Live Poll: Very Confusing Film Franchises

Which I thought about including and now I regret I haven't. Will do, because original 1978-started franchise is a mess of a greatest order. 

Maybe explanatory texts should be left for the "GS" section, I like to write lengthy texts as well but sometimes I'm questioning their usefulness. I suggested this 2 years ago and I was told it wasn't going to make a poll because the texts were too long (God knows it took me time to make the lists)

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066799842/mediaviewer/rm3513358336

The texts are obviously too long, but I don't know how to go around such situations without explaining. Hopefully someone will suggest a solution (or I will come up with one at some point), because I really like the idea.

Maybe just remove the parts that aren't essential to your explanation, there's always a way to shorten a text, good luck!

Yes, Phantams franchise is a bit weird. 

It has been decided that the two AvP movies (and any subsequent such) are part of a timeline/universe/canon separate from the Alien cinema series and separate from the Predator cinema series. In the AvP universe, the xenomorphs and facehuggers (with the life cycle established in Aliens) existed on earth for millennia, whereas in the Alien universe, they of such a specific kind were genetically engineered by a rogue Weyland-Yutani android in century XXII or so. There is also the matter of the Weyland line. Trying to fit it all together, it would seem that one of Peter Weyland's descendants, Michael Bishop Weyland, looks just like one of Peter Weyland's ancestors, Charles Bishop Weyland, or perhaps Peter Weyland has no biological descendants but instead only androids (one with red oil instead of usual white) made in Charles Bishop Weyland's image. Anyway, AvP did not really contribute to any confusion in the Predator chronology, or I least I do not see how.

AvP is not the reason predator series is confusing :/

I've not seen The Predator yet (and I wouldn't be expected to since it has not even been released yet), so I've to wonder if the series of Predator movies are confusing. What exactly is the confusion?

Silitonga and Jeorj Euler, great thanks for reminding me, I don't know how I forgot about the Alien franchise. Considering that newer Ridley Scott movies are clearly ignoring all of the previous sequels, that is definitely the case, will add. 

It's peculiar, because the director's cut of the original Alien subtly revealed that a facehugger and the sacks that contains it can be made of the body of a person/animal, transformed, as an alternative to being grown within the womb of a queen xenomorph. We, the audience, can gather that this way was originally intended to be the way of the reproductive life cycle of xenomorphs and facehuggers, before Aliens was made.

Fast-forward to AvP: Requiem where a Yautja-based (predator-species-based) xenomorph is revealed to have the same "impregnating" abilities of a facehugger, which is presumably anomalous for a xenomorph; just one more reason for fans (and storytellers) of the Alien cinema franchise to lean toward shunning the AvP cinema franchise. Ridley Scott probably didn't see this as a problem, though. Prometheus makes it clear that the reproductive life cycles of xenomorphs and facehuggers is potentially arbitrary to a limited degree; more or less limited depending upon from which branch of the family tree from the microbial black liquid that a xenomorph or a facehugger (or any lifeform rather) is descended; yet the traits of these creatures are refined specifically by a very special android who sees fit to explore the meaning of life.

However, at this point, "alien" biology is not what matters. The Alien movies of the 2010s have drifted off into the ideas territory of not only "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" but also "Supertoys Last All Summer Long". It's David's story.

About a year ago, I did see The Predator, and nothing in it contributes anything confusing to the series of Predator movies. However, I've come to realize that the setting of Predator 2 is awkward enough to slightly not have aged well, since the movie takes place years a few years ahead of when it was made, whereby part of Los Angeles depicted therein is a war zone, borderline post-apocalyptic, taken over by guerilla-like heavily-armed gangs. The understaffed police department struggles to keep the city free from mayhem and extreme violence. There was never any explicit explanation for the environment and conditions depicted, but the implication is that the civil wars and cartel wars going on in South America spread to all the way to California, in a way much more severe than has actually happened in real life thus far. Also, no sequel to Predator 2 in the Predator franchise provides closure on the condition of 1990s Los Angeles, but presumably the start of Predator 2 depicts the gang lords' last stand against the cops who were unwittingly helped by a lone Yautja city hunter.

Great thanks, Jessica. Boy, that's a lot of typing errors, but I'm not surprised so much slipped: writing about things like that easily can get your head a bit heavy. 

Hi, groovyvic. Seems like the poll author focused on a certain type of "confusing". Unlike the items of the poll selection, Phantasm movie series doesn't really have a continuity issues. The series just happens to maintain an ongoing sort of mystery for the first three or so installments. That might explain why he didn't add it. So, you would be very helpful to write an item description as to why Phantasm is confusing. Off the bat, I'd agree that the way certain installment-specific major characters either were killed off or disappeared (some for good and some just for the span of one installment) has been awkward. The most awkward involves the whole potential "solar twin" arc.

Jessica, I don't know how (since I read every single notification from GetSatisfaction or at least 90% of such) but I've managed not to notice that the poll went live! O_o

Great thanks and sorry for being such a snail: must be a sudden change of wheather where I am.

groovyvic, I'm not entirely sure on Phantasm - I've only seen the first film and franchise seems to be more or less straightforward, unlike most mentioned. 

As for Evil Dead series, yep feels like I should have included it, but if you ignore some of the prologues it is (mostly) strightforward: numerous continuity messes are because of distribution rights being footballed back and forth between different studios so they can use elements from the first two movies in the series, but can't use such from the third one, for example (and originally they filmed alternative version of the backstory in the sequel because rights to the first movie belonged to another studio and while sequel was greenlit, use of footage wasn't). It becomes rather straightfoward once you get that out of the way. 

I somehow only discovered that the poll went live with this message. And considering how I read every single notification that is quite an odd occurrence. 

Great thanks! 

Thanks!