Production year ...

[Oliver Sodemann]

This movie

http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/view.mhtml?i ... ay_set=eng

has coverage in a "Cinemart" in March 1973.
So it is in fact shot this year. And I would not set
it on 1974.

Can someone tell me where this release date
from 1974 was found, on which reliable source?

I may be true, but I wouldn't tend to refer
to final release dates with movies in general.
The year, for me, is WHEN a movie was definately
made.

For example:
ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS by Chang Cheh was released in 1975,
but it is set on 1973 – which, for me, it absolutely right (as it gives the
right impression about a movie and its look or expression of a trend
in a year etc.), as it was definately shot in 1973.

[yukabacera]

The release date is from the HKFA, presumably. I've confirmed that it is correct. The field in our database is only called 'year', so neither the year of production nor the year of first release is definitely implied to be the more correct one. I think it makes more sense to use the year of first release (you've probably noticed me announcing my changes of many of them here in the forum) as the release date is usually precise data. A movie could get held up in post-production or simply have its release delayed for many reasons. Also, we rarely actually know the precise crank-in and crank-up dates, especially with HK films where production info can be very spotty. Is there anything in this issue of Cinemart, for example, that confirms that the film had finished shooting by the time it was covered by the magazine? I'm just asking out of curiosity: even if there were, it wouldn't be a good reason to make a definite change to the year.

On the matter of All Men Are Brothers - I did some cursory searching and couldn't find proof of a release before 1974. I'll look into it some more before proposing a change.

[Oliver Sodemann]

Thanks for commenting.

With years I always refer to printed books and list from the time
which I own – physically. Not just from the internet or from a database.

I own nearly all the mags from back then, the "Southern Screens",
the "Hong Kong Movie News", the "Golden Movie News", the "Cinemarts",
the "Milky Ways", the "Interational Screens" (going from Cathay into
Yangtze Productions), and many "Movie News". The "Movie News" are
small little books, showing from week to week what was in the cinema.
(Maybe that is not ultimately confirmed, but the nearest one can get
to reality.)

I own also two Taiwan book, no fakes, with release dates from 1949
or something like this up to the early 80s, which week by week just
naming when it was shown in Taiwan. With the exact date. Why is this?
Because the very old author, I met him in Taiwan around 2006, has simply
written down any newspaper info he had – owning all newspapers himself
from childhood. The man is called Huang Jen (I would have to re-check),
and he did the same with a very thick book just enlisting all Hong Kong
and Taiwan actor-directors with little portrait images. And adding
only some movies to each person, but also directly taken from newspaper
infos. The first one also includes any re-release in Taiwan.

I also own a book with all releases in Chinese order,
beginning with titles with one stroke up the the most
strokes. Release dates below. Of course, there is some double-check
needed, but in general they are the most reliable sources I ever
found. BOOKS! Before the internet. As the internet is what people
put in, with more or less care. (I found a year here, regarding GOLD
CONSTABLES, which was "1981". But the movie IS from 1978. I could
track down the data base where this wrong data came from. Besides
that, one can tell, by the look of a movie etc. that a movie cannot
be from a certain year, with utmost sureness. I will add a review
soon of an unfinished movie that cannot be from the year the
company not even existed. So you can deduce things, too.)

So, the genesis of of data in the internet is books and magazines
edited by the time. That is what the HKFA does. They put the info
from mags, lobbies etc. into their data banks. But they are no fans
or afficionados like we are here, they are "just" employed. With some
experts like Law Kar from the very old days. I have met them all, too.
Everybody has his field of expertise, nobody can cover all.

My core expertise is Kung Fu and swordplay movies of the 70s,
and other genres of that time I can also check on. The problem is:
I can name and comment something, with pretty much care, but I cannot
proof each case everytime why a movie has this or that alias or year
IN THE FORUM. This is a time-eate, I want to do other things here
smoothly and quickly.

It is not that I like to have proofs just from others in long discussions,
whereas I do not want to name my sources. It is just about enter
anything here with a proof others can see and track down if they
want. Aliases without any comment or hint are like "hell"
(you can specify "alias", and then instead of "alias" something else is
shown, and not "alias", "alias", "alias" etc.; if there is a picture with
every alias, other can see it and no questions coming up. Basic trust
in every editor who does not give "blind data".)

