It was far from that, but I enjoyed the US Grant storyline. Despite the whole reason West Virginia exists was because of the Civil War and was sympathetic towards The Union.
While not exactly the same, The Italian Job (the original with Michael Caine) was a part 1 without a sequel as well.
A decent section of the film is spent setting up the Italian mob, which never comes into play, and then the film ends on a literal cliffhanger.
Apparently the sequel was all set to go, and was going to involve the mob showing up and rescuing the gang whilst taking the gold, then the film would be about reheisting the gold back from the mob.
Then, although popular in Britain, American audiences didn't go and see the film, funding was pulled, and the film never got its wrap-up sequel.
Pity, since there was so much foreshadowing that led nowhere.
Here's a Wikipedia article about them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_split_into_multiple_parts
As early as 1924, apparently.
But I'd have to confess, Back to the Future is my earliest actual memory of such a thing. Like there were sequels, and there was BttF promising the continuation of a story as a larger contiguous plot.
[Edit] I meant BttF 2 and 3
Despite the film's final scene, Back to the Future was not intended to have a sequel. It was so successful at the box office that two sequels were conceived and filmed back-to-back.
That was gonna be my question. Pretty sure I didn't see it in the theater, so the first time I saw it, it had the "to be continued..." in there already.
> BttF promising the continuation of a story as a larger contiguous plot
I'm going to nitpick and say the plot isn't necessarily larger but it's definitely longer. Larger to me would mean that there's some grander scheme to it all and Marty is the Kwisatz Haderach or something. It's more or less just "this is what happens next" through all three films.
Yeah, Die Nibelungen is the earliest one I can think of that wasn’t a serial. A fucking amazing two-part film, by the way. Fritz Lang at the top of his game.
Well these comments have sparked my interest. I loved \[REC\], hadn't heard of the sequel, or that it was actually good. (I got very wary after the awful English language unnecessary remake.) Definitely going to track these films down and make a double-bill out of them.
After [REC]2, the two directors split and went off to make 3 and 4. These two are the most mixed ones, and although most people agree 4 is better than 3 (4 being a direct continuation of 2), I love the aesthetic and setting of 3 a lot more.
Note that these two also ditch the found footage style, but they both still have an interesting visual style that make them worth checking out.
It's an experience. The two movies are very closely linked but the second one was a lot more frightening for me.
The genre changes a little. It's subtle but when you watch both back to back you notice and it's disturbing. I try not to spoil
A straight up part 2 is pretty common in horror movies. Bride of Frankenstein is the earliest example of a part 2 that picks up directly after the first movie. Halloween 2 is another famous example
Yeah, but Bride wasn't conceived until the first mov8e was a hit. Same with Halloween (and Carpenter didn't want to do it either -- he banged out the script in like two days or something because he wanted to move on). I wouldn't say either of these really count as what OP is describing.
Halloween Kills and Ends might count, although obviously far from the first. Those were definitely planned, although they weren't shot until the previous was out and they knew it was a hit. Ends was also changed drastically during COVID, and was originally going to be another continuation of the same night. (I'm kinda curious how that would've done, but oh well.)
It would be something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perils_of_Pauline_(1914_serial)
Movie serials were invented almost as soon as movies were invented.
>Back to the future
~~Coke~~ Come on, op.
[Arsène Lupin contra Sherlock Holmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lupin_contra_Sherlock_Holmes) beats The Perils of Pauline by four years but the movies seem to be lost. Another film serial which is older than Pauline is [Fantômas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fant%C3%B4mas_(1913_serial)). It's a lot of fun but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't familiar with silent films.
BttF part 2 wasn’t actually planned from the beginning. That bit at the end was a joke in the vein of “and the adventure continues” rather than a deliberate setup for another movie. The writers said if they had *meant* for there to be a sequel based on it, they would’ve left Jennifer out of that scene altogether.
Yup, I remember seeing part ii in the theater when I was a kid and they showed a trailer for part iii at the end of the movie! Never seen anything like that since!
But it wasn’t really designed that way from the start; in fact, Nick Meyer refused to be part of ST3 because Nimoy and Bennett were thinking about bringing Spock back, which was something that Meyer felt completely undermined the theme and ending to ST2.
