http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/cine_S.htm#saving (http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/cine_S.htm#saving)
Could the low resolution line be the re-release being printed lower quality?
Just some thoughts....
-
There was only 1 poster printed for Saving Private Ryan. It was not reprinted for the AA re-release. I worked at DreamWorks at the time. If there is a variation, it is either a bad printing job, or a bootleg.
T
-
I'm convinced the Saving Private Ryan is a fake (http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Saving_Private_Ryan.html). The suspected reprint has fuzzy printing, the back of the reprint is an exact mirror image (the real one is lighter/whiter), and it is slightly cropped on the right. How many defects can be excused away?
(http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Saving_Private_Ryan_files/2.jpg)
-
I'm not involved in any of the above, but sometimes the same posters can be trimmed differently and the printing colours etc can also be different.
I'm kinda glad in a way I specialise in Bond, because you guys must send yourselves round the bend at times with all the suspected fakes and whatnot! Good work though!
-
Yep, It is quite difficult to fake older posters, I'm glad I don't buy much Modern stuff... I can sleep at nights.
-
Yep, It is quite difficult to fake older posters, I'm glad I don't buy much Modern stuff... I can sleep at nights.
With the bedding you could make out of all your quads, I too would sleep at nights! laugh1
-
Well I found a pic of the 1987 re-release from Dan's Auction; so count the three out for re-release. Why would there be three different printings?
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/Apoc1987.jpg)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Apocalypse-Now-ROLLED-27x41-1987-Reissue-Orig-Poster-/300580178189?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item45fbf9890d
-
Well, from your box office reports, it looks like it was in theaters the better part of 8 months (if not more). If I had to guess, which is all I can do, one poster was probably used for the first small LA/NYC release. Then the advance and another printing for the wide release. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the third poster was from a second printing after the movie lasted longer than expected or expanded to more theaters/markets than originally planned.
-
Well, from your box office reports, it looks like it was in theaters the better part of 8 months (if not more). If I had to guess, which is all I can do, one poster was probably used for the first small LA/NYC release. Then the advance and another printing for the wide release. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the third poster was from a second printing after the movie lasted longer than expected or expanded to more theaters/markets than originally planned.
C? So you think they generally removed the NNS warning on wider releases?
Well I did some statistic using Bruce's auctions...
Statistics for the Four Variations
A. No Title in Bottom Right with NSS Warning (15/54 = 27%) (Mod_Out 15/47 = 32%)
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_No_Title.jpg)
B. Title in Bottom Right with NSS Warning (34/54 = 63%). All rolled copies were from this version (14/34 = 44% were rolled) could be that Bruce got a batch here...
For Outlying rolled, remove half as adjustment (27/47 = 57%)
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_Title.jpg)
C. Title in Bottom Right without NSS Warning (4/54 = 7%) (Mod_Out 4/47 = 9%)
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_NoWARN.jpg)
D. No Title, No NSS (1/54 = 2%) (Mod_Out 1/47 = 2%)
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/apocalypse_now_INTL_NZ02319_L.jpg)
E. Re-release per Dan the Authenticator's Auction
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/Apoc1987.jpg)
Based on statistics I am leaning toward A (32% over 10 years) and B (57% over ten years) be the wide release versions, C (9% over ten years) being a limited release and D (2%) either a very first release/premier, international (no ratings box) or a fake...
Thoughts?
-
I'm convinced the Saving Private Ryan is a fake (http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Saving_Private_Ryan.html). The suspected reprint has fuzzy printing, the back of the reprint is an exact mirror image (the real one is lighter/whiter), and it is slightly cropped on the right. How many defects can be excused away?
(http://moviepostercollectors.com/MPC_Authentication_Saving_Private_Ryan_files/2.jpg)
So I got my latest gamble of a bad photographed Saving Private Ryan for $10 in the mail today. (and a DS Groundhog Day thumbup). Turned out to be totally legit; solid line and shaded backside. And in Vg-F condition. Go figure spend $30+ship on the first one that I thought was real (assuming it isn't). Got to love this hobby. So now, I can rest easy going into the next year that I at least have one or both original Saving Private Ryan poster(s)...
-
B. Title in Bottom Right with NSS Warning (34/54 = 63%). All rolled copies were from this version (14/34 = 44% were rolled) could be that Bruce got a batch here...
For Outlying rolled, remove half as adjustment (27/47 = 57%)
(http://www.chubbycharlies.com/Junk/APOC_Title.jpg)
Can anyone out there confirm the style of poster sent to academy voters? I have a suspicion that this version is the one sent out to voters...
-
Charlie, that paper in the top left states it was sent to Academy voters, and it was stapled on.
Also, I notice that there are clear differences in the eMoviePoster.com watermarks on many of your images. I suspect that those were NOT watermarked at one time, but were actually watermarked over a long period. What do you think?
-
Charlie, that paper in the top left states it was sent to Academy voters, and it was stapled on.
Also, I notice that there are clear differences in the eMoviePoster.com watermarks on many of your images. I suspect that those were NOT watermarked at one time, but were actually watermarked over a long period. What do you think?
I think that is awesome! It may be suggestible that the version with title bottom right and NSS warning would be the AA voters version. And I suppose that if there are staple holes in the upper left that seals it... And based on your database any rolled copy is with high probability an AA voter copy...
The fact that there are different water marks does suggest no specific cache of them so that even makes me more confident in these theories...