I have also uploaded proof with the year of ONE-ARMED AGAINST
NINE KILLERS, showing the mags. But I cannot do it each time,
or better: each lifetime that it would last to do this with every
correction I want to have and that is pretty safe info.

By now, I do not scan anything from my collection, and that is
not my goal. But I can judge if I see lobbies in the net compared
to mine, if they are real stuff (since Celestial opened its gates
with stills flooding the internet, fake lobbies came in! I will
upload some examples, not too much, because there are not
real for me, but with a comment on them, that they did not
exist back then. To give private design things more space here
would not be my understanding of our approach here.

There is another phenomena that made me a little bit upset:
The filmographies that the HKFA edited based, in a few cases
on wrong data here, with some original titles. As they did not
have the time or the mags. I discovered some mistakes in their
books, but what can we do? (I think one case was NINJA KILLER,
they made it the main entry but this was late hybrid of KUNG
FU ON THE BOSPORUS – unproofed title, never seen that on a
poster, but it was on some card with our distributor here –
or better KUNG FU INSTANBULDA.)

What exactly would be a confirmation to you that a movie was finished
by the time it was in a mag? In general it was. It had colour coverage,
a poster and everything printed. And there are existing lobbies.
Talking about CONCRETE JUNGLE they shot it in March 1973,
and had reasons to hold it back. Stopped productions you can
recognize, like TEN TIGERS OF KWANTUNG from Chang Chen and
some others that had difficulties. Unfinished movies you can recognize
if there not any ad came up in four decades, no lobbies, no poster etc.
besides a one-time coverage in a mag (not being in the above-mentioned
"Movie Story"), VAGABOND HUSTLERS by Wu Ma would be such a case,
or THE WHIRLWIND KICK or SIGN OF THE EAGLE from Shaws. You can
tell from the mags. Of course, the journalists in many cases visited
production sets, but with smaller companies they would have just
send some material, for one-time coverage.

That ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS was released in 1975, two years after
shooting is a fact. It was in a reliable list in a HK festival catalogue.
These printed sources were very true. The best one can have.

That it was in the "Southern Screen" more than once, like they propelled
their movies with coverage each and every issue until finished, ... back
in early 1973, of course alongside DELIGHTFUL FOREST and WATER MARGIN,
is a fact, too. The reason that did not release it can be various due to
cinema history. Maybe the time was over for the moment for period
movies with Bruce Lee coming in, maybe some censorship thing, I had
my discussions with a friend about it. Maybe something was written
in the Chinese text, but in the bio from Chang Cheh you could not find
too much on some special things – my favorite conundrum is the deleted
scenes from BLOOD BROTHERS by Chang Cheh. Shown in the mags too,
I will soon do some uploads. But there is a connection that many actors
left at the time, and some movies begun with certain actors had to be
re-shot ... DUEL FOR GOLD, IRON BODYGUARD showing other actors
in the beginning on stills.

So, my point was not that ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS should be set
to "1975" – as I sense "year" as the "year of production". Not year of
release. If someone tells you, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS is from 1975,
how would you interprete this as a visitor or someone not knowing
much of the genre? – Please leave "1973" untouched, I will complain!

Last thing, by the way: Celestial edited some books back then with
the DVD release of the Shaw library. One was just an enlisting of
when a movie was in their "Southern Screen" magazine. You could
see every issue with all the movies enlisted.

Thank you for reading,
Oliver

[yukabacera]

bkasten stated, and dleedlee and calros agreed that the 'year' should be the year of theatrical release:
viewtopic.php?p=42700#p42700
viewtopic.php?p=42678#p42678
viewtopic.php?p=54289#p54289

while in this thread editors agreed via poll it should be the year of the first theatrical release anywhere, not just HK:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=43768

If any of them have changed their mind on this, of course, I would like to hear it. Anyway, I wouldn't really say color stills or a poster are proof that a film was finished at the time. After all, you've pointed out yourself that sometimes we can find stills from films that were never finished and released. In any case, as I said, I only asked out of curiosity. I think you misunderstood my point about All Men Are Brothers - I don't want to change its year to 1975, but 1974 (unless I can find a 1973 release date, but that seems unlikely.)