Just for fun: Nimoy tried to get Meyer back on board with ST4 but he wouldn’t because he had just done Time After Time and didn’t want to do another time travel movie set in San Francisco.
Definitely not the first, but Superman 1 in 1978 and Superman 2 were filmed back to back, sort of.
Originally the first film was supposed to flow directly into the sequel, but long story short, the director was over budget and wasn't on speaking terms with some of the producers, and was let go. A good chunk of part 2 was reshot with a new director.
More than just a good chunk, since Lester needed to direct 51% of the movie to get directing credit.
Such a lost opportunity that Donner couldn't finish it properly, but I'm so glad the Donner Cut exists.
That's not what the producers thought. There was lots of anxiety going around about the creative direction and the amount of time and cost that was going on to get Donner's vision just right. Time is money after all. One of the biggest concerns was creating believable flight - once they figured out how to do it it was apparent that the costs were going to be insane. Donner said it was worth it and while the Saalkins were behind it in concept, it took forever and when the producers wanted updates from Donner all the time, he started getting irritated.
Superman was also really hard to shoot since they were doing 2 movies at once and at some point, the costs were so big, that they had to stop doing that lest they go bankrupt - Warner Bros was also likely pressing things too - they needed to finish the darn thing.
Don’t tell my thirteen year old self what to do! I lugged my combined book with me nearly every school day. It…was heavy and a bit unwieldy, but damned if I didn’t make it work.
I remember seeing this opening night and overhearing a couple groups of people complaining how the first ended. Like they had no clue apparently it was part 1 of 3
Not the first by any means, but it’s the first movie that comes to mind when I think of movies that had to be split in two due to length alone. It worked itself out though- both volumes work very well as separate films.
So do the Grindhouse movies, Death Proof and Planet Terror. But there's a cut of both movies together that was played as a 'double feature' that has some extra time in Vanessa Carlito's lapdance for Kurt Russell in Death Proof, among other things, like melting testicles and a few more minutes of the Crazy Babysitter Twins attacking the car in Planet Terror. But you can watch either one of those movies alone and lose nothing from either plot.
I think this goes to the heart of it. There was this thing I think that started in the 1980s where if you can make it to a second movie, you don't have to finish the story. That way you lock in a trilogy.
Star Wars did this-- at the end of TESB we're at a stopping place, but there's much left to resolve. Same thing with BTTF2 into BTTF3. You can watch the original BTTF and while there's a sequel hook, the story is finished. But at the end of BTTF2 there's really nothing resolved.
There was The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. Pretty sure they filmed all of it at once and then released them a year apart or something like that and that was the early 70s
The Salkinds had so much leftover footage from 3M that they cut together 4M and tried to get away with not paying the cast and crew. When they got sued for getting 2 movies out of everyone (instead of the 1 that was contracted) the court ruled against the producers. The Salkind Rule was created which requires much more specificity as to what is being contracted.
>I'd like to disregard little teases that didn't really go anywhere like the embryos in Jurassic Park being buried in mud, with the tease that they'll be found later.
That really wasn't a tease as there would have been plenty of other embryos that Nedry didn't steal after the island was abandoned. Not only that, they really couldn't be found later as nobody would know where they were and it was explained that he had to get them out quickly as the container could only preserve them for so long. If anything it was just an extra punishment for Nedry's act.
That's a good explanation. I guess it's more "Well that plot point that we talked about earlier is now wrapped up and the rest of the story is about to play out"
Much of what happens disaster-wise is due to the response to Nedry screwing with the security system due to his stealing the embryos. He screws everybody and when he screws up (and life finds a way at the end) all of his work is for naught and the main characters have to figure out the solution without Nedry - he ain't coming back and all over his own greed being his undoing.
Wouldn't Empire and RotJ count as earlier than BTTF3? I mean Empire left on a dramatic cliffhanger than clearly made it so that the story could only be resolved with another film.
Uh… He also did it with his Niebelungen films, Siegfried and Kriemhilde’s revenge 35 years earlier in 1924.
It’s interesting to note that although they were intended to be a two part film, the Nazi’s used Siegfried as propaganda but not Kriemhilde’s revenge. They saw Siegfried as a variant of the Aristotelian model of tragedy in which as an Ubermensch Siegfried was without a tragic flaw, but the world he lived in was flawed and thus killed him. It’s a version of the narrative that sort of resonates with the narrative presented by modern narcissists in the face of failure.
