Unicorns

[skyjackers]

So that's why your collection is so vast, you get your wife to print them for you. 

Maybe the Harry Potter's were printed for internal use only?

I have a few of these posters for different titles with 'questionable' origin. Some have small stickers from the design company on the back. They were also printed as wildings or banners but the versions I have are full sized 1-sheets that never made it to Cinemas.

It's a murky area for sure.

[eatbrie]

If it's murky, I don't buy.  My wife works for one of the largest video game companies in the world and you would not believe what she could print.  If I really like a poster that only exists online, all I need to do is send her a jpg and snap!, as good as if it was printed by a studio.  It's so easy.  I mentioned WB because I have a close friend working there.  If she doesn't know, that's means the Burbank studio did not print it.  That's enough for me.  The rest is too murky.

T

[marklawd]

Yes, I remember the origin of the Harry Potter banner prints I purchased from you - WB's Copenhagen office. This didn't surprise me because many of the rarer styles of movie poster I encounter are considered/intended for international markets. Stickers/notes on the reverse, which I prefer not to publicise, always help with provenance. It's certainly curious that no more of those Harry Potters hit the market following the high prices Bruce obtained for his batch.

Mark

[eatbrie]

That's where I personally draw the line.  Of course, it's all a matter of personal preference. 

If a poster was only printed by an affiliate, or a smaller distrib, to check its look and see if it would fit a given campaign, to be later discarded, then it doesn't belong in that campaign.  I know you like to collect those, Mark, and I know they sell for a lot of money, but it's endless.  I remember Match Point, at DreamWorks.  I probably saw 50+ posters that they printed for a 30mn meeting, to eventually settle on one.  All discarded designs, all in the trash.  That's where I draw my personal line... the posters have to be part of a campaign.  Again, personal preference.  Not judging.

Unfortunately, a lot of those posters, even more so with the likes of Egbert and Loce, don't even have a studio sticker.  They're just good reprints.

T

[skyjackers]

It's interesting hearing different opinions. For me I find these kinds of things fascinating. I would love to see these unused designs and see the progression to final poster. Having them in my collection would be even better.

Off topic I know but my personal line is Prints. I have 2 in my collection and only consider them relevant if they are released at the time of the films release, otherwise they're just too far removed.

I'm glad we're all different.

[guest4955]

The #1 modern MP "unicorn" IMO is the test/international/unreleased ESB poster (upper right).

EMP published this info in March 2017. It's consistent with my recollection of the info in the Star Wars Poster book, which I've lost somehow.

Artist: Roger Kastel

Important Added Info: This is an ultra rare Star Wars poster, that has quite a story behind it! In 2009, a Japanese collector discovered two examples of this poster. He sent one to eMoviePoster.com to auction, where it sold for $1,827 (to the world's number one Star Wars collector, Steve Sansweet), and the other was sold privately to Kevin Doyle, one of the world's other foremost Star Wars collectors at that time. At the time we auctioned the first example, we said that it could be a "bootleg" poster, or possibly a "test" poster, and since it was discovered in Japan, it seemed quite possible it was an "international" style. In 2015, the poster that Kevin Doyle purchased privately was consigned to us (like all of his Star Wars posters, he had had it linenbacked) [TSK: WHAT A BUFFOON!!!] and this second example of the poster auctioned for $5,450.

The poster features Roger Kastel's orignal art for this poster, but after he drew it, the studio decided it was "too busy", and they removed several of the elements from the poster (Lando, Boba Fett, Cloud City, and the ion cannon). So this poster was clearly produced BEFORE that decision was made, so how then could it be explained? After he purchased the poster from us, Steve Sansweet told us that he believes that it is absolutely an advance test poster made prior to the decision to alter the image (he knows that it is of such high quality that it surely was made from the original, and since the artwork no longer exists, it could not have been made at a later time).

At the time of the second auction in 2015, we were told by one of the leading Star Wars poster dealers that he knew of the existence of a total of six of these posters that had "surfaced" since the movie was made in 1980, and that three of them had originated in Japan, but that he did not know where they currently were or even if they still exist, and we can't comment on the accuracy of that information, although we trust the dealer, since he has been a major Star Wars poster dealer for many years.

A third example of this poster was consigned to us in 2016, and we auctioned it for $7,750. That made three examples of this poster that we had auctioned, two of which were linenbacked. Now, we have been consigned a fourth example, and this one is not backed (as two of the others we auctioned were). This makes the fourth time we have auctioned this exceedingly rare poster, and it is surely one of the most rare (and most desirable) Star Wars posters there is!

