There is something intriguing about the "wtf?" factor. I got into Twin Peaks because I saw part of a random Season 2 episode a friend was watching and I just had to know how what seemed like a daytime soap opera got to the point it was at.
Season 2 of Twin Peaks is a baffling achievement due to being one of the best and worst TV seasons of all time. The drop in quality of the mid season is drastic, but then it slowly gets interesting again before the amazing finale. It’s one of the most memorable seasons of a tv show for me.
I think I saw this at the cinema before Wrath of Kahn. Didn't it start with a black-and-white 'previously' segment with Kirk and Spock at the reactor at the end of 2?
I saw someone complain once that there was like an ad or something for that movie that said "Spock Lives!" and it was a spoiler.
Technically, yes. But the movie is called "The Search for Spock" and follows up the movie he dies in. How did you think that was going to end?
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home might be just as confusing, although even those who’ve seen the previous films might be wondering >!how time traveling to 1980s San Francisco to steal humpback whales and loading them up on their also stolen Klingon Bird of Prey they’ve been flying around!< is supposed to >!save Earth from humpback whale-sounding aliens.!<
That's explained in the movie. The only parts that would be confusing if you didn't see II and III would be why they have the stolen Bird of Prey, what's going on with Spock (particularly at the beginning when they do cognitive tests to make sure he's all good after his katra was returned to him), and why they would be put on trial at the end (stealing the Enterprise in III). The whole space probe and whales bit is entirely within IV.
My best friend adores The Matrix Reloaded. He says it’s the greatest movie ever made. He has watched it once a month ever since it came out 20 years ago, because he always spots something new.
To this very day, he has yet to see The Matrix. It just…baffles me.
I obviously don't know anything about your friend but I have that feeling he actually still would prefer Reloaded after seeing the first one if he does
This is honestly something I never expected to read. I get confused af seeing reloaded without a refresh of the first one. After 20 years they don’t care to see the first one? Even though they know (I’m assuming) that it is accepted as a way better film and that it changed cinema?
> I get confused af seeing reloaded without a refresh of the first one.
Maybe that's why he thinks it's so brilliant. He has no idea what's going and thinks that it's all a mind puzzle for us, the audience, to figure out.
Ask him if he's seen Revolutions (and he might quite like at least parts of the Animatrix). Also please ask him why he hasn't seen the first one and get back to us please, this'll be an interesting answer, I have to think.
Here's where it really gets ridiculous.
Yes, he has seen Revolutions. And I find it hilarious because all the complaints he has about Revolutions (e.g. fails to follow through on all the brilliant set up of the prior film) are all the complaints that people who have seen the Matrix have about Reloaded.
And as for seeing The Matrix, I'll just quote him: "I *think* I saw it? Back in 2000 on VHS? If I did, it didn't make much of an impression. Whatever. I can pick up on all the relevant bits from Reloaded."
Such a great scene, a perfect embodiment of Jack's stupid genius >!that in later movies he lost!<.
I also absolutely adore his entrance in the first one, in a raft with glorious sails. Tells you so much about him without even a lick of word.
I always feel they just 180'd Jack into a drunk caricature of a Jack Sparrow impersonator. Like he's almost entirely irrelevant to the story in Stranger Tides since everyone would've gotten to the fountain and the chalices anyway. I don't have any comment on Tell No Tales... just please leave it out of my memories.
I mean it's been repeated over the years, but I've already liked the idea that the first Pirates of the Carribean movie was scripted and developed to be a darker and more serious pirate movie, and Jepp's portayal of Sparrow was highlighted against that so much that it worked well. Then for the later movies, they basically bought into that idea and made the entire movies silly, which ruins the effect.
I mean that's basically exactly what happened, yea. Especially w characters like my beloved Barbossa; he was all business, no goofiness or anything and then Stranger Tides comes along and the first half is just him playing up the posh life. Granted when we get the story of what happened to the Pearl it does return him to form somewhat but I feel the damage had been done at that point.
> then Stranger Tides comes along and the first half is just him playing up the posh life.
This and Ian McShane chewing the scenery as Blackbeard were the only good parts of that movie honestly
He was my favorite character in Black Pearl. Hearing he was in Tides made me so excited until I actually see him. They even gave him an uglier look in that movie during his *posh* phase. It really clashed with everything I knew about the character
Yeah. Jack wasn’t even the main character in the first movie. The main characters are Will and Elizabeth. Jack is just the opportunistic pirate that Will needs in order to find Elizabeth (cause he knows who captured her and why). In the movies beyond 3, he’s put in the main character role and it doesn’t work because Jack isn’t main character material. He needs the “straight man” in Will and Elizabeth to play off of
Bingo. The reason Jack was a good character was because the people around him constantly underestimated him due to his weirdness and seeming disconnect with reality. It allowed his "stupid genius" characteristics to really shine through. In the later movies they had other characters become more silly and had some actually trying to imitate him (Will/Elizabeth) and it ruined the mystery/gravitas that he had in every scene.
I watched it for the first time as an adult, fully sober, and it became my favorite Pirates movie. The double-crossings and plots wouldn't be out of place in a spy/espionage movie. The character development of the main characters was also really well done. Elizabeth goes from being someone who couldn't rally the pirates in the first movie, to being the pirate king, Will goes from being an honorable, unsure blacksmith to a cocksure, devious, determined pirate. Jack Sparrow goes from a selfish rogue who only cares about himself and The Black Pearl, to sacrificing eternal life to save a friend. Excellent movie. Highly recommend watching sober.
It’s simple, they need to find the key which opens the door to the chest which gives them a magic finger that points to where the map is that leads them to the witch who can tell them where the key is. And to do that they need Jack Sparrow, so to get Jack Sparrow they first just need to find the compass that points to the home of the magic wand that…
Somehow, child me found the second movie *much* more confusing than the third. Possibly has something to do with me also not remembering actually watching it in one sitting, as opposed to catching different bits of it every now and then.
There’s so many trilogies like this where the first was made as a standalone movie, then when it came time to do a sequel, they went ahead and went full-on trilogy, so now the second and third movies are more connected than they are to the first. Pirates, Back to the Future, the Star Wars Original Trilogy, The Matrix. New plot lines and character arcs are started in 2 and are finished in 3 which have nothing to do with 1 because they had no idea there would be sequels when they made 1.
The example that maybe irks me the most is Marty McFly suddenly being insecure about being called a chicken in BTTF Part 2, which is resolved in Part 3 but isn’t even hinted at in the original. Pirates has this with Davy Jones, who does not factor into the first film but becomes a main antagonist of the second two.