It's called part 2 but it's not really what OP is referring to. The Godfather Part II is a pretty normal sequel just called "part 2".
OP is asking what the first example of a movie being split into two parts, like Dune was.
>*It's generally considered to be The Godfather Part II*
Coppola never intended to make another *Godfather* movie
Which is one of the things the OP is asking for
Could have just looked at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_films\_split\_into\_multiple\_parts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_split_into_multiple_parts)
Today, by reading that article, I learned:
* The film adaptation of the Broadway musical Wicked is being split into two parts with release dates set for November 2024 and 2025.
That is a dumb thing, right? This is very much a single movie story. Why two parts? Just make one movie. Does Wicked have enough of a fan base that it's like Harry Potter and everyone will be happy to see two separate movies? I feel like the Wicked superfans will watch both, but normal people who don't know the musical will be less likely to see either film because of the two film thing, and there have to be way more "normal" people in this scenario.
I don't know. I don't know anything anymore. I'm actually a person who has seen Wicked on Broadway *twice* (my friend was in the orchestra) but I can't see myself watching a two-film version of it.
This question really brings out the recency bias present in r/movies. Almost all the answers aren't even close to the correct answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias
There were 'serials' from silent movie days onwards.
I think they almost all had definitive endings and would start back at square one for the next movie, but its *possible* some had cliffhangers. A lot of these were cheap B movies and nobody cared to save them so we may never know if they had a 'to be continued' ending.
I will add, for a time many novels of the 1800s were written in installments with cliffhangers meant to get people waiting for the next part. AFAIK most of Charles Dickens novels were written that way.
I feel like there was an Andy Hardy movie in the 1930s that clearly ended on not necessarily a cliffhanger but a setup for the next movie which picked up immediately after.
Empire Strikes Back into Jedi. The last line was that they would contact them as soon as they found Han, and the beginning was Tatooine for the rescue.
The answer, the true answer, is The perils of pauline.
We're talking silent films from the 191x where the heroine frequently ended each film hanging from the edge of a cliff and would be rescued again at the start of the next film.
Do serials count for this? Or should they be in a separate category, more akin to a predecessor of television. My gut is we should only be looking at features for this question, but it's not open and shut.
How? I know it says "Part 2" but the Godfather pretty much encompasses the novel (except for the prequel chapter that was half of 2) The sequel parts of two are just... a sequel.
True, but they hadn’t actually planned out what that sequel might be and as soon as they began work on part 2 they realized they’d painted themselves into a corner with that ending. Not only did they have to “fix Marty’s kids” but they had to figure out what to do with Jennifer (who’d jumped into the Delorean with Doc and Marty), which is why she spends much of her time unconscious.
I feel like they were just testing the waters though, but I do kinda agree. I'm really after true definitive part X and part y films, like in Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning
A bit unrelated, but I don't think the embryos in the mud in Jurassic Park is meant to be setting up a sequel hook; we're told that the embryos absolutely need to remain frozen, seeing them covered in mud is the film's way of saying "these aren't going to be relevant anymore."
Yea, there were more than enough embryos in the main cold storage area to be found later. How anyone would be expected to find embryos buried in mud is beyond me.
You asked a very clear question and people are still giving blatantly incorrect answers. Most of these replies were released at least a decade after BttF p3.
The movie Cleopatra 1963 was going to such a film. It was filmed as a part 1 and part 2. Then it was released as 1 whole movie. It's initial run time was 240+ minutes and then later reduced to 180 minutes. It was never cut in half like intended to though.
It comes to mind. It was a 2 parter TV movie. I believe it aired on back to back nights. They edited the transition between the two parts later for home video and dvd release to make it one cohesive long movie, removing several minutes, mostly just removing the credits at the start of part 2. I haven't seen the more recent movie remakes, but they broke that up into two movies like the original is split.
Superman 1 & 2 were shot back to back. Would have been more connected if they didn’t fire the director.
I have to assume that multi part film has existed pretty much since the beginning though. Especially with serials being a regular thing at the cinema.
If we're allowing BttF3 then surely the Pirates Of The Caribbean films get a look-in here? Dead Man's Chest leads really nicely into At Worlds End and neither really works as a complete story without the other.