*****

Here's EMP's auction history:



*****

Cinemasterpieces also sold one:

http://www.cinemasterpieces.com/52017/esbint.jpg

Its copy was labeled "INTERNATIONAL" in the lower left:



*****

Thierry somehow acquired one - I'm 200,000 posts behind here maybe he publicized it here:

http://eatbrie.com/large_posters_files/Starwarsempirestrikesback41.jpg

*****

The recalled/revised poster (upper left) is not a unicorn but due to its "superior"art - dim your eyes T! - sells for $$$.

It was quickly withdrawn from theaters and replaced by another poster after Billy Dee Williams' agents objected to his omission from the poster.

[eatbrie]

No, I don't think I ever posted it on the forum.  I can't just post everything I acquire.  I pick and choose.  But maybe I did.  Can't recall.

What's interesting to me, looking at the two pictures you posted above, is that it explains the faint horizontal line that runs at the bottom of the Empire title on the left poster.  It's on all of them and I could never figure out what it was.  When cropped out, the original artwork, on the right, was obviously missing a bottom part, which was added later, thus creating a line on the poster.

T

[guest4955]

I've forgotten all the details but I recall that this was a "test" one sheet poster that either the studio or Zeta Jones rejected. However, a similar image was used on the int. one sheet:

[erik1925]

I can certainly see why the first one was given the "thumbs down"/rejected by Zeta-Jones. It's a very unflattering photograph.

[guest4955]

Being on Impawards doesn't make it official.  One of my problems with the site is that they don't filter and just post everything, whether it is printed or not.  I end up looking for posters that simply do not exist, so I stopped checking it.

T

In 2009 IMPAwards really flubbed when they chose this DP poster as the Best poster of 2009:



Turns out this poster was never distributed to theaters. The director (Terry Gilliam) kept the entire (500) print run.

So it's a unicorn for sure.

A few members of the TG fan club got them from DG in 2009.

Mark Lawd recently met TG and got one....

[Charlie]

I've forgotten all the details but I recall that this was a "test" one sheet poster that either the studio or Zeta Jones rejected. However, a similar image was used on the int. one sheet:

I thought it was an awesome poster and begged someone down under for a copy and paid a handsomely for it.

[guest4955]

Some of the Woodstock advance teaser one sheets are unicorns.

This version is quite rare but not unicorn rare:



These two versions are definitely unicorns:





*****

I'm pretty sure there is another advance but I can't find it....

[guest4955]

Years ago somebody on NS4 posted a WTB for the alleged "missing" 8th LC from Easy Rider. According to him, that card was not distributed to theaters bc it gave away the gruesome ending. He said he had fruitlessly looked for it for "years."

EMP did sell it twice last year, so it was printed and distributed to some theaters:



(image courtesy of HONDO.)






*****

No other trace of it in EMP/HA histories or currently on eBay:

[guest4955]

BH says:

Important Added Info: Note that this is an incredibly rare poster. It has full credits, so it is not a "teaser" poster. The "regular" poster has reviews on it, and because that is the only poster that most people (even advanced collectors) have ever seen, most would think that that was the ONLY one-sheet made for this movie when it was first released. However, this poster (which is review-free!) definitely predates the regular poster, making it the "pre-reviews" one-sheet, as opposed to the regular one, which should be called the "reviews" one-sheet. How do we know for sure that this poster predates the reviews one? Because in 1968, the MPAA added ratings to movies, and posters from movies after the ratings were added all have the well known ratings on them (but those were G, M, R, and X in 1968). In 1970, the M was changed to GP, and the R was changed from "persons under 16 not admitted" to "persons under 17 not admitted". This poster has the former rating, and the "reviews" poster has the latter rating, so we know that this poster was made in 1970 before the change, and the reviews poster was made later in 1970, after the change, when the movie was released. This poster is likely so rare because of a combination of factors. One reason was that the tagline "MASH gives a DAMN" was surely controversial at that time and likely was used as a tagline because the movie contained far more swear words than had been heard in any Hollywood movie to that time, including the "F" word (and rumor has it that Robert Altman wanted to have a "swear" word on the poster to emphasize that fact)! The other reason is that this movie was a surprise hit. Once rave reviews started coming in, Fox changed the marketing campaign to include the reviews. We have only once before auctioned this pre-reviews poster before, and that was in April 2017, but that example was in "fair" condition, because it had major tape staining throughout (and the example we are auctioning here is NOT that poster!). Note also that we have seen where two other examples were auctioned at another auction company, and both of those were incorrectly described as being used at the world premiere of the movie, which seems ridiculous on the face of it.