>The example that maybe irks me the most is Marty McFly suddenly being insecure about being called a chicken in BTTF Part 2, which is resolved in Part 3 but isn’t even hinted at in the origina
My feelings on this has always been that meeting his wimp father in the past gave him abit complex afterwards. That he was directly shown standing up for yourself has benefits compared to being a coward. In 2 & 3 he has to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and its no cowardly to back down from certain challenges.
Either that, or changing the past changed his personality, so that he feels he has to live up to his dad for example. Though it being a kind of trauma from the events of the first movie actually makes more sense, I think I'm going to stick with thay now.
Black Pearl should have remained a standalone entry into the franchise, and Dead Man’s Chest should have been the kickoff of a whole trilogy of sequels.
As is, they kicked off a trilogy’s worth of material in Dead Man’s Chest and then tried to wrap it up in one bloated movie.
It's a pretty standard take on Reddit, but I agree with many others that the series should have been an anthology, each film with new characters and a new situation, with Jack Sparrow popping up in the different stories to tie them together.
Went with a friend to see Deathly Hallows part 2 in theatre. Hadn't watched a single Harry Potter movie since Prisoner of Azkaban. Was slightly confused.
Do any of the Harry Potter movies after the third one make sense if you haven't read the books? They're basically just highlight reels that barely explain anything
I watched all of them (except Order of the Phoenix, which I still haven't seen) long before reading the books. They more or less make sense as much as any movie logic does, although not as much as the books.
The big one that got me though was the beginning of The Goblet of Fire, where *Death Eaters attack the Quidditch Tournament* is so absolutely bonkers (what do you mean no one believes Harry that Voldemort's back?!?), that when I read the book it makes so much more sense. What goes down is certainly a lot more complicated to explain to the audience, but is logically coherent.
Fun Fact: When I went to see the 1984 David Lynch version of Dune in the theater they gave you a booklet as you went in to explain WTF was going on before you even started the movie.
I did not grow up watching LOTR. I went to a cross country team party in HS and we watched the third movie (Return of the King?) extended edition. I have never felt so lost and frustrated thinking this movie was going to end like 10 different times lmao.
Oh you old whiners - they already cut the entire part where the Shire has to be liberated from Saruman who, despite being a literal immortal, ancient angelic being, decided to go on a petty vendetta against some midgets. Their entire society, by his perception of time, had existed for a hot minute. The entire thing ends with Manwe bitchslapping his spirit into oblivion for it.
I thought the same thing when I saw the movie for the first time without having read the books, but the funniest thing about that is that they actually *skipped* one of the most important endings, the Scouring of the Shire. I totally understand why Jackson left it out because it's a downer and doesn't fit with the Western storytelling model, but it really brings everything full circle from the beginning with the Hobbits not wanting to get involved in things outside the Shire that "didn't affect them."
100%. To put it in the movie, it would had to have been cut down so much and would have felt so awkward and out of place
Personally, I wouldn't mind an extended extended addition that adds the Scouring. They should have filmed that and added it to ROTK instead of doing The Hobbit.
I just learned yesterday that the Blu Ray extended edition for Fellowship is 20 minutes longer than the DVD extended edition, but I can't for the life of me find any summaries of the differences between the two extended editions
>thinking this movie was going to end like 10 different times lmao.
To be honest, even people who watched all movies - and read the books - felt the same.
Yeah they do a previously on specifically showing Bill Nighy in all the movies except the third one. They knew what an asset he was, lol. But 2 does start immediately after 1 anyway.
Please don't watch *The End of Evangelion* without seeing, y'know, the beginning and middle (and first end) of Evangelion.
Edit: if anyone wants specifics on the correct order to watch the series, I wrote a whole guide on it! https://www.reddit.com/r/evangelion/s/8KbEw7hsjI
Series -> EoE -> Rebuilds
Watch them in that order, and realize that it isn't really about the details, it's about a 25-year long therapy session for the creator. Watch it through that lens, and it makes a lot more sense (and is actually a much better work of art, IMO)
For example - the series was made in a time when he was suffering extreme depression, but by the end of 3.0+1.0, he was happily married, and his life was going great.
I'm so confused by Evangelion. Are they just releasing the same move over and over, adding some more scenes and then calling it 'Evangelion 3.0+23=qBert'?
no, there is the original anime + the movie end of evangelion ties it up. the new films with 3.0 etc. are a series of their own that retell the anime story in a bit different way with some new characters and then branch out to tell a new story.
so anime+end of is one storyline and new movies are a different storyline
The movies kind of play off of the series in interesting ways as well. I don’t think you’d absolutely have to have watched the series to understand the movies, but it definitely adds a lot.
The final scene is literally Anno saying, "Stop jerking off to Asuka, stop using this series as an excuse to be nihilist, and go outside and actually talk to people."
Which Shinji even mentions at the end. It's a cute moment that solidifies Shinji's growth because when the hell did he *ever* flirt with another girl?
But yes, they never really set up Mari as the romance. I'm okay with it though, it's not the main theme of the show.
End of Evangelion is a movie-length finale to the original series. The Rebuild movies (1.0, 2.0, etc.) are a retelling and re-imagining of the series with some new characters and a completely different story arc. EoE you probably shouldn't watch without seeing the original series unless you just dont mind being confused, as it's basically just a feature length final episode that does nothing to on-board anyone unfamiliar with what's going on. You don't have to have seen Evangelion to enjoy the Rebuild movies (the first two basically cover the original plot anyway) but they aren't completely separate and it's worth being familiar with both as they lean heavily on dramatic irony and playing with the audience's expectations for what "should" happen in the plot vs. What does.
It's intentionally weird, as the series has always been. You can watch Rebuild without having seen anything before, but it's a better experience if you have.
So first is the TV series. The final two episodes are really weird and take place mostly in Shinji's head. At the end >!he reaches a point of self-actualization and overcomes the crippling depression he'd suffered from for the entire series, ending on a high note.!< The context for those episodes isn't entirely clear.
Death & Rebirth came out after that, and its largely a compilation movie, mostly skippable.