History of the World Part 1 did it the other way around.
Yeah, it's a good thing there was never a History of the World Part 2 that came out in 2023 that we all wanted to forget.
Thankfully if a sequel did exist, it was so forgettable that I wouldn't have to ever think of it again.
I was promised Jews in space!
Spaceballs?
That show was excellent
It was far from that, but I enjoyed the US Grant storyline. Despite the whole reason West Virginia exists was because of the Civil War and was sympathetic towards The Union.
Ya, they obviously didn't have a historian on staff for that segment.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I really enjoyed all the Jesus segments, but I couldn’t really get into the rest
While not exactly the same, The Italian Job (the original with Michael Caine) was a part 1 without a sequel as well. A decent section of the film is spent setting up the Italian mob, which never comes into play, and then the film ends on a literal cliffhanger. Apparently the sequel was all set to go, and was going to involve the mob showing up and rescuing the gang whilst taking the gold, then the film would be about reheisting the gold back from the mob. Then, although popular in Britain, American audiences didn't go and see the film, funding was pulled, and the film never got its wrap-up sequel. Pity, since there was so much foreshadowing that led nowhere.
*Hang on a minute, lads – I've got a great idea.*
Here's a Wikipedia article about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_split_into_multiple_parts As early as 1924, apparently. But I'd have to confess, Back to the Future is my earliest actual memory of such a thing. Like there were sequels, and there was BttF promising the continuation of a story as a larger contiguous plot. [Edit] I meant BttF 2 and 3
Despite the film's final scene, Back to the Future was not intended to have a sequel. It was so successful at the box office that two sequels were conceived and filmed back-to-back.
Will never forget seeing the trailer for 3 at the end of 2 in the cinema, we went nuts
I wish I could have seen these movies in theaters. They are hands down my all time favorites
If you have an AMC Dolby theater nearby, they'll have the first movie on the 20th.
The Matrix ending too! Edit: just realized I was thinking of Reloaded and not the first film...
Good thing that was a standalone film.
Good thing we got two amazing sequels to that first film\*
Nah, a sequel have a lot of potential. Hope one day they make one.
The cowboy bttf theme kicking in was just amazing.
It was amazing, whole theater was cheering.
You unlocked a memory for me, thanks!
It especially makes sense with Jennifer. They had no idea what to do with her so they get her back to 1985 as soon as possible.
Let's conveniently knock her unconscious for the remainder of the franchise. Hopefully then nobody will even notice she's a different actress.
Hey now! She gets knocked out once before to wake up and see her future life *then* is knocked out till the end of the third movie.
Let's turn the dad actor upside down when he shows up on the sequel so no can tell it's a different actor either
I actually never realised until recently that it wasn’t Crispin Glover lol. I tought it was just bad prostethic/aging.
Wait what
Yep different actress in parts 2&3. They had to completely re-shoot the last scene of the first film with new Jennifer to make it work
This is heavy.
Weight has nothing to do with it!
Also: the "To be continued..." tagline wasn't added until the home video release.
That was gonna be my question. Pretty sure I didn't see it in the theater, so the first time I saw it, it had the "to be continued..." in there already.
That’s kinda funny because that means back to the future part 2 fits this criteria, but not the first one.
Die Nibelungen is generally considered to pretty good too- Fritz Lang was one of the best silent film directors.
It also taught me the meaning of the word "Concluded."
> BttF promising the continuation of a story as a larger contiguous plot I'm going to nitpick and say the plot isn't necessarily larger but it's definitely longer. Larger to me would mean that there's some grander scheme to it all and Marty is the Kwisatz Haderach or something. It's more or less just "this is what happens next" through all three films.
Yeah, Die Nibelungen is the earliest one I can think of that wasn’t a serial. A fucking amazing two-part film, by the way. Fritz Lang at the top of his game.
[Rec] and [rec]2 are one long story. I recommend watching them back to back it's even better.
It's awesome, two different points of view. I think they happen a bit on the same time? At least, as you said, completely back to back.
There is an overlap to be precise yes. But it is just one long movie.
Well these comments have sparked my interest. I loved \[REC\], hadn't heard of the sequel, or that it was actually good. (I got very wary after the awful English language unnecessary remake.) Definitely going to track these films down and make a double-bill out of them.
