I seem to recall the pink M-rated daybill being described as a 1980 re-release. I don't have that one.
Thanks for responding Rick.
I cannot find any confirmation that any Australian re-release occurred in the 1980s. There is also no government censorship record located showing that the film was ever re-classified with an M certificate for theatrical exhibition. The only screening that I managed to locate was for a one only showing in Melbourne in 1986, when it was advertised classified with an R certificate.
The pink daybill is 13 1/4 x 30 in size, while daybills were generally around 13 1/4 x 26 3/4 in size in the 1980's.
Surely though the poster in question wasn't printed in 2003. Thanks for your contribution though.
Yes, unlikely, but the M could have been printed on later, doesn't look like it's integrated into the design at all. Might have been one of those pesky NZ blank classification daybills that was repurposed.
Yes, unlikely, but the M could have been printed on later, doesn't look like it's integrated into the design at all. Might have been one of those pesky NZ blank classification daybills that was repurposed.
A possibility I suppose. A very interesting poster this one is.
It would be great if another coly of the poster was available to check out. This pink poster was printed by MAPS so there should have been many other copies of this poster printed, either for Australia or NZ around. Surely you would have to think this to be the case, so where are they?
Looks like it was rated M in the early 2000s, maybe there was a gap at some point and it was replayed in cinemas in the 80s? Just guessing
I have ruled out the early 2000s as no government classification recorded with this rating during this period of time.
A wrong size daybill for this period of time, but most importantly virtually no daybills were being printed during this decade as they were almost completely fazed out.
Regarding the 1980's very little screening activity located during this time to warrant a new daybill being created. And there is still the problem with the M rating.
Looks like it was rated M in the early 2000s, maybe there was a gap at some point and it was replayed in cinemas in the 80s? Just guessing
I have ruled out the early 2000s as no government classification recorded with this rating during this period of time.
A wrong size daybill for this period of time, but most importantly virtually no daybills were being printed during this decade as they were almost completely fazed out.
Regarding the 1980's very little screening activity located during this time to warrant a new daybill being created. And there is still the problem with the M rating.
The daybill surely must be 1970s. The M rating is a mystery.
The daybill surely must be 1970s. The M rating is a mystery.
If the poster was printed in the 1970s as suggested it would have had to have been printed sometime between November 1971 when the M rating was first introduced and up to 1976 when the re-classified R certificate version was released. The look of the daybill does look like a 1970s poster.
My concern is the M rating, and why is this poster so rare with only two known copies sighted. If this poster was incorrectly printed with the M rating, then possibly withdrawn, why wasn't a replacement NRC version of the poster reprinted. This happening certainly doesn't appear to have been the case.
This poster really is a mystery and only one of numerous Australian film posters with undetermined release dates. Very frustrating, but this does make Australin poster dating fascinating, as well as being a huge challenge.,
There are so many errors with printings of Australian daybills that it really doesn't surprise me. Just found this NZ version from the Film Poster Gallery - 70s/80s re-release daybill.
It mentions that "the original rating has been deleted with black marker pen and a New Zealand 'A' ratings stamp has been added for local use.
This might be where the M confusion came from? Doesn't make me any the wiser though. That M rating is ported over from the US artwork, so possibly was added to a daybill printing by mistake???? Lots of mistakes....
Also found this one sheet with a MA rating, from the early 2000s apparently.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
Australian One Sheet
Re-release poster from the early 2000s for the restored, full version screening at the Astor Theatre in Melbourne.
This N.Z. printed re-release daybill, although advertised as being for The Good, The Bad And The Ugly is interesting for two reasons.
Firstly the artwork is a combination of two different Clint Eastwood western films The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and Hang 'Em High. Although he wore a similar hat in the two films the one featured on the N.Z. daybill appears to me to be the one he wore in Hang 'Em High which is slightly different than the other one that he used in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.
Secondly the censorship details crossed out are actually U.S.A. censorship details and not Australian.
Now my thoughts on the one sheet.
Another interesting poster. It has an MA rating classification printed on it. No Australian printer's credit, and what is ''the full version in English'' wording has one wondering what that is all about.
Chapel Distributors imported the film into Australia in 2003 when it was classified with an MA rating this time around. Seeing no United Artists or any other Australian distributor's credit appears on the poster it would appear to me to have been printed for the small independent Chapel Distribution re-release.
I would really like to know what the the above unreadable wording found on the bottom left hand side of the poster has to say.