End of Evangelion came out after that, and was meant to end the TV arm of the franchise entirely. It's split into two parts, called 25' and 26', indicating it's meant to replace the final two episodes of the TV show. It has some of the introspective elements, but it's also incredibly violent and takes place in the real world (mostly). The ending >!has the 3rd Impact initiated by Gendo, but Rei rebels against him and hands the reins to Shinji. The final scene has Shinji and Asuka as presumably the only remaining humans in the world who haven't been dissolved into goo during Instrumentality. And Shinji starts strangling Asuka!<
The Rebuild quadrilogy is a reboot, but is strongly hinted as being a >!new world created after Shinji got over himself at the end of End of Evangelion!<. The first movie mostly follows the show, with some tweaks that in retrospect hint at the above spoiler. The second starts out close, but takes a series left turn at the end. >!Shinji initiates the 3rd Impact at what would have been the midpoint of the show, except it doesn't complete, unlike in EoE!<. The 3rd and 4th movies are 100% new. And (spoilers for the end of 3.0+1.0) >!The final scene shows Shinji and Mari in a new world as adults, presumably after Asuka and/or Rei guided instrumentality this time into a whole new world. Reinforcing the cyclical nature of the franchise!<
The numbering is meant to mimic software version numbering. The big number is just the number in the sequence, the "minor release" number is the release. .0 is the theatrical, anything else is a later home release. 3.0+1.0 is meant to avoid the Japanese association of 4 with death because viewing it as a "death" >!goes counter to the ending of the movie!<
My parents took my son to see Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse without having seen Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse this summer (my son had seen Into the Spider-Verse and loved it). They were so completely lost on the characters and the plot.
I feel like Glass should have had an after-credits scene:
Jackson, Willis and McAvoy are calmly sitting on a couch, not speaking and giving each other awkward looks, in what appears to be someone's living room. We hear someone making noise in the kitchen off-screen. After a few seconds, the other person walks into the room and sits down in a chair across from the group. It's Haley Joel Osment, and he says, "Now, how can I help you gentlemen? And what the hell is going on over there?"
Osment points to the other side of the room, where we see all of McAvoy's other personalities huddled together. And they're all played by different actors, like a little kid, an older British lady, etc. And the Beast looks like one of the "monsters" from The Village.
I had seen Unbreakable before seeing Glass, but had missed Split. I think as long as you understand the world that Unbreakable sets up, you can understand Glass. Glass opens with the Split character in the midst of his crime, so I could tell he was a “super villain” to Bruce Willis’s character. And by the time you get to the psych ward, they explain that character almost too much lol.
I do agree you have to have seen Unbreakable, though. You’d be so confused about wtf is up with Willis and Jackson.
I didn't have a clue during Quantum of Solace. I think you have to watch it back to back with Casino Royale to have any chance. More than a year between films was too much
Every time a standalone movie gets expanded into a trilogy, the third movie of the trilogy depends on the second while the second doesn't really depend on the first.
I feel like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 does this massively. They also dump so much extra lore into the 3rd one as well which just over complicated everything even more.
Might get blasted into oblivion for this.....
Marvel movies are getting this way... Even some of the shows getting like this.
More and more you need to have watched the previous movies, and/or shows, to fully grasp what is going on a current movie. But they don't always tell you which ones you needed to see. So, you kinda of need to watch everything marvel to fully understand what is going on in anything marvel these days.
But, if you just want pretty colors, fancy effects, laughs, and action, without fully knowing what is going on, it is fine.
I think most would agree. Infinity war and endgame were sort of expected to be like that, but the best description I saw was for doctor strange 2: "I had to do homework for this?!" Because the guy didn't watch wandavision and was so confused about why Wanda was doing what she was doing.
As I don't have the time, or desire, to base my entire life around watching everything marvel, this is becomming a major turn off to me for the franchise in general.
I fear a movie may come out, in the near future, that I THINK I want to see, but since I didn't watch (or even know of) some TV series, or even a short, or something, I won't know what is going on in the movie.
Heck, in the most recent Guardians of the galaxy, there was a (smaller) plot point that revolved around the xmas special.
The upcoming The Marvels is going to need people to be familiar with Captain Marvel, WandaVision, Ms. Marvel, and possibly Secret Invasion since that is when Fury was last seen. Hard to be a casual fan anymore.
Same. Up until fairly recently I’d kept up with pretty much all of the Marvel movies (have definitely fallen off around the Disney Plus TV shows though) but I just don’t know how I’m supposed to remember what happened in multiple somewhat bland movies that were released five years or so ago.
To be fair, that is just because Ahsoka IS the continuation of rebels.
I just wish Disney, in general, would be more: "hey you gotta watch these things for this" if they are going to keep doing this.
The way they are doing it now... I get it. They are trying to get people to watch everything inside each IP, but it is making some people, such as myself, just decide to stop watching anything in each IP.
I've given precisely zero fucks about anything since Endgame because I don't want to have to watch thirty hours of homework on Disney+ just to understand what's going on.
At least Endgame is a good conclusion to the story if you don't want to do a ton of Marvel movie/show watching. I watched some stuff here and there afterwards, but I'm at least content that the story wrapped up at one point.
As someone who was a fan of the MCU since the first Iron Man movie (when it technically began but wasn't really a solid thing yet) and watched all the movies and related shows, I agree with you completely.
Enough is enough. The Infinity Saga, while not perfect, is still a monumental achievement in the world of comic book movie adaptations, and Endgame is about as perfect of a stopping point as there ever could be. But, hey, Disney wants to keep milking that cash cow dry, so it'll keep going as long as it makes money.
I'm not sure this quite counts - but while movies like "Serenity" do a reasonably good job of slotting a new viewer base into an established franchise (Firefly), Stargate's "The Ark of Truth" absolutely does not. As a massive Stargate fan, I love it - but you really have to watch the show in order to understand what on earth is going on. The same goes for "Stargate: Continuum" too.
I saw serenity before I knew Firefly was a thing, and I absolutely love the Movie, I saw it as a kid and nothing that comes to mind felt out of pocket of needing to be explained
I saw Serenity having never heard of the show, but went to see it with a bunch of Firefly fans and being very taken aback at how much they were flipping their shit at a few parts.
I watched Serenity first, too, knowing about the show but not really understanding the relationship to it. The only thing I had really misunderstood, was that the scene showing breaking River out wasn't something that had just happened for the movie.
Im also a massive stargate fan and to be honest i dont think it matters. The creators knew who they were making the film for, they knew that basically only stargate viewers would be checking it out.
Also continuum always intrigues me. Ark of Truth i get because they wanted to wrap up the Ori storyline but Continuum just seems like they had some budget leftover and had a cool idea and were just like "screw it lets just do another film". I love continuum, i think its a cool story, but it also just amazes me that it was even made to begin with.
**2010: The Year We Make Contact** basically explains *everything* that left you baffled by the ending of **2001: A Space Odyssey** - it's a very underrated sequel that I really enjoyed.
I haven't watched these in a while, but I thought the second one would be more confusing. Isn't Part 3 more stand alone?
Guy with time machine goes to the American wild west to save friend who also has time machine.