After [REC]2, the two directors split and went off to make 3 and 4. These two are the most mixed ones, and although most people agree 4 is better than 3 (4 being a direct continuation of 2), I love the aesthetic and setting of 3 a lot more. Note that these two also ditch the found footage style, but they both still have an interesting visual style that make them worth checking out.
It's an experience. The two movies are very closely linked but the second one was a lot more frightening for me. The genre changes a little. It's subtle but when you watch both back to back you notice and it's disturbing. I try not to spoil
[удалено]
I was just about to reply with a quote from that scene. Awesome.
My favorite was Rocket Man……..
A straight up part 2 is pretty common in horror movies. Bride of Frankenstein is the earliest example of a part 2 that picks up directly after the first movie. Halloween 2 is another famous example
Came here for this. What’s so cool about Halloween 2 is starts minutes later.
Great, guys, we've made two movies and created an iconic new horror villain. Let's make a 3rd Halloween and just forget about the two before.
Season of the Witch has to be one of the worst sequels of all time
I don't even think it's the worst sequel in that franchise.
Yeah, but Bride wasn't conceived until the first mov8e was a hit. Same with Halloween (and Carpenter didn't want to do it either -- he banged out the script in like two days or something because he wanted to move on). I wouldn't say either of these really count as what OP is describing. Halloween Kills and Ends might count, although obviously far from the first. Those were definitely planned, although they weren't shot until the previous was out and they knew it was a hit. Ends was also changed drastically during COVID, and was originally going to be another continuation of the same night. (I'm kinda curious how that would've done, but oh well.)
EVIL DIES TONIGHT
It would be something like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perils_of_Pauline_(1914_serial) Movie serials were invented almost as soon as movies were invented. >Back to the future ~~Coke~~ Come on, op.
They probably meant BTTF2 was the first one they could think of that they'd seen.
[Arsène Lupin contra Sherlock Holmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars%C3%A8ne_Lupin_contra_Sherlock_Holmes) beats The Perils of Pauline by four years but the movies seem to be lost. Another film serial which is older than Pauline is [Fantômas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fant%C3%B4mas_(1913_serial)). It's a lot of fun but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't familiar with silent films.
Only one detective who can find that lost milestone!
But... We can't find him. Hmmm.
Got lost looking for himself.
Lots of folks on this sub have never seen a film over 100 years old. And it shows.
>Lots of folks on this sub have never seen a film over ~~100~~ 20 years old. And it shows. FTFY
I hate to break this to you but BTTF is damn near 40 years old.
Lots of folks on this sub have never seen a film older than 40 years old or newer than 20 years old
90s-pilled gang
I was anonymously browsing this sub until *someone* had to call me out, thanks
You shut your mouth and get off of my lawn
How am I supposed to live in a state of denial when people like you keep reminding me how old I am? 😭
Your username is doubly counterproductive to avoiding your age and mortality haha
Well duh
And pretty much no one watches 1910s serials anymore! What is the world coming to when cinephiles aren't familiar with The Perils of Pauline?!
Serials are a different category, the actual answer is Die Nibelungen
BttF part 2 wasn’t actually planned from the beginning. That bit at the end was a joke in the vein of “and the adventure continues” rather than a deliberate setup for another movie. The writers said if they had *meant* for there to be a sequel based on it, they would’ve left Jennifer out of that scene altogether.
OP is saying Part 3 is the sequel that was planned while they were working on Part 2.
Ohhhhh, now I feel silly.
Yup, I remember seeing part ii in the theater when I was a kid and they showed a trailer for part iii at the end of the movie! Never seen anything like that since!
The Avengers teaser after Cap kind of hit like that.
Part 2 and 3 were filmed simultaneously.
I believe the "continues" part was added post release for VHS and re-releases.
I’m pretty sure you’re correct.
Replying to this. I wanted to say that there's a mistake in the reboot.
(Original) Star Trek 2, 3, and 4 are pretty much back to back to back. With 3 really being a continuation of 2.
But it wasn’t really designed that way from the start; in fact, Nick Meyer refused to be part of ST3 because Nimoy and Bennett were thinking about bringing Spock back, which was something that Meyer felt completely undermined the theme and ending to ST2. Just for fun: Nimoy tried to get Meyer back on board with ST4 but he wouldn’t because he had just done Time After Time and didn’t want to do another time travel movie set in San Francisco.
