There seems to be a few films earlier than this which might apply but I think they may have been released in two parts, rather than the second being a seperate follow-up.
Ha! This is cool. Because this is a question that I've asked myself over the years.
It's probably right to discount, for instance, films like "Ivan Groznyy I" and "Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor", which Eisenstein conceived as, essentially, parts of the same story (in fact, I think he may originally have had plans for it to be a trilogy, until Stalin voiced his displeasure at "Part II").
Actually, the question I ask myself is everso slightly different. I've always wondered which was the first sequel that took the EXACT SAME TITLE as its precursor, but simply added a "2" (or, if you like, a "II").
With this criteria, "Quatermass 2" doesn't count (it would have had to be titled "The Quatermass Xperiment 2"). By the same token "French Connection II" (1975) is also disqualified, as it omits the "The" from the title of the original 1971 movie.
Can it possibly be "Jaws 2"?
I do enjoy this kind of essentially pointless film trivia!
Quatermass 2 came out several decades before Godfather 2.
I actually read in a book that "Quatermass 2" was the first film to simply apply the numeral "2" after the original title. Of course the book could have been wrong. In America the effect of this was nil however, because neither film was released as "Quatermass" in the USA.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
I think you didn't read the above posts, the reason they said The Godfather 2 and NOT Quatermass 2 which came out less than 2 decades before, is that it's not simply adding a 2 to the original title!!
The original was "The Quatermass Xperiment" or "The Quatermass Experiment". So "Quatermass 2" is not simply adding a 2 to the original title. It's also dropping 2/3 of the title!
But "The Godfather 2" is simply adding a 2 to the first movie "The Godfather".
yeah exactly, I think some are perhaps being too technical here. "Quatermass 2", "Quatermass Experiment 2", or "Quatermass Xperiment 2", what's the difference?
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
Well technocrats, I think we have to say that Quatermass is the first and ONLY picture to have just a "2" in the title -- not a "II" or Part II" or "Part 2" or even a "- 2". And I think that is the main point here.
There have always been sequels (loved the St. Trinian's films) but to actually put just that number 2 on the title hasn't been seen to my knowledge before or since.
Iron Man 2 (2010) Sex and the City 2 (2010) Toy Story 2 (1999) American Pie 2 (2001) Shrek 2 (2004) Die Hard 2 (1990) Cheaper by the Dozen 2 (2005) Transporter 2 (2005) The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (2008) Scary Movie 2 (2001) The Pink Panther 2 (2009) Predator 2 (1990) Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) Ong bak 2 (2008) Mad Max 2 (1981) The Marine 2 (2009) Rush Hour 2 (2001) Basic Instinct 2 (2006) Troll 2 (1990) Final Destination 2 (2003) Scream 2 (1997) Grease 2 (1982) RoboCop 2 (1990) Jaws 2 (1978) Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981) Zombi 2 (1979) Short Circuit 2 (1988) Exterminator 2 (1984)
I'll stop there but there's loads more
That's ignoring the ones with subtitles like Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985)
The ones pre dating Jaws
2 French ones from 1909 using 'episode 2' Le printemps episode 2 Les Heures episode 2
Lots of German ones using "Part 2" = "2 Teil" going back to 1912
Children of the Night No. 1 (1925) Children of the Night No. 2 (1925)
I thought Lola Montez 2 (1919) or Chqari 2 (1929) Were going to be the first proper ones using just '2' before Quatermass but they both have no prequel or did they?
This one has an ! mark Marshal Your Facts (1937) Marshal Your Facts! 2 (1938)
This one has to be to the winner for exact same title and just using '2' Jayu buin (1956) Jayu buin 2 (1957)
yeah exactly, I think some are perhaps being too technical here. "Quatermass 2", "Quatermass Experiment 2", or "Quatermass Xperiment 2", what's the difference?
The difference is that if you read MaxPlanc's post you can see that he asked a specific question and laid down the rules that would apply to his trivia question, your replies ignore the rules laid out. If Max wanted answers that included other formats of title he wouldn't have mentioned specific title rules.
reply share