The Astor release one sheet is mine. Was definitely only for the release at the Astor. I can't remember now if it was a giveaway at the screening or you had to buy it. The logo you refer to above reads Re-released thru CHAPEL DISTRIBUTION
So John's copy of the M rated GBU looks used with pin holes, so must of been screened somewhere. Is it possible there were screening of M and R rated versions?
I honestly have no idea....just putting it out there
The daybill I have is 13" x 30" and it has been used with pinholes, etc. The censor stamp is interesting. It seems to be a little smudged around the circle but its hard to tell whether it might have been added later and it seems to in the exact same place as the one Bruce sold. It would be interesting to see a high res image of Bruce's daybill to see whether the rating is smudged on that one. It is odd that the rating is so large. I do think the poster can only be from the 1970s
The Astor release one sheet is mine. Was definitely only for the release at the Astor. I can't remember now if it was a giveaway at the screening or you had to buy it. The logo you refer to above reads Re-released thru CHAPEL DISTRIBUTION
I have just finished speaking on the phone to someone who worked at Potential Distribution in 2003.
The following information you may find to be of interest. The film did receive some limited screenings in Australia, including in Sydney as well as in Melbourne.
I was informed that this notice referred to the fact that this was the first time that the original almost three hour full length English version was being screened in Australia,
So John's copy of the M rated GBU looks used with pin holes, so must of been screened somewhere. Is it possible there were screening of M and R rated versions?
I honestly have no idea....just putting it out there
Although there is no evidence to support this at all, it is looking possible that the M rated poster version was printed for some commercial screenings as suggested sometime in the 1970s.
Here's something then to have a think about. Was perhaps this poster printed for the lucrative at the time 16mm screening outlets. I am thinking perhaps this version was created for this purpose. Just a thought.
When was it rated NRC? I thought it was only an R or MA15+?
It was originally rated Not Suitable For Children in Australia in 1969. Government records show the first time that the film was re-classified was in 1976 when it received the R certificate classification. Therefore between 1969 and 1976 the film was rated firstly Not Suitable For Children then changing to it's new equivalent classification of NRC in November 1971.
If the poster in question was reprinted between November 1971 and 1976 when the film was re-classified the NRC rating should have been NRC one would have to believe.
I assume when it was rated NRC it was heavily edited? It's. big jump from NRC to R.
When screened in Australia in 1969 the then rated by the censor Not suitable for children film print ran 140 minutes and extremely heavily edited. The film was never officially granted an NRC rating, It automatically just switched over from Not suitable for children to NRC in November 1971.
The 1976 Australian released R rated version ran 161 or 162 minutes.
The 2003 MA version ran 171 minutes, It is claimed by the person I recently spoke to at Potential Distribution that this was the original full length international version.
A big difference of 31 or 32 minutes in length between the original 1969 Australian released print and the screened 2003 version.
Some information now located regarding The Good, The Bad And The Ugly running times.
In New Zealand in 1968 the N.Z. print was classified for exhibition with a running time of 156;26. The Australian released print from 1969 was only 140 minutes long, thus being 16 minutes and 26 seconds shorter than the N.Z. one.
Also in New Zealand in 2004 the film was submitted and classified R13 and uncut with a running time of 180.05. The 2003 Australian classified MA print which ran only 171 minutes and was advertised as being the full version. This would now turn out not to be the case as the N.Z, print had an additional 9 minutes and 5 seconds of running time.
I have previously read that the original Italian running time of the film was around three hours in length.
One final thought is the original Australia and New Zealand prints would have been the same version. With the N.Z. classification taking place in May 1968, and the delay in the Australian release not taking place until over a year later on July 21, 1969, censorship problems appear most likely to have been the reason for this difference occurring.
The Good The Bad and The Ugly daybill under discussion I will continue to search out for any more information. If anyone has any further thoughts regarding it I would like to hear them.
In the meantime the latest instalment in the Mad Max film series, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is soon to hit our cinema screens. Great poster design below. How big a hit do you think the film will be I wonder.
Comments
I cannot find any confirmation that any Australian re-release occurred in the 1980s. There is also no government censorship record located showing that the film was ever re-classified with an M certificate for theatrical exhibition. The only screening that I managed to locate was for a one only showing in Melbourne in 1986, when it was advertised classified with an R certificate.
The pink daybill is 13 1/4 x 30 in size, while daybills were generally around 13 1/4 x 26 3/4 in size in the 1980's.
Peter
It would be great if another coly of the poster was available to check out. This pink poster was printed by MAPS so there should have been many other copies of this poster printed, either for Australia or NZ around. Surely you would have to think this to be the case, so where are they?