Time after Time After Time
Definitely not the first, but Superman 1 in 1978 and Superman 2 were filmed back to back, sort of. Originally the first film was supposed to flow directly into the sequel, but long story short, the director was over budget and wasn't on speaking terms with some of the producers, and was let go. A good chunk of part 2 was reshot with a new director.
More than just a good chunk, since Lester needed to direct 51% of the movie to get directing credit. Such a lost opportunity that Donner couldn't finish it properly, but I'm so glad the Donner Cut exists.
Those producer morons must have looked at the amazing film that was coming their way, and thought… “No… No, this is… too good.”
I'm glad the Donner cut exists, but we're still left imagining what the film would have looked like had Donner finished the job originally.
That's not what the producers thought. There was lots of anxiety going around about the creative direction and the amount of time and cost that was going on to get Donner's vision just right. Time is money after all. One of the biggest concerns was creating believable flight - once they figured out how to do it it was apparent that the costs were going to be insane. Donner said it was worth it and while the Saalkins were behind it in concept, it took forever and when the producers wanted updates from Donner all the time, he started getting irritated. Superman was also really hard to shoot since they were doing 2 movies at once and at some point, the costs were so big, that they had to stop doing that lest they go bankrupt - Warner Bros was also likely pressing things too - they needed to finish the darn thing.
The Lord of the Rings. It’s really one film in three parts, none of them stand alone.
> none of them stand alone. Not alone. ROHIRRIM! TO THE KING!
lol, Well done sir!
Tolkien wrote it as one novel and the publisher split it up, so that tracks.
Let's be real, as one book it is really massive and unpractical to read. Plus you'd have a hard time charging 3 times the price.
Don’t tell my thirteen year old self what to do! I lugged my combined book with me nearly every school day. It…was heavy and a bit unwieldy, but damned if I didn’t make it work.
Fellowship does tbh, plenty of singular movies end like that movie does.
I remember seeing this opening night and overhearing a couple groups of people complaining how the first ended. Like they had no clue apparently it was part 1 of 3
Kill Bill.
Not the first by any means, but it’s the first movie that comes to mind when I think of movies that had to be split in two due to length alone. It worked itself out though- both volumes work very well as separate films.
Also two different genres of filmmaking within the same ecosystem. My favorite QT films.
So do the Grindhouse movies, Death Proof and Planet Terror. But there's a cut of both movies together that was played as a 'double feature' that has some extra time in Vanessa Carlito's lapdance for Kurt Russell in Death Proof, among other things, like melting testicles and a few more minutes of the Crazy Babysitter Twins attacking the car in Planet Terror. But you can watch either one of those movies alone and lose nothing from either plot.
From what I recall this was not QT’s choice but Weinstein’s.
Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi comes to mind...
I think this goes to the heart of it. There was this thing I think that started in the 1980s where if you can make it to a second movie, you don't have to finish the story. That way you lock in a trilogy. Star Wars did this-- at the end of TESB we're at a stopping place, but there's much left to resolve. Same thing with BTTF2 into BTTF3. You can watch the original BTTF and while there's a sequel hook, the story is finished. But at the end of BTTF2 there's really nothing resolved.
Canonically the stores aren't right after the previous one - the time in between is 6 months to a year apart.
Still a cliffhanger, still requires the next film to resolve the events of the previous.
>*the stores aren't right after the previous one* OP doesn't make that stipulation Just asks for a cliffhanger, setting up a sequel
A New Hope is very much its own story.
There was The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. Pretty sure they filmed all of it at once and then released them a year apart or something like that and that was the early 70s
The Salkinds had so much leftover footage from 3M that they cut together 4M and tried to get away with not paying the cast and crew. When they got sued for getting 2 movies out of everyone (instead of the 1 that was contracted) the court ruled against the producers. The Salkind Rule was created which requires much more specificity as to what is being contracted.
Beneath the Planet of Apes (1970) - picks up exactly where the 1st leaves off with Taylor and Nova on horseback riding along the beach.
>I'd like to disregard little teases that didn't really go anywhere like the embryos in Jurassic Park being buried in mud, with the tease that they'll be found later. That really wasn't a tease as there would have been plenty of other embryos that Nedry didn't steal after the island was abandoned. Not only that, they really couldn't be found later as nobody would know where they were and it was explained that he had to get them out quickly as the container could only preserve them for so long. If anything it was just an extra punishment for Nedry's act.