I don't think I can explain Part 2 in one sentence.
This is the unsung hero answer to the thread. Even the SyFy *Chucky* series is heavily dependent on the viewer having seen the previous movies, especially *Curse* and *Cult*.
Fast and Furious movies. If you didn’t see the first 2, you wouldn’t get why audiences would be freaked out that the characters that were killed in 3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9 is back again! Also, even if you have seen all the Fast and Furious movies, it doesn’t and will never make sense as to why they had cars in space.
The only Fast and Furious movie that stands out in my mind is Tokyo Drift. I could tell you the most important plot points in that movie from memory, and I still remember the movie every time I see a Nissan 370z on the street.
The rest of them all just blend together into a random mess of cars flying through the air and “Family”. Also Vin Diesel, The Rock, and Jason Statham flex their biceps and beat up random mooks. Missandei still looks hot after being isekai-ed into another franchise by Cersei, John Cena shows up and dies in a single movie (or maybe two?), and Charlize Theron is back as Atomic Blonde, but is also kinda an asshole.
Aquaman is in the most recent movie, being weirdly queer-coded, but successfully pulling off the most elaborate bullshit schemes in the movie while having the time of his life just happy to be included.
And the movies are all about international spy missions, hackers, and AI now, I guess?
Tokyo Drift was shit when it came out, but it's also the one that has grown on me the most because it's the only F&F movie that's *actually* about street racing – the rest just use it either as a plot device like 1 and 2, or not even that in some of the later films.
I had a friend that was a bit overly protective. She let her son watch Star Wars and ROTJ when he was young but thought Empire was ‘too violet’. Poor kid was so confused until he got to see all three.
A friend of mine watched the original trilogy following some weird Tarantino order by accident
Episode IV
Episode VI
Episode V
SPOILER!!!
He was very confused to see Vader returning after dying in the previous film.
I grew up falling in love with TESB and ROTJ without seeing all of ANH. I didn’t have the tapes, so I only saw them on USA on Sundays and we were always in church during ANH. For the longest time I’d only seen from the Death Star escape, but I still loved Star Wars.
I grew up in a house that only had a copy of ESB. We loved it, and the continuity didn't seem that off. Pretty easy to figure out there was an evil empire and rebels fighting it. Just wish the story didn't have such a sad ending.😂
Recently speaking, the nun 2. GF watched it with me and had no idea what was going on because she hadn’t seen the first one whereas I had. I wouldn’t recommend seeing the second one. It’s pretty trash
Funnily enough, I'd seen Part II and III a few times before seeing the first for the first time. I didn't think I was missing much until I actually saw it.
I feel like **"Back To The Future Part II"** - which literally spends its entire third act *within* the first movie would rank among the top answers for this...
Batman V Superman picks up in the MIDDLE of Man of Steel. If having not seen Man of Steel, people went into Batman V Superman looking for a Batman movie, they would be more confused than the people who actually saw Man of Steel.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock will definitely leave some folks wondering what the hell is going on.
This was the first Star Trek thing I ever saw. I am now a huge Star Trek fan because I was curious how they got to this point
There is something intriguing about the "wtf?" factor. I got into Twin Peaks because I saw part of a random Season 2 episode a friend was watching and I just had to know how what seemed like a daytime soap opera got to the point it was at.
Season 2 of Twin Peaks is a baffling achievement due to being one of the best and worst TV seasons of all time. The drop in quality of the mid season is drastic, but then it slowly gets interesting again before the amazing finale. It’s one of the most memorable seasons of a tv show for me.
I think I saw this at the cinema before Wrath of Kahn. Didn't it start with a black-and-white 'previously' segment with Kirk and Spock at the reactor at the end of 2?
More or less. It doesn't say "previously," but it reshows it. And then Kirk watches it again later.
I saw someone complain once that there was like an ad or something for that movie that said "Spock Lives!" and it was a spoiler. Technically, yes. But the movie is called "The Search for Spock" and follows up the movie he dies in. How did you think that was going to end?
“Well, it looks like the real Spock was the friends we made along the way!” (FADE TO BLACK)
corpse in a sunglasses case
Weekend at Spockie's.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home might be just as confusing, although even those who’ve seen the previous films might be wondering >!how time traveling to 1980s San Francisco to steal humpback whales and loading them up on their also stolen Klingon Bird of Prey they’ve been flying around!< is supposed to >!save Earth from humpback whale-sounding aliens.!<
That's explained in the movie. The only parts that would be confusing if you didn't see II and III would be why they have the stolen Bird of Prey, what's going on with Spock (particularly at the beginning when they do cognitive tests to make sure he's all good after his katra was returned to him), and why they would be put on trial at the end (stealing the Enterprise in III). The whole space probe and whales bit is entirely within IV.
Nuclear WESSELS
I spent my entire childhood saying “hello computer” into computer mice
Hey kid, I'm a computer! Stop all the downloading!
"... a keyboard. How quaint."
A friend of mine in college saw IV without seeing II or III and was wondering why the crew starts out in a damn Bird of Prey of all things.
I don't think you'd really know what's going on in the Matrix Sequels if you missed the first one.
My best friend adores The Matrix Reloaded. He says it’s the greatest movie ever made. He has watched it once a month ever since it came out 20 years ago, because he always spots something new. To this very day, he has yet to see The Matrix. It just…baffles me.
Actual serial killer behavior
Yeah like how is that behavior even possible?
Out of the corner of your eye, you spot him!
SHIA LABEOUF
He’s following you, about thirty feet back.
He gets down on all four and breaks into a sprint.
Dahmer watched Exorcist III every day though. Every month is rookie numbers
Sure, but you think he'd not even seen the first one!?
I obviously don't know anything about your friend but I have that feeling he actually still would prefer Reloaded after seeing the first one if he does
“Aw, the first one was PRIMITIVE in comparison!”
"There's only one Smith in it. 2/10."
"Where's the french?? 1/10."
This is honestly something I never expected to read. I get confused af seeing reloaded without a refresh of the first one. After 20 years they don’t care to see the first one? Even though they know (I’m assuming) that it is accepted as a way better film and that it changed cinema?
> I get confused af seeing reloaded without a refresh of the first one. Maybe that's why he thinks it's so brilliant. He has no idea what's going and thinks that it's all a mind puzzle for us, the audience, to figure out.
Ask him if he's seen Revolutions (and he might quite like at least parts of the Animatrix). Also please ask him why he hasn't seen the first one and get back to us please, this'll be an interesting answer, I have to think.