[guest4955]

SS tweeted this yesterday:

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Note also that we have seen where two other examples were auctioned at another auction company, and both of those were incorrectly described as being used at the world premiere of the movie, which seems ridiculous on the face of it.[/i]

oh yes.. it's totally ridiculous to have described this poster as a 'world premiere'
after all, does it indicate very obviously it was a world premiere anywhere on the poster
I can't see any such information..

oh.. wait........

and 'another auction company' is Heritage.
what do they know?
https://movieposters.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=790+231+54&Nty=1&Ntt=MASH+%2820th+Century+Fox%2C+1970%29&ic10=ArchiveTab-071515

[eatbrie]

SS tweeted this yesterday:

This is cool.  It's not good, but it's cool to see.  Thanks for posting.

T

[erik1925]

How is a "unicorn" poster truly known to be, when there is always the likelihood that another, as yet unseen copy (held by a private collector who hold his/her collection close to the vest and isnt a member of a forum, has no poster blog etc).

Or is that definition applied for those only known copies to have surfaced up to this point? (One of the most famous to be the Frankenstein 6 sheet that Steven Fishler is the prod owner of).



And as was discussed elsewhere, isnt it more apropos to describe a poster in those terms, rather than saying one has the last copy to exist, when that cannot ever be factually stated with certainty? (as is mentioned here):

[CSM]

Mel and hyperbole are like PB & J

[jayn_j]

How is a "unicorn" poster truly known to be, when there is always the likelihood that another, as yet unseen copy (held by a private collector who hold his/her collection close to the vest and isnt a member of a forum, has no poster blog etc).

Or is that definition applied for those only known copies to have surfaced up to this point? (One of the most famous to be the Frankenstein 6 sheet that Steven Fishler is the prod owner of).

And as was discussed elsewhere, isnt it more apropos to describe a poster in those terms, rather than saying one has the last copy to exist, when that cannot ever be factually stated with certainty? (as is mentioned here):

Seems that no known examples is not enough.  The poster in my avatar is the only known copy, but it is hardly a unicorn, as I doubt it is widely coveted.  I think there can even be a few copies as long as the demand is greater than supply by a very wide margin.

[erik1925]

Thanks, Jay.

So in your view, a "unicorn" poster also has desirability attached. Makes sense to me, too.

I guess I always thought that term was based on rarity alone, regardless of it being desired or of its value.

Be curious how others view this, too.

[erik1925]

I guess this could go here, too.

[okiehawker]

I guess this could go here, too.

Really cool with both Lugosi and Karloff with the evil hand!

[mcfree]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but a unicorn poster to me actually has two definitions. First, there are just "my unicorns", then there are the normal unicorns.

My personal unicorns are based purely on cost, nothing else. If there is a $10,000 poster out there that I really, really, like and want, it's a unicorn for me. This poster is technically, acquirable. Maybe, just maybe, if I saved diligently for 10 years strait, I could very well acquire it. So is it a stretch? Absolutely. But, indeed possible. Therefore, "my unicorns" are at the very edge of my financial reach.

Regular unicorns however have more layers of criteria. My thought process towards normal unicorns is that these poster for starters need to be much more then just rare. For they should always be financially elusive to average person/collector. Therefore, besides being rare, the poster should also be somewhere around 16K+, and of course be desirable as well. 

[crowzilla]

Is a unicorn still a unicorn if you are the only person who wants a poster?

As many know, I am a collector of Sheryl Crow memorabilia and there has only been one instance of being able to cross that over with movie posters. In 2004, Regal Cinemas had one of their special "One Night Only" events in 25 theaters and played Sheryl's C'mon America concert. I was able to get the single poster from both the Nashville and Knoxville, TN locations and spoke to fans who saw the film in 3 other locations that told me they did not even see a physical poster at the theater.

Maybe those locations got them and were not displayed? Not sure. But I have never seen one on ebay (and have it as a saved search in a few formats), Bruce has never auctioned one, and I've never seen a copy elsewhere. Were only 25 made for the individual theaters? No Idea.

But I also don't know if anyone else cares or even would desire a copy. So is it still a unicorn?