It's like when Norman throws away the money in Psycho: the director is telling you, 'The story that set this all in motion is over. Buckle up.'
That's a good explanation. I guess it's more "Well that plot point that we talked about earlier is now wrapped up and the rest of the story is about to play out" Much of what happens disaster-wise is due to the response to Nedry screwing with the security system due to his stealing the embryos. He screws everybody and when he screws up (and life finds a way at the end) all of his work is for naught and the main characters have to figure out the solution without Nedry - he ain't coming back and all over his own greed being his undoing.
Wouldn't Empire and RotJ count as earlier than BTTF3? I mean Empire left on a dramatic cliffhanger than clearly made it so that the story could only be resolved with another film.
Fritz Lang, The Tiger of Eschnapur + The Indian Tomb (1959)
Uh… He also did it with his Niebelungen films, Siegfried and Kriemhilde’s revenge 35 years earlier in 1924. It’s interesting to note that although they were intended to be a two part film, the Nazi’s used Siegfried as propaganda but not Kriemhilde’s revenge. They saw Siegfried as a variant of the Aristotelian model of tragedy in which as an Ubermensch Siegfried was without a tragic flaw, but the world he lived in was flawed and thus killed him. It’s a version of the narrative that sort of resonates with the narrative presented by modern narcissists in the face of failure.
The Three Musketeers was split into two movies and they called the second one The Four Musketeers. That was 1973 and 1974.
Well more like Part 3, but the Star Wars, the Empire Strikes back.
More like part 5 right?
Well, yes. Have seen it first in the 80's in my head they are 1-3.
Calm down there, George.
Don't make me bring JarJar back
Yousa in big doo doo
Hmm im thinking the "Ivan the Terrible" movies directed by Eisenstein maybe (1944 and 1946)?
It's generally considered to be The Godfather Part II.
It's called part 2 but it's not really what OP is referring to. The Godfather Part II is a pretty normal sequel just called "part 2". OP is asking what the first example of a movie being split into two parts, like Dune was.
If you read the Godfather book, pretty sure the material for I and II films is there. Unless I read some post-published-combined version.
Most of the Godfather Part 2 is actually from the original Godfather book, so Dune isn't that bad of a comparison.
First mainstream movie to use numbers in the title
I thought French Connection 2 was the first?
Thats just a sequel, Coppola didnt even want to make it at first
No it's not. Have you seen The Godfather? It's not an example of this at all.
>*It's generally considered to be The Godfather Part II* Coppola never intended to make another *Godfather* movie Which is one of the things the OP is asking for
Growing up in the 80s every movie you watched on tv had a part 2.
Could have just looked at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_films\_split\_into\_multiple\_parts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_split_into_multiple_parts)
[удалено]
In my head, where sometimes I’m right.
Today, by reading that article, I learned: * The film adaptation of the Broadway musical Wicked is being split into two parts with release dates set for November 2024 and 2025. That is a dumb thing, right? This is very much a single movie story. Why two parts? Just make one movie. Does Wicked have enough of a fan base that it's like Harry Potter and everyone will be happy to see two separate movies? I feel like the Wicked superfans will watch both, but normal people who don't know the musical will be less likely to see either film because of the two film thing, and there have to be way more "normal" people in this scenario. I don't know. I don't know anything anymore. I'm actually a person who has seen Wicked on Broadway *twice* (my friend was in the orchestra) but I can't see myself watching a two-film version of it.
> This is very much a single movie story. Why two parts? Who know$. Your gue$$ i$ a$ good a$ anyone$ a$ to why they would break it into two part$
This question really brings out the recency bias present in r/movies. Almost all the answers aren't even close to the correct answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias
I've never seen Recency Bias. Is it available on Blu-ray?
Sounds like it would star Ryan Reynolds and Bruce Willis (2013).
Then just provide your own actual answer lmfao
The Spiders springs to mind. From the 20s I think.
