It's a sequel to both isn't it?
yes
it's a sequel to both
but it's really a bridge between the 2
Unbreakable was made first, but Split was never advertized as a sequel to Unbreakable
Split and Unbreakable being in the same universe was a surprise-twist-ending and the very last second of Split
at the end of Unbreakable, there's a "hero-doing-the-right-thing-scene" where David Dunn decides to not kill the villian (similar to the scene where we hear police sirens and Daredevil lets the cops arrest The Kingpin instead of Daredevil killing the Kingpin) So the end of Unbreakable looks like the villian character is going to prison for forever
the movie Split works without being in the same universe as Unbreakable
you cut out the Bruce Willis cameo from Split and the end of Split still makes sense
Unbreakable works without sequels,
and then the Bruce Willis cameo in Split makes an awesome-by-itself-stand-alone-movie suddenly confusing for anyone who sees Split before seeing Unbreakable (which was a huge-ass amount of Americans BTW)
i saw Unbreakable when it was a brand-new film, and so for me, the Bruce Willis Cameo at the end of Split wasn't confusing because it was just really annoying
the Bruce Willis cameo not only happens at the very last second of the movie, but it comes out as looking like the idea of putting David Dunn in Split was a decision suddenly made at the last possible second after the whole rest of Split had already been filmed
then comes the movie Glass
doesn't work as a stand-alone
doesn't work as merely a sequel to Unbreakable
doesn't work as merely a sequel to Split
you have to actually watch
both Unbreakable
and Split for Glass to make sense
and even if you actually have seen both movies, the back-and-forth between Unbreakable-sequel and Split-sequel is
Still as- jarring-as-hell, the back-and-forth could have definately been filmed a whole lot smoother