I mean, to be fair, the beginnings of most movies with sequels don’t actually start by being titled, say “Back to the Future Part 1.”
The Fellowship of the Ring, for example, wasn’t titled “Lord of the Rings 1: The Fellowship of the Ring” if it mentioned Lord of the Rings at all, it didn’t imply a number, it just stood on its own. People knew sequels were coming, they didn’t need numbers to know that.
So to be fair to Wicked, naming it something like Wicked Part One is dumb anyway. Especially if it flops and they shelve the sequel for a tax break.
I think that was probably added post-theater-release because BttF was actually planned as a standalone and got a sequel due to audience interest. Probably when it hit home video.
I mean, to be fair, the beginnings of most movies with sequels don’t actually start by being titled, say “Back to the Future Part 1.”
The Fellowship of the Ring, for example, wasn’t titled “Lord of the Rings 1: The Fellowship of the Ring” if it mentioned Lord of the Rings at all, it didn’t imply a number, it just stood on its own. People knew sequels were coming, they didn’t need numbers to know that.
So to be fair to Wicked, naming it something like Wicked Part One is dumb anyway. Especially if it flops and they shelve the sequel for a tax break.
The title card in the actual movie does state Part 1. But none of the marketing did. So people buy tickets not knowing it’s only half the story.
That’s kind of annoying. Even misleading.
I think that was probably added post-theater-release because BttF was actually planned as a standalone and got a sequel due to audience interest. Probably when it hit home video.