In LOTR: FOTR, you’re given a conflict, Sauron forged a ring, must destroy it, blah blah blah. But by the end of FOTR, the conflict is not resolved, and in fact the movie makes it pretty clear that there is still more adventure ahead, even to someone who never read the books.
On the other hand, with Star Wars and the Matrix trilogies, although the creators claimed it was written as a trilogy, the original films could have stood well on their own and didn’t leave any significant loose ends (other than the typical “leaves room for a sequel” ambiguous ending that many movies have).
So have there been any movies where the producer took a gamble and made two or three movies at once, or at least made one hoping to get funding for others because the story clearly depends on it?
Back to the Future II and III were filmed back-to-back, but they were both built off the huge success of the first movie. The same can be said for the second two Matrix movies.
Just looking at release dates, it seems that the Harry Potter movies are being made two at a time.
The 1973 version of The Three Musketeers (starring Michael York as D’Artagnan) was filmed at the same time as its sequel, The Four Musketeers (1974).
Like the Star Trek movie its final scene was a tribute to, the ending of X2: X-Men United is a bit of a downer, and feels much worse, if one did not at least halfway anticipate a follow-up movie.
Star Wars, likely. However, The Godfather was a pretty self contained story. It could have been left as a single movie and suffered none.
When the Godfather was a hit, FFC made the 2nd one, mining the book for what little material he hadn’t used in the making of the first movie(Vitos Rise) and working with Puzo to create the 1950’s portion(Micheals Fall)
Don’t forget the professor coming back at the last second in the denoument of the the 1st movie. Seems like they knew they wanted a franchise, and hoped it would take off, even though it could’ve just been a comical add in like in Dr. Detroit.
For that matter, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan was clearly meant to have a sequel or two…
Like the Star Trek franchise or Indy Jones or James Bond.
For instance every James Bond movie is made with the idea that there will be another one. So in a sense, movies are frequently made with the idea that sequeals are possible. Perhaps a script is in development for that movie, but not actually shot. Sometimes an actor is contracted to appear in sequeals, like Pat Morita and Ralph Macchio were to appear in sequeals for The Karate Kid. So they know there might be sequeals before the film is made.
Some films are made with no possible sequeal. They know there won’t be a sequeal.
V.I. Warshawski was also made with the idea of it being a franchise.
But if you listen to the DVD commentary, they say they had no definite plans on where to go from there. Thus Doc’s inexplicable behavior of insisting Jennifer come with them, and then putting her to sleep because “she was asking too many questions” or some such excuse.
Doc didn’t put Jennifer to sleep 'til they arrived in 2015, which was only shown in the sequel. The only dialouge they had at the end of the first movie was that their kids were in trouble and they needed to go with him quickly.
Despite your refutation, I’d say “The Empire Strikes Back” qualifies. The movie basically ends on a monstrous cliffhanger, with Lando and Chewbacca on the search for Boba Fett and his Solo-cicle. If there was no chance of ROTJ getting made, I’d wager the film would have ended on a slightly different note.
Of course, ESB isn’t the first film in the series, so I’m not sure if this qualifies based on your OP. However, if I can nitpick…
The LOTR trilogy was always conceived and pitched as just that – a trilogy. AFAIK, no other movies were ever pitched and created in such a manner. Even other trilogies that are seemingly connected can stand on their own (Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Three Colors trilogy comes to mind.) Finding an original film that couldn’t stand on its own without the presence of a sequel would be presumptuous of its audience’s willingness to spend money on a second piece of the puzzle.
PLEASE. Do NOT get me started on “Kill Bill.” :mad: Loved the movie, but to tell the movie-watching public that people couldn’t sit through 3 1/2 hours of a film? Does the word “Titanic” ring a bell?
Actually Jackson pitched two films to Miramax, and then at New Line when the Miramax deal fell through. New Line was bold (and savvy) enough to tell Jackson that he had to make it three films to do it right. Lucky us! I suspect there may be a couple of Miramax guys still in the corner weeping inconsolably over passing on PJ’s little movie idea.
I heard PJ originally pitched three films to Miramax who said he should make them into two films, after which he pitched it to New Line who agreed that the trilogy should be a trilogy.
Buckaroo Banzai: Across the 8th Dimension ended with a promise that its sequel Buckaroo Banzai vs. The World Crime League would be coming soon. Still no sign of it…
Yeah, I know it was supposed to be one movie but it is being released as two but in the end of the first volume the assassin still hadn’t killed off everyone in the list.
You may be right about three-to-two at Miramax. All I remember for sure is that the DVD commentary mentions in a few places that such-and-such was part of (or left out of) the original two-film script that was part of the Miramax venture. My impression was that they were at least beyond the preliminary stages before that deal fell apart.
One thing I do remember for certain though is that PJ took his two-parter to New Line, and they told him he had to do three. I, for one, am thankful. Then again, I would have been thrilled to see all six books get their own films, complete with Bombadil, barrow-wights, and the Scouring of the Shire!
The original The Italian Job was planned to be self contained, but several new ending drafts were written since the British producers and the American studio (Paramount) were unhappy with the original ending. The ending they decided on was partially chosen, according to the making of documentary on the DVD, since as filming progressed it was felt that there was a strong possibility that the film would do well enough to make a sequel worth going for. The people interviewed mostly seem to say that a sequel was a strong possibility. The ending that was filmed has it both ways. It leaves open the chances for a sequel to pick up right where the first film ended, or play clever by leaving Caine & crew in a cute “cliffhanger”. If you’ve seen the film you’ll know what I mean.
According to Andrew Yule’s biography of director Richard Lester, The Man Who “Framed” The Beatles, the 1970s Three Musketeers films were originally planned for an old fashioned roadshow epic release with an intermission. When it decided that audiences might have a problem sitting through a 3 1/2 hour film, the two films released a year apart idea was adopted, but kept from the cast and the US distributor. The “back to back” filming was more a practical financial matter because of contracts (that refered only to “the project”) and costs for producing and distributing one film rather than two.