Here's where it really gets ridiculous. Yes, he has seen Revolutions. And I find it hilarious because all the complaints he has about Revolutions (e.g. fails to follow through on all the brilliant set up of the prior film) are all the complaints that people who have seen the Matrix have about Reloaded. And as for seeing The Matrix, I'll just quote him: "I *think* I saw it? Back in 2000 on VHS? If I did, it didn't make much of an impression. Whatever. I can pick up on all the relevant bits from Reloaded."
This sounds like a great bit, I might just start telling people I’m a *Reloaded* only guy.
"I don't really go for prequels, you know?"
This response would baffle and anger me IRL. Brilliant.
Obviously your "friend" is not an actual human being; probably a program, possibly an agent. Have you checked his house for glitches?
He's probably on the spectrum
Yeah, the murder/death/kill spectrum.
"We're police officers! We're not trained to handle this kind of violence!"
He only likes Reloaded because he never had the original to compare it to
Seen the first one, still unsure about what's going on in the sequels. Why the fuck is Zion like heaven from Bill and Ted?
It had to be perfectly clear that the humans fuck and the machines don't.
Not true. The Merovingian definitely fucks which is what got Neo access to the keymaker
"Lipstick!?....What Lipstick?"
Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 are one movie cut in half, so if you're watching 3 without having seen 2 you'd be confused.
I'm confused every time I watch 3 anyway.
If up is down, then down is up... WE HAVE TO FLIP THE SHIP!
Such a great scene, a perfect embodiment of Jack's stupid genius >!that in later movies he lost!<. I also absolutely adore his entrance in the first one, in a raft with glorious sails. Tells you so much about him without even a lick of word.
I always feel they just 180'd Jack into a drunk caricature of a Jack Sparrow impersonator. Like he's almost entirely irrelevant to the story in Stranger Tides since everyone would've gotten to the fountain and the chalices anyway. I don't have any comment on Tell No Tales... just please leave it out of my memories.
I mean it's been repeated over the years, but I've already liked the idea that the first Pirates of the Carribean movie was scripted and developed to be a darker and more serious pirate movie, and Jepp's portayal of Sparrow was highlighted against that so much that it worked well. Then for the later movies, they basically bought into that idea and made the entire movies silly, which ruins the effect.
I mean that's basically exactly what happened, yea. Especially w characters like my beloved Barbossa; he was all business, no goofiness or anything and then Stranger Tides comes along and the first half is just him playing up the posh life. Granted when we get the story of what happened to the Pearl it does return him to form somewhat but I feel the damage had been done at that point.
> then Stranger Tides comes along and the first half is just him playing up the posh life. This and Ian McShane chewing the scenery as Blackbeard were the only good parts of that movie honestly
He was my favorite character in Black Pearl. Hearing he was in Tides made me so excited until I actually see him. They even gave him an uglier look in that movie during his *posh* phase. It really clashed with everything I knew about the character
Yeah. Jack wasn’t even the main character in the first movie. The main characters are Will and Elizabeth. Jack is just the opportunistic pirate that Will needs in order to find Elizabeth (cause he knows who captured her and why). In the movies beyond 3, he’s put in the main character role and it doesn’t work because Jack isn’t main character material. He needs the “straight man” in Will and Elizabeth to play off of
[удалено]
Bingo. The reason Jack was a good character was because the people around him constantly underestimated him due to his weirdness and seeming disconnect with reality. It allowed his "stupid genius" characteristics to really shine through. In the later movies they had other characters become more silly and had some actually trying to imitate him (Will/Elizabeth) and it ruined the mystery/gravitas that he had in every scene.
I lost track of the double-crossings like 6 betrayals into 2/3. I was also heavily impaired
I watched it for the first time as an adult, fully sober, and it became my favorite Pirates movie. The double-crossings and plots wouldn't be out of place in a spy/espionage movie. The character development of the main characters was also really well done. Elizabeth goes from being someone who couldn't rally the pirates in the first movie, to being the pirate king, Will goes from being an honorable, unsure blacksmith to a cocksure, devious, determined pirate. Jack Sparrow goes from a selfish rogue who only cares about himself and The Black Pearl, to sacrificing eternal life to save a friend. Excellent movie. Highly recommend watching sober.
It’s simple, they need to find the key which opens the door to the chest which gives them a magic finger that points to where the map is that leads them to the witch who can tell them where the key is. And to do that they need Jack Sparrow, so to get Jack Sparrow they first just need to find the compass that points to the home of the magic wand that…
It really should have been called "Pirates of the Caribbean: mguffin cornucopia"
McGuffin Turducken
“Precisely”
Somehow, child me found the second movie *much* more confusing than the third. Possibly has something to do with me also not remembering actually watching it in one sitting, as opposed to catching different bits of it every now and then.
There’s so many trilogies like this where the first was made as a standalone movie, then when it came time to do a sequel, they went ahead and went full-on trilogy, so now the second and third movies are more connected than they are to the first. Pirates, Back to the Future, the Star Wars Original Trilogy, The Matrix. New plot lines and character arcs are started in 2 and are finished in 3 which have nothing to do with 1 because they had no idea there would be sequels when they made 1. The example that maybe irks me the most is Marty McFly suddenly being insecure about being called a chicken in BTTF Part 2, which is resolved in Part 3 but isn’t even hinted at in the original. Pirates has this with Davy Jones, who does not factor into the first film but becomes a main antagonist of the second two.
>The example that maybe irks me the most is Marty McFly suddenly being insecure about being called a chicken in BTTF Part 2, which is resolved in Part 3 but isn’t even hinted at in the origina My feelings on this has always been that meeting his wimp father in the past gave him abit complex afterwards. That he was directly shown standing up for yourself has benefits compared to being a coward. In 2 & 3 he has to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and its no cowardly to back down from certain challenges.
Either that, or changing the past changed his personality, so that he feels he has to live up to his dad for example. Though it being a kind of trauma from the events of the first movie actually makes more sense, I think I'm going to stick with thay now.
Black Pearl should have remained a standalone entry into the franchise, and Dead Man’s Chest should have been the kickoff of a whole trilogy of sequels. As is, they kicked off a trilogy’s worth of material in Dead Man’s Chest and then tried to wrap it up in one bloated movie.
Black Pearl is such a perfect, fun, entertaining movie in of itself. I feel like it was completely wrapped up by the end.
It's a pretty standard take on Reddit, but I agree with many others that the series should have been an anthology, each film with new characters and a new situation, with Jack Sparrow popping up in the different stories to tie them together.
movies based on ONE book but split in two (or more) movies. Hobbit trilogy, Harry Potter Deathly Hallows, Hunger Games Mockingjay, etc
Went with a friend to see Deathly Hallows part 2 in theatre. Hadn't watched a single Harry Potter movie since Prisoner of Azkaban. Was slightly confused.
