By which I mean the ending. They set up the second film (we need to go to the future).
Seems like a bold move to anticipate so much success that a sequel is assured.
I guess the Bond films advertised their next installment safe in the knowledge that it would definitely be happening but that only started happening after they became a huge franchise.
Was about to say no, big trouble in little China did it and didn't get a sequel, but that was the year after so maybe your right I can't think of any.
And masters of the universe but that was 2 years later.
Original Planet of the Apes beat this by 17 years
shareWas the Abraham Lincoln scene setting up a sequel? Or just an ending?
shareHow? You mean the statue of liberty ending?
shareYes
The public wanted to know what happens next.
Escape from the Planet of the Apes set up its' own sequel too.
But that was just an ending.
I'm talking about a movie that sets up a new movie (even includes the words ... to be continued).
Back to the Future didn't originally include those words. They were added to video releases after Zemekis and Gale said were open to the idea of sequels. It was originally meant as a stand alone movie.
share[deleted]
In fact, the writers later said that by putting this "something has to be done about your kids" scene at the end of BTTF1 it made it very difficult for them to write the sequel because they had already painted themselves into a corner from the outset.
The Empire Strikes Back.
shareNo. There was a gimmick back in the 1950s when movies would end with a literal question mark, as if setting the audience up for the potential for a sequel that picks up where they left off. (The Blob, for instance.)
shareThe Empire Strikes Back set up The Return of the Jedi.
share