Monday, May 10, 2010

Monster Monday!

I said we'd start out this week's installment with "Revenge of the Creature" stuff, didn't I? More after the jump!

Argentina poster!


Next up, it's Rodan! Here's a flyer used to order promotional materials...

Rodan lobby cards!

Rodan presssheet!

Satanic Rites of Dracula Argentina poster!

Satanic Rites of Dracula Italian posters!

UK poster of some kind!

Scars of Dracula French poster!

Scars of Dracula Yugoslavian poster!

Scars of Dracula Italian poster!

A lobby card for The Screaming Skull!

Here's Mattel's Rodan action figure, which I've always thought of as part of their Shogun Warriors line!

Son of Dracula Mexican lobby cards! Wow, a lot of Drac stuff this week, eh?

Not sure of the origin of this poster for Son of Dracula...

Half-sheet? Anyone know for sure?

And with these stills from Son of Dracula, we'll wrap up this week's Monster Monday... next week, we'll start with Son of Frankenstein!


  1. okay okay.. i've asked before BUT:
    1) A Film is in Black and White, so stills and adverts are..
    + This makes sense.
    2) A Film is in Colour, but the stills and adverts are Black and White
    + This makes sense from the point of view of money. Black and White is cheaper
    3) A Film is in Black and White but the stills have been colorised
    + No major problem. Helps sell the film.
    4) A Film is in Colour BUT the stills have been taken to Black and White and then colorised
    +... EXPLAIN! Please can someone explain why turn a colour film into black and white and THEN re-add colour, which isn't as good..

  2. Two theories here:

    1) The stills from the color film were only produced in black-and-white for publicity purposes, and that's what the lobby card department had to work with... hence, the colorizing.

    2) Whatever reproduction method the lobby card people were working with wasn't going to allow for the use of color photographs.

    If it's not one of those, I'm sure there's some reason for it, perhaps not a logical one!

  3. yeah... I did think of an idea about money reasons but it would be a case of the money for colour stills for publicity vs the money for black and White stills PLUS the cost of someone colourising them... all in all.. i should have been cheaper to just used colour film, even if it wasn't the cheapest thing around..

    Anyone here worked in printing back in.. say, 1940-1955? some reason.. i kinda doubt it ¬_¬ I don't mean to be nasty, but i don't think you get many 70 year olds around here.

  4. You're probably right about that... I used to work in the printing industry, and from my own experience, any question about why something was done a particular way usually boils down to money.

    It was probably cheaper to get someone to do hand-tinting (possibly on the negatives used to make the printing presses for the lobby cards) than to have to get the color prints made and color-separated.

    I would hazard a guess that there was a basic four-color separation made for the lobby card frame, and then a negative of the black and white photo was inserted into the black negative, and then coloring was done on the other three plates (cyan, magenta, yellow). This would probably be cheaper than making an entire paste-up of multiple lobby card "frames" with the different photos in them. Multiple copies of the frame separations would've been cheap to make, as it would've just been a matter of shooting the one frame eight or 12 times (depending on the number of cards being issued).

    Today, of course, it would be simple to do it with desktop publishing programs, but of course, we don't use lobby cards these days, do we?

  5. These are amazing! I miss ACTUALL illustrations in movie advertising.

  6. I meant actual. I guess I also miss spell check.


Please keep your comments relevant, I delete all spam! Thanks.