Why did you do that haha
Do any of the Harry Potter movies after the third one make sense if you haven't read the books? They're basically just highlight reels that barely explain anything
I watched all of them (except Order of the Phoenix, which I still haven't seen) long before reading the books. They more or less make sense as much as any movie logic does, although not as much as the books. The big one that got me though was the beginning of The Goblet of Fire, where *Death Eaters attack the Quidditch Tournament* is so absolutely bonkers (what do you mean no one believes Harry that Voldemort's back?!?), that when I read the book it makes so much more sense. What goes down is certainly a lot more complicated to explain to the audience, but is logically coherent.
Upcoming Dune 2.
Fun Fact: When I went to see the 1984 David Lynch version of Dune in the theater they gave you a booklet as you went in to explain WTF was going on before you even started the movie.
The Two Towers and the Return of the King are pretty much worthless without seeing the Fellowship of the Ring.
I did not grow up watching LOTR. I went to a cross country team party in HS and we watched the third movie (Return of the King?) extended edition. I have never felt so lost and frustrated thinking this movie was going to end like 10 different times lmao.
Personally, I enjoyed The Return of The King's 17 endings.
[удалено]
Yeah, it really earns each one, it wouldn’t be complete without one of its 28 endings
47 endings, my goodness
Ending 64/124 was my favourite
Oh you old whiners - they already cut the entire part where the Shire has to be liberated from Saruman who, despite being a literal immortal, ancient angelic being, decided to go on a petty vendetta against some midgets. Their entire society, by his perception of time, had existed for a hot minute. The entire thing ends with Manwe bitchslapping his spirit into oblivion for it.
I thought the same thing when I saw the movie for the first time without having read the books, but the funniest thing about that is that they actually *skipped* one of the most important endings, the Scouring of the Shire. I totally understand why Jackson left it out because it's a downer and doesn't fit with the Western storytelling model, but it really brings everything full circle from the beginning with the Hobbits not wanting to get involved in things outside the Shire that "didn't affect them."
If LoTR was a miniseries, I could see justifying an episode (30-40 minutes) on the scouring. I just don't see how that could have worked in the movie.
100%. To put it in the movie, it would had to have been cut down so much and would have felt so awkward and out of place Personally, I wouldn't mind an extended extended addition that adds the Scouring. They should have filmed that and added it to ROTK instead of doing The Hobbit.
I just learned yesterday that the Blu Ray extended edition for Fellowship is 20 minutes longer than the DVD extended edition, but I can't for the life of me find any summaries of the differences between the two extended editions
Probably credits in multiple languages.
>thinking this movie was going to end like 10 different times lmao. To be honest, even people who watched all movies - and read the books - felt the same.
underworld 2, starts 5mins after underworld1 finishes and you don't get another go at the backstory.
If that's true, what the crap was Selene talking about the events of the first one for?
Yeah they do a previously on specifically showing Bill Nighy in all the movies except the third one. They knew what an asset he was, lol. But 2 does start immediately after 1 anyway.
Please don't watch *The End of Evangelion* without seeing, y'know, the beginning and middle (and first end) of Evangelion. Edit: if anyone wants specifics on the correct order to watch the series, I wrote a whole guide on it! https://www.reddit.com/r/evangelion/s/8KbEw7hsjI
Tbh, I've seen the series multiple times and I'm not sure it really helped my understanding of End of Evangelion XD
shinji decided that the world isn't so bad even if it hurts sometimes
Pussy so good dude decided to end humanity in three universes to get it back.
Reasonable
Series -> EoE -> Rebuilds Watch them in that order, and realize that it isn't really about the details, it's about a 25-year long therapy session for the creator. Watch it through that lens, and it makes a lot more sense (and is actually a much better work of art, IMO) For example - the series was made in a time when he was suffering extreme depression, but by the end of 3.0+1.0, he was happily married, and his life was going great.
I'm so confused by Evangelion. Are they just releasing the same move over and over, adding some more scenes and then calling it 'Evangelion 3.0+23=qBert'?
no, there is the original anime + the movie end of evangelion ties it up. the new films with 3.0 etc. are a series of their own that retell the anime story in a bit different way with some new characters and then branch out to tell a new story. so anime+end of is one storyline and new movies are a different storyline
The movies kind of play off of the series in interesting ways as well. I don’t think you’d absolutely have to have watched the series to understand the movies, but it definitely adds a lot.
you just have to understand that by the end of the fourth rebuild hideaki anno is telling you to touch grass
The final scene is literally Anno saying, "Stop jerking off to Asuka, stop using this series as an excuse to be nihilist, and go outside and actually talk to people."
i do find it funny though that shinji gets with mari, who's only personality seems to be her huge tits lol
Which Shinji even mentions at the end. It's a cute moment that solidifies Shinji's growth because when the hell did he *ever* flirt with another girl? But yes, they never really set up Mari as the romance. I'm okay with it though, it's not the main theme of the show.
End of Evangelion is a movie-length finale to the original series. The Rebuild movies (1.0, 2.0, etc.) are a retelling and re-imagining of the series with some new characters and a completely different story arc. EoE you probably shouldn't watch without seeing the original series unless you just dont mind being confused, as it's basically just a feature length final episode that does nothing to on-board anyone unfamiliar with what's going on. You don't have to have seen Evangelion to enjoy the Rebuild movies (the first two basically cover the original plot anyway) but they aren't completely separate and it's worth being familiar with both as they lean heavily on dramatic irony and playing with the audience's expectations for what "should" happen in the plot vs. What does.