[bkasten]

Yes, this general rule still applies:

Post by bkasten » 30 Apr 2005 14:40
"Yes, it should always year of "theatrical release". Sometimes that may not be altogether clear so a best guess needs to be made."

[Oliver Sodemann]

(I discovered, that I only saved this post, and hadn't sent it yet.)

So, honestly, exactly due to SUCH cases,
ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, I don't like the theatrical
release-rule.

The assumption for a layperson, seeing a year in the entry's
brackets, is: "made in ...", not "released in".

But there would be a simple solution to this,
which would do justice to both – making movie history
transparent (sorry, my key word!):

"Theatrical run" is "theatrical run". Leave it where it is.
But directly behind the movie in brackets you would
have the year of the beginning of shooting (proven by
magazins).

e.g. –> THE CONCRETE JUNGLE (1973; March in a mag) / Theatrical Run: 03/14/1974 - 03/18/1974

–> ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS (1973) / Release Date: 05/10/1975

Uups, with the latter, as I just saw, it is perfectly alright with me.
It is already in the database like this.
The editor who did this entry was totally aware of it.

What is to say against that modification of the rule?
(I would like to have the point here – not just a referrence
to a rule. Thanks!)

A year behind a title in brackets simply prompts
to most people, I am convinced: "from/shot in".

With a modification about the rule, we could make a more efficient use
of the option "theatrical run/release date" on one hand, and the year
in brackets on the other hand. It is still all there.

Unfinished movies are likewise: They were shot or begun by the time
they appeared in a mag.

Finally, how would we handle the "hybrid" TEN TIGERS OF KWANGTUNG
by Chang Cheh? Production stopped for two or three years, I would have
to re-check it exactly. But only this explains why there is (still) a Wei Pai
in the movie. You cannot reveal that to people with just a release date
much later. (The whole frame plot with flashbacks was not the original
plan of the movie.)

I feel obliged to movie history, its backgrounds and coherencies.

Even the filmography books from the archive give the same
(wrong) impression ... (naming a release date of CONCRETE JUNGLE
in 1977, due to some Taiwan release. I do not exactly know if it was
this movie, but a simlar case. – In Germany, due to release dates,
we would have to put "1974" in backets regarding ONE-ARMED
SWORDSMAN!)

A release date for me is a refining info, something additional,
some adjunct.

In my opinion we have the chance to do better here.

________

I have researched the case of ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS today:

The movie was begun in November 1971, then it was first
covered in "Southern Screen". Together with DELIGHTFUL FOREST
and WATER MARGIN, of course.

Production stopped, as Shaws big hit BOXER FROM SHANTUNG
was begun. ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS was finished at the beginning
of 1973, finally. Then it became its Shaw production number in their
catalogue.

I have a copy of that list. There you can see the order of
finished movies and when finally.

The movie was shown in November 1974 in Singapore (? I do not know
exactly which market these posters with printed numbers on it were for ...),
as you can see here:

http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/image_detail ... ay_set=eng

[yukabacera]

The assumption for a layperson, seeing a year in the entry's brackets, is: "made in ...", not "released in".

A year behind a title in brackets simply prompts to most people, I am convinced: "from/shot in".

Even if this were true, which I very much doubt it is, what the average moviegoer thinks has little to do with what we do here. Many average moviegoers don't even know or care about who writes or directs the films they watch, much less whether the film was shot this year or the year before. There are many changes we could implement to satisfy this hypothetical everyman and I believe all of them would make the database worse.

I feel obliged to movie history, its backgrounds and coherencies.

A release date for me is a refining info, something additional, some adjunct

The release date or year is about as basic and essential as you can get when it comes to info on a particular film. Movies are made to be distributed. Studios shoot and release them to make money. (There is a "box office" field in the DB too.) Anyone can think otherwise if he wants to, but such thoughts have no bearing on reality.

The movie was shown in November 1974 in Singapore

It opened July 1974 in Singapore and February 1974 in the US. I could not find evidence of any earlier showings.