What's the longest time separating a movie from its sequel?

February 23, 2006 12:40 PM

What is the longest time elapsed between a movie and a sequel/prequel?

This was brought to mind because I saw (incredulously) a poster for Basic Instinct 2 at the movies. Friends and I discussed the matter but couldn't come up with anything longer than the Star Wars gap. But also, we're not movie experts.

I know you get into complications over what really constitutes a sequel... for the sake of this I'd rule out long-running series like James Bond. Remakes of old movies that are very different from the original don't count either. Otherwise, I'd say the definition should be pretty loose.

posted by ORthey to media & arts (28 comments total)

What about that TV sequel to Gone With The Wind?
posted by selfnoise at 12:42 PM on February 23, 2006

The Hustler - 1961
The Color of Money - 1986
posted by Lucinda at 12:42 PM on February 23, 2006

Here's the big question-- do straight-to-video sequels count? Because if so, then the 64-year gap between Bambi and Bambi II might just be the winner. Also check out the 52 years between Cinderella and Cinderella II: Dreams Come True.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:45 PM on February 23, 2006

Straight to video definitely counts. Nice find... 64 years might be hard to beat.
posted by ORthey at 12:46 PM on February 23, 2006

Or, stretching it a bit (few, if any, returning characters)

Carrie - 1976
The Rage: Carrie 2 - 1999

The Wizard of Oz - 1939
Return to Oz - 1985
posted by Lucinda at 12:47 PM on February 23, 2006

Aw. I came in here expecting a discussion about the time elapsed in the fictional storyline between a film and the prequel/sequel.

Now that we've found the Bambi -> Bambi II connection, can we hijack the question?

Sci-fi would have to have some of the heaviest contenders. Though I imagine any sort of prehistoric documentary series might win out. Maybe we should exclude non-fiction.

(also, I always wanted the Cinderella II tagline to be "The honeymoon is over", but no such luck.)</small
posted by ODiV at 12:56 PM on February 23, 2006

Waaaaaaaaait a minute. Bambi Meets Godzilla was only 27 years after the original!
posted by Gator at 1:05 PM on February 23, 2006

Just as a bit of trivia, Superman Returns, coming this year, is meant to be a sequel to Superman II (1980), and not Superman III or IV, so there's a flick with a 26-year gap. More than The Colour of Money, but less than the Oz follow-up.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:06 PM on February 23, 2006

If I may say, The Atro-Zombies was released in 1969, and Mark of the Astro Zombies was released in 2002, which is 33 years. I think it trumps the Bambie sequel, because it's a purer sequel -- both films were written and directed by Ted Mikels.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:13 PM on February 23, 2006

Thought of another one (I love questions like this)

Time between Psycho and Psycho II - 23 years.

As for longest fictional storyline elapsation (if that's even a word), Alien: Resurrection takes place 200 years after Alien^3...
posted by Lucinda at 1:14 PM on February 23, 2006

Last Picture Show (1971) and Texasville (1990)
posted by jessamyn at 1:16 PM on February 23, 2006

Chinatown (1974) and The Two Jakes (1990) are 16 years apart, and are another noteworthy pair for having the same screenwriter.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:20 PM on February 23, 2006

It's not going to break any of the records other people have come up with, but Un homme et une femme (1966) was followed up by Un homme et une femme, 20 ans déjà (1986) with the same director and the stars returning.
posted by srah at 1:23 PM on February 23, 2006

The first and last Star Trek films are probably a few centuries apart...
posted by Orange Goblin at 1:23 PM on February 23, 2006

do straight-to-video sequels count?

Not to me... if it hasn't been shown in a public cinema, it's not a movie. But that's my standard, possibly not yours.
posted by Rash at 1:25 PM on February 23, 2006

Ah, but Gator, I was making sure to use only movies that the IMDb listed as "following" the other. Bambi Meets Godzilla, I'm afraid, doesn't qualify. And as for the Astro-Zombie issue, to follow AZ's criterion would mean that we could only count sequels made during the original creator's lifespan. Bambie II, as a Disney release, may be a heartless monstrosity, but it has to count as a real sequel nonetheless.
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:25 PM on February 23, 2006

For what it's worth (not much, perhaps), there's a 75-year gap between the original documentary Berlin: Symphony of a City and its remake. Given the vastly different circumstances in Berlin between the two times, I'd be more inclined to consider it a sequel, but IMDb thinks otherwise. At any rate: the 1927 film and the 2002 film.
posted by Tuwa at 1:31 PM on February 23, 2006

Though it doesn't really address the question exactly, props must be given to the "Seven Up" series of documentaries, which began in 1963 and has continued with a new entry every seven years since. We don't normally think of documentaries as having "stories," but they do generally have narrative structures; these films are great examples.
posted by Dr. Wu at 1:37 PM on February 23, 2006

I think that the eventual answer is going to be Gone With the Wind (1939) and its sequel, Scarlett. There was a TV mini-series version in 1994 (for a 55-year gap), and there's almost bound to be a film version produced eventually. Since the current gap is 66-years and counting, the moment it hits the theaters, it vaults ahead of Bambi.
posted by jdroth at 1:38 PM on February 23, 2006

Le declin de l'empire americain was made in 1986, and the sequel Les invasions barbares in 2003 or 2004. Same cast.
posted by Succa at 1:40 PM on February 23, 2006

The first and last Star Trek films are probably a few centuries apart...

109 years, according to this all-too-comprehensive timeline. But if you include the time travel to 1986 in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, the movies span 394 years.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:43 PM on February 23, 2006

Birth of a Nation (1915), Death of a Nation (2005).

I have no idea what Death of a Nation is about, but its IMDB page mentions that it was filmed 88 years after Birth of a Nation. Unless someone last year filmed Lumiere's horse crossing the finish line, I win. I kid.
posted by MarkAnd at 1:50 PM on February 23, 2006

If we're going to allow for sequels between sequels -- in other words, film franchises, then China's Wong Fei-hung movies are worth mentioning. The first one, Huang Fei-hong zhuan: Bian feng mie zhu, was released in 1949. The most recent (that I know of, I bet there have been more since!), Once Upon a Time in China & America, was released in 1997.

The most famous series, which all starred one actor, Kwan Tak Hing, ran from 1949 to 1970 and encompassed about 100 films!

The Limey (1999) is sort of a sequel to Poor Cow (1967), and uses scenes from the original, as well as the main actor, Terrence Stamp.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:55 PM on February 23, 2006

Star Wars Episode III was released in 2005, but Episode IV wasn't released until 1977. That's -28 years, or, taken as an unsigned 32-bit quantity, 4294967268 years!
posted by kindall at 2:42 PM on February 23, 2006

Mark of the Astro-Zombies is actually a "re-imagining," not a sequel.
posted by S.C. at 4:11 PM on February 23, 2006

There was the 1910 Wonderful Wizard of Oz which is 75 years to the Return to Oz. In other words, it's kind of arbitrary. The Mark of Zorro was first made in 1920 and the Legend of Zorro 2005.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:19 PM on February 23, 2006

Jesus. Somebody who knows more about Astro Zombies than me.

I've never actually seen Mark.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:52 PM on February 23, 2006

War of the Worlds: 1953 - 2005 (52 y.)
The Mark of Zorro - The Mask of Zorro: 1920 - 1998 (78 y.)
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari: 1920 - 2005 (85 y.)
posted by ollsen at 12:37 AM on February 24, 2006