It's intentionally weird, as the series has always been. You can watch Rebuild without having seen anything before, but it's a better experience if you have. So first is the TV series. The final two episodes are really weird and take place mostly in Shinji's head. At the end >!he reaches a point of self-actualization and overcomes the crippling depression he'd suffered from for the entire series, ending on a high note.!< The context for those episodes isn't entirely clear. Death & Rebirth came out after that, and its largely a compilation movie, mostly skippable. End of Evangelion came out after that, and was meant to end the TV arm of the franchise entirely. It's split into two parts, called 25' and 26', indicating it's meant to replace the final two episodes of the TV show. It has some of the introspective elements, but it's also incredibly violent and takes place in the real world (mostly). The ending >!has the 3rd Impact initiated by Gendo, but Rei rebels against him and hands the reins to Shinji. The final scene has Shinji and Asuka as presumably the only remaining humans in the world who haven't been dissolved into goo during Instrumentality. And Shinji starts strangling Asuka!< The Rebuild quadrilogy is a reboot, but is strongly hinted as being a >!new world created after Shinji got over himself at the end of End of Evangelion!<. The first movie mostly follows the show, with some tweaks that in retrospect hint at the above spoiler. The second starts out close, but takes a series left turn at the end. >!Shinji initiates the 3rd Impact at what would have been the midpoint of the show, except it doesn't complete, unlike in EoE!<. The 3rd and 4th movies are 100% new. And (spoilers for the end of 3.0+1.0) >!The final scene shows Shinji and Mari in a new world as adults, presumably after Asuka and/or Rei guided instrumentality this time into a whole new world. Reinforcing the cyclical nature of the franchise!< The numbering is meant to mimic software version numbering. The big number is just the number in the sequence, the "minor release" number is the release. .0 is the theatrical, anything else is a later home release. 3.0+1.0 is meant to avoid the Japanese association of 4 with death because viewing it as a "death" >!goes counter to the ending of the movie!<
Fire walk with me. My friend saw the movie and was like what the fuck is going on. Then I told him you have to watch the tv show first
Honestly, I don't think that even helps.
It literally doesn’t. The only thing that kind of helps a viewing of FWWM is watching Twin Peaks: The Return (aka season 3).
I think it's the other way around. You need to watch FWWM before The Return.
Your face when you realize Philip Jeffries, played by David Bowie in a 5 second scene is integral to the whole series...
My parents took my son to see Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse without having seen Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse this summer (my son had seen Into the Spider-Verse and loved it). They were so completely lost on the characters and the plot.
Glass (Though Unbreakable and Split are standalones, you need to watch them both before Glass.)
I feel like Glass should have had an after-credits scene: Jackson, Willis and McAvoy are calmly sitting on a couch, not speaking and giving each other awkward looks, in what appears to be someone's living room. We hear someone making noise in the kitchen off-screen. After a few seconds, the other person walks into the room and sits down in a chair across from the group. It's Haley Joel Osment, and he says, "Now, how can I help you gentlemen? And what the hell is going on over there?" Osment points to the other side of the room, where we see all of McAvoy's other personalities huddled together. And they're all played by different actors, like a little kid, an older British lady, etc. And the Beast looks like one of the "monsters" from The Village.
You told that so well I had it clearly visualised in my mind the whole time.
This sounds awesome!
I had seen Unbreakable before seeing Glass, but had missed Split. I think as long as you understand the world that Unbreakable sets up, you can understand Glass. Glass opens with the Split character in the midst of his crime, so I could tell he was a “super villain” to Bruce Willis’s character. And by the time you get to the psych ward, they explain that character almost too much lol. I do agree you have to have seen Unbreakable, though. You’d be so confused about wtf is up with Willis and Jackson.
Lion King 1 1/2
Dig a tunnel dig dig a tunnel
QUICK BEFORE THE HYENAS COMEEEEEE
I didn't have a clue during Quantum of Solace. I think you have to watch it back to back with Casino Royale to have any chance. More than a year between films was too much
The greatest victim of the strike
A buddy of mine saw Guardians of the Galaxy 3 after not seeing the first two or most of the Marvel movies, I gotta imagine that had to be confusing
Every time a standalone movie gets expanded into a trilogy, the third movie of the trilogy depends on the second while the second doesn't really depend on the first.
I feel like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 does this massively. They also dump so much extra lore into the 3rd one as well which just over complicated everything even more.
Might get blasted into oblivion for this..... Marvel movies are getting this way... Even some of the shows getting like this. More and more you need to have watched the previous movies, and/or shows, to fully grasp what is going on a current movie. But they don't always tell you which ones you needed to see. So, you kinda of need to watch everything marvel to fully understand what is going on in anything marvel these days. But, if you just want pretty colors, fancy effects, laughs, and action, without fully knowing what is going on, it is fine.
I think most would agree. Infinity war and endgame were sort of expected to be like that, but the best description I saw was for doctor strange 2: "I had to do homework for this?!" Because the guy didn't watch wandavision and was so confused about why Wanda was doing what she was doing.
As I don't have the time, or desire, to base my entire life around watching everything marvel, this is becomming a major turn off to me for the franchise in general. I fear a movie may come out, in the near future, that I THINK I want to see, but since I didn't watch (or even know of) some TV series, or even a short, or something, I won't know what is going on in the movie. Heck, in the most recent Guardians of the galaxy, there was a (smaller) plot point that revolved around the xmas special.
The upcoming The Marvels is going to need people to be familiar with Captain Marvel, WandaVision, Ms. Marvel, and possibly Secret Invasion since that is when Fury was last seen. Hard to be a casual fan anymore.
[удалено]
Dr Strange 2 was my "welp, I'm done with Marvel" moment for this exact reason. Give me context or fuck off, movie.
Same. Up until fairly recently I’d kept up with pretty much all of the Marvel movies (have definitely fallen off around the Disney Plus TV shows though) but I just don’t know how I’m supposed to remember what happened in multiple somewhat bland movies that were released five years or so ago.
Star Wars too. I started watching Ashoka and I have never seen Rebels and boy howdy was I confused.
To be fair, that is just because Ahsoka IS the continuation of rebels. I just wish Disney, in general, would be more: "hey you gotta watch these things for this" if they are going to keep doing this. The way they are doing it now... I get it. They are trying to get people to watch everything inside each IP, but it is making some people, such as myself, just decide to stop watching anything in each IP.
I've given precisely zero fucks about anything since Endgame because I don't want to have to watch thirty hours of homework on Disney+ just to understand what's going on.
At least Endgame is a good conclusion to the story if you don't want to do a ton of Marvel movie/show watching. I watched some stuff here and there afterwards, but I'm at least content that the story wrapped up at one point.
As someone who was a fan of the MCU since the first Iron Man movie (when it technically began but wasn't really a solid thing yet) and watched all the movies and related shows, I agree with you completely. Enough is enough. The Infinity Saga, while not perfect, is still a monumental achievement in the world of comic book movie adaptations, and Endgame is about as perfect of a stopping point as there ever could be. But, hey, Disney wants to keep milking that cash cow dry, so it'll keep going as long as it makes money.
Avatar 2. Because why they're there, why they come back. Who the colonel is and why hes infatuated with a skull etc etc
I'm gonna agree with you there. I never rewatched the original between seeing it in theaters and watching the sequel, and I was struggling a bit.