A wrong size daybill for this period of time, but most importantly virtually no daybills were being printed during this decade as they were almost completely fazed out.
Regarding the 1980's very little screening activity located during this time to warrant a new daybill being created. And there is still the problem with the M rating.
My concern is the M rating, and why is this poster so rare with only two known copies sighted. If this poster was incorrectly printed with the M rating, then possibly withdrawn, why wasn't a replacement NRC version of the poster reprinted. This happening certainly doesn't appear to have been the case.
This poster really is a mystery and only one of numerous Australian film posters with undetermined release dates. Very frustrating, but this does make Australin poster dating fascinating, as well as being a huge challenge.,
It mentions that "the original rating has been deleted with black marker pen and a New Zealand 'A' ratings stamp has been added for local use.
This might be where the M confusion came from? Doesn't make me any the wiser though. That M rating is ported over from the US artwork, so possibly was added to a daybill printing by mistake???? Lots of mistakes....
Also found this one sheet with a MA rating, from the early 2000s apparently.
(1966)
Australian One Sheet
Re-release poster from the early 2000s for the restored, full version screening at the Astor Theatre in Melbourne.
Peter
This N.Z. printed re-release daybill, although advertised as being for The Good, The Bad And The Ugly is interesting for two reasons.
Firstly the artwork is a combination of two different Clint Eastwood western films The Good, The Bad And The Ugly and Hang 'Em High. Although he wore a similar hat in the two films the one featured on the N.Z. daybill appears to me to be the one he wore in Hang 'Em High which is slightly different than the other one that he used in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.
Secondly the censorship details crossed out are actually U.S.A. censorship details and not Australian.
Now my thoughts on the one sheet.
Another interesting poster. It has an MA rating classification printed on it. No Australian printer's credit, and what is ''the full version in English'' wording has one wondering what that is all about.
Chapel Distributors imported the film into Australia in 2003 when it was classified with an MA rating this time around. Seeing no United Artists or any other Australian distributor's credit appears on the poster it would appear to me to have been printed for the small independent Chapel Distribution re-release.
I would really like to know what the the above unreadable wording found on the bottom left hand side of the poster has to say.
Both the two posters were great finds by Peter.
Was definitely only for the release at the Astor.
I can't remember now if it was a giveaway at the screening or you had to buy it.
The logo you refer to above reads Re-released thru CHAPEL DISTRIBUTION
Is it possible there were screening of M and R rated versions?
I honestly have no idea....just putting it out there
The following information you may find to be of interest. The film did receive some limited screenings in Australia, including in Sydney as well as in Melbourne.
I was informed that this notice referred to the fact that this was the first time that the original almost three hour full length English version was being screened in Australia,
I remember this was a date night movie for me and the now hubby (then boyfriend) back in the day!
Gees, I miss going to the Astor, some great films and experiences there!
Here's something then to have a think about. Was perhaps this poster printed for the lucrative at the time 16mm screening outlets. I am thinking perhaps this version was created for this purpose. Just a thought.
Peter
Was it perhaps just a printing error, although surely an error would have been picked up before any poster distribution you would have to think.
Peter
Peter
If the poster in question was reprinted between November 1971 and 1976 when the film was re-classified the NRC rating should have been NRC one would have to believe.
Peter
The 1976 Australian released R rated version ran 161 or 162 minutes.
The 2003 MA version ran 171 minutes, It is claimed by the person I recently spoke to at Potential Distribution that this was the original full length international version.
A big difference of 31 or 32 minutes in length between the original 1969 Australian released print and the screened 2003 version.
Peter
In New Zealand in 1968 the N.Z. print was classified for exhibition with a running time of 156;26. The Australian released print from 1969 was only 140 minutes long, thus being 16 minutes and 26 seconds shorter than the N.Z. one.
Also in New Zealand in 2004 the film was submitted and classified R13 and uncut with a running time of 180.05. The 2003 Australian classified MA print which ran only 171 minutes and was advertised as being the full version. This would now turn out not to be the case as the N.Z, print had an additional 9 minutes and 5 seconds of running time.
I have previously read that the original Italian running time of the film was around three hours in length.
One final thought is the original Australia and New Zealand prints would have been the same version. With the N.Z. classification taking place in May 1968, and the delay in the Australian release not taking place until over a year later on July 21, 1969, censorship problems appear most likely to have been the reason for this difference occurring.
In the meantime the latest instalment in the Mad Max film series, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is soon to hit our cinema screens. Great poster design below. How big a hit do you think the film will be I wonder.