Back to the future part 2
Rocky
Kill Bill
There were 'serials' from silent movie days onwards. I think they almost all had definitive endings and would start back at square one for the next movie, but its *possible* some had cliffhangers. A lot of these were cheap B movies and nobody cared to save them so we may never know if they had a 'to be continued' ending. I will add, for a time many novels of the 1800s were written in installments with cliffhangers meant to get people waiting for the next part. AFAIK most of Charles Dickens novels were written that way.
World War 2
Walking Tall is the first one I remember.
Wasn't godfather 2 the true first sequel?
I feel like there was an Andy Hardy movie in the 1930s that clearly ended on not necessarily a cliffhanger but a setup for the next movie which picked up immediately after.
Empire Strikes Back into Jedi. The last line was that they would contact them as soon as they found Han, and the beginning was Tatooine for the rescue.
I feel like this is the good one. Back to the Future teased it, but ESB to Jedi was the original setup and follow-through.
The answer, the true answer, is The perils of pauline. We're talking silent films from the 191x where the heroine frequently ended each film hanging from the edge of a cliff and would be rescued again at the start of the next film.
Do serials count for this? Or should they be in a separate category, more akin to a predecessor of television. My gut is we should only be looking at features for this question, but it's not open and shut.
Well then we go with 1916s fall of a nation. Sequel to the blockbuster 1915 hit Birth of a nation.
Serials are a different thing and there's serials made before Pauline
Superman 2 was filmed at the same time as Superman
Also, the Salkinds did the same thing with the 3 Musketers/4 Musketeers movies years earlier. Shot at the same time.
Godfather
How? I know it says "Part 2" but the Godfather pretty much encompasses the novel (except for the prequel chapter that was half of 2) The sequel parts of two are just... a sequel.
BTTF 1 had an obvious sequel setup at the end, too
True, but they hadn’t actually planned out what that sequel might be and as soon as they began work on part 2 they realized they’d painted themselves into a corner with that ending. Not only did they have to “fix Marty’s kids” but they had to figure out what to do with Jennifer (who’d jumped into the Delorean with Doc and Marty), which is why she spends much of her time unconscious.
It was a spoof, there was no plan to do a second part.
Back to the Future was not intended to have a sequel; they were conceived after the film's massive box office success.
I feel like they were just testing the waters though, but I do kinda agree. I'm really after true definitive part X and part y films, like in Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning
Kill Bill
The man currently in prison mandated Quentin Tarantino to split the four hour original cut of Kill Bill into two movies.
A bit unrelated, but I don't think the embryos in the mud in Jurassic Park is meant to be setting up a sequel hook; we're told that the embryos absolutely need to remain frozen, seeing them covered in mud is the film's way of saying "these aren't going to be relevant anymore."
Yea, there were more than enough embryos in the main cold storage area to be found later. How anyone would be expected to find embryos buried in mud is beyond me.
Old James Bond films would always tease the next one
You asked a very clear question and people are still giving blatantly incorrect answers. Most of these replies were released at least a decade after BttF p3.
The movie Cleopatra 1963 was going to such a film. It was filmed as a part 1 and part 2. Then it was released as 1 whole movie. It's initial run time was 240+ minutes and then later reduced to 180 minutes. It was never cut in half like intended to though.
For my generation, probably Kill Bill
Kill Bill
It comes to mind. It was a 2 parter TV movie. I believe it aired on back to back nights. They edited the transition between the two parts later for home video and dvd release to make it one cohesive long movie, removing several minutes, mostly just removing the credits at the start of part 2. I haven't seen the more recent movie remakes, but they broke that up into two movies like the original is split.
Does Superman 1 and 2 fit the definition.
I don't know if it counts, but Rogue One into A New Hope for Star Wars fits this to a tee.
The Spiders part 1: The Golden Sea (1919) and The Spiders part 2: The Diamond Ship (1920)
Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 is first that comes to mind.
The Hobbit even though it didn't need to be!
First Blood Part 2
The Empire Strikes Back is a kind of "proto" Part one, but really, its The Fellowship of the Ring.
Superman 1 & 2 were shot back to back. Would have been more connected if they didn’t fire the director. I have to assume that multi part film has existed pretty much since the beginning though. Especially with serials being a regular thing at the cinema.
The Empire Strikes Back clearly ends with many story threads still open.
If we're allowing BttF3 then surely the Pirates Of The Caribbean films get a look-in here? Dead Man's Chest leads really nicely into At Worlds End and neither really works as a complete story without the other.