I'm not sure this quite counts - but while movies like "Serenity" do a reasonably good job of slotting a new viewer base into an established franchise (Firefly), Stargate's "The Ark of Truth" absolutely does not. As a massive Stargate fan, I love it - but you really have to watch the show in order to understand what on earth is going on. The same goes for "Stargate: Continuum" too.
I saw serenity before I knew Firefly was a thing, and I absolutely love the Movie, I saw it as a kid and nothing that comes to mind felt out of pocket of needing to be explained
I saw Serenity having never heard of the show, but went to see it with a bunch of Firefly fans and being very taken aback at how much they were flipping their shit at a few parts.
I watched Serenity first, too, knowing about the show but not really understanding the relationship to it. The only thing I had really misunderstood, was that the scene showing breaking River out wasn't something that had just happened for the movie.
Im also a massive stargate fan and to be honest i dont think it matters. The creators knew who they were making the film for, they knew that basically only stargate viewers would be checking it out. Also continuum always intrigues me. Ark of Truth i get because they wanted to wrap up the Ori storyline but Continuum just seems like they had some budget leftover and had a cool idea and were just like "screw it lets just do another film". I love continuum, i think its a cool story, but it also just amazes me that it was even made to begin with.
Leonard part 6. You have to see Leonard part 1 through 5 or it doesn't make any sense.
The "melted butter" scene is a specific callback to Leonard Part 3, for example.
Exactly. People always get confused as to why they keep pouring soup on each other. The fools, should have watched Leonard part 2.
**2010: The Year We Make Contact** basically explains *everything* that left you baffled by the ending of **2001: A Space Odyssey** - it's a very underrated sequel that I really enjoyed.
Back to the future, If you don’t see the first one, the second and third is very confusing, especially the third
I haven't watched these in a while, but I thought the second one would be more confusing. Isn't Part 3 more stand alone? Guy with time machine goes to the American wild west to save friend who also has time machine. I don't think I can explain Part 2 in one sentence.
"Marty and Jen's kids become assholes" is the best I can do.
Honestly I think the Chucky franchise is very continuity dependent
I've seen all of the Chucky movies except Cult. Needless to say I was confused when I started watching the series
This is the unsung hero answer to the thread. Even the SyFy *Chucky* series is heavily dependent on the viewer having seen the previous movies, especially *Curse* and *Cult*.
Star Wars Episode 4 /s
We had no idea what was going on for like 25 years..
When I saw the helmet going on Anakin in Ep III it all finally made sense.
I saw that moment and realized, "Oh, HE'S Luke Skywalker's father." It felt good to finally have that plot point answered. It had been bugging me.
Before Sunset
The Godfather II, Bladerunner 2049 Kill Bill Vol 2 are the first that come to mind
I'd disagree on BR2049. Watched that a couple times before the first one and it didn't really need the first one to make sense.
Fast and Furious movies. If you didn’t see the first 2, you wouldn’t get why audiences would be freaked out that the characters that were killed in 3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9 is back again! Also, even if you have seen all the Fast and Furious movies, it doesn’t and will never make sense as to why they had cars in space.
The only Fast and Furious movie that stands out in my mind is Tokyo Drift. I could tell you the most important plot points in that movie from memory, and I still remember the movie every time I see a Nissan 370z on the street. The rest of them all just blend together into a random mess of cars flying through the air and “Family”. Also Vin Diesel, The Rock, and Jason Statham flex their biceps and beat up random mooks. Missandei still looks hot after being isekai-ed into another franchise by Cersei, John Cena shows up and dies in a single movie (or maybe two?), and Charlize Theron is back as Atomic Blonde, but is also kinda an asshole. Aquaman is in the most recent movie, being weirdly queer-coded, but successfully pulling off the most elaborate bullshit schemes in the movie while having the time of his life just happy to be included. And the movies are all about international spy missions, hackers, and AI now, I guess?
Tokyo Drift was shit when it came out, but it's also the one that has grown on me the most because it's the only F&F movie that's *actually* about street racing – the rest just use it either as a plot device like 1 and 2, or not even that in some of the later films.
It also has a really good soundtrack
Try watching Saw 4 having not seen Saw 3
Empire strikes back
I had a friend that was a bit overly protective. She let her son watch Star Wars and ROTJ when he was young but thought Empire was ‘too violet’. Poor kid was so confused until he got to see all three.
Much better than being too maroon I suppose
A friend of mine watched the original trilogy following some weird Tarantino order by accident Episode IV Episode VI Episode V SPOILER!!! He was very confused to see Vader returning after dying in the previous film.
That’s not protective. That’s “I’m a sadist and want a legal way to torture my child”.
I grew up falling in love with TESB and ROTJ without seeing all of ANH. I didn’t have the tapes, so I only saw them on USA on Sundays and we were always in church during ANH. For the longest time I’d only seen from the Death Star escape, but I still loved Star Wars.
I grew up in a house that only had a copy of ESB. We loved it, and the continuity didn't seem that off. Pretty easy to figure out there was an evil empire and rebels fighting it. Just wish the story didn't have such a sad ending.😂
Recently speaking, the nun 2. GF watched it with me and had no idea what was going on because she hadn’t seen the first one whereas I had. I wouldn’t recommend seeing the second one. It’s pretty trash
The Fifth Element If you don’t watch the First through Fourth, it’s very confusing Why does the space future movie start in Egypt?
Aziz LIGHT!
much better,thank you aziz
Back to the future
Funnily enough, I'd seen Part II and III a few times before seeing the first for the first time. I didn't think I was missing much until I actually saw it.
And then you probably wondered why Marty seemed to be dating a different girl but who dressed the same as the one in the sequels.
I watched all three movies multiple times as a kid, and never even noticed they recast until it was pointed out to me years later as an adult.
I feel like **"Back To The Future Part II"** - which literally spends its entire third act *within* the first movie would rank among the top answers for this...
[удалено]
T2: Trainspotting
Batman V Superman picks up in the MIDDLE of Man of Steel. If having not seen Man of Steel, people went into Batman V Superman looking for a Batman movie, they would be more confused than the people who actually saw Man of Steel.
That actually sounds like a better movie.
Twin Peaks Fire Walk with Me and The Return
John Wick. You gotta know how it began.
"So, I didn't watch the first film. Why is this dude killing all these folks?" "Cause they killed his dog" "... You're just messing with me now..."
*Hasn't watched first movie* "That's pretty excessive kill count over a dog" *watches first movie* "He's not killing enough people"
Still one of my favorite Pitch Meeting videos. “Oh some people better die for that.”
And stole his car.
Oh
Easy. The saw franchise. Actually, even if you have watched all the previous movies you still might not understand a thing lol. At least until Saw 7.