Why do some film series go off their order of events

I have a few examples

Star Wars - why start off at episode 4 when really you could of just started with episode 1 first. The big mistake here is you start off on episode 4 and any characters that you kill off in future episodes and they show up in the first 3 episodes, its gonna make those episodes pointless to watch since you already know what's going to happened to those characters in the future episodes. Not a bad series though it's just it would of been better if they went in order or maybe I'm missing something here.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre - The series is a big mess, we got the original, the three sequels, remake, prequel, Sequel to the original movie then a prequel after the first prequel which was that Leatherface movie which came out last year, O_O just kill him off already, we get the point now.

The Purge - three sequels and a prequel, I would of just made the prequel the first movie and then just go on with the other three movies. I don't mind these films, can't wait for the mini tv series coming out in September 4 on USA and the final episodes will be on SYFY.

The Godfather - why couldn't they have just made Vito young in the first one and just make him older on Part 2. These are good movies but I think it would of been better if the events of the movies were in order so you don't confuse people. Atleast they didn't make him too young or things wouldn't look right since Michael would have to be more younger in this movie.

Surprisingly Back to the future didn't do this yet, hence the name of the title, who knows they could of made 2 more sequels and a prequel following a remake. Talking about an over kill, luckily they got the message after making part 3.

I'm sure there's other movies that does this, but imo I think it's just better when film series go in order so it makes the story more easy to understand.

I don't think I've ever been necessarily confused by a timeline in a film franchise before, and I also don't have a problem with prequels or releasing films outta timeline order, so long as they serve a genuine purpose and succeed at building a greater picture in a necessary way.

I can understand having an issue with instances where it feels like they're trying to squeeze water out of a stone for reasons that aren't necessary like Rogue One, for instance. But, at the same time, with what you said about the earlier series, I think that's actually justifiable, because Episode 4, 5, and 6 stood on their own and 1, 2, and 3 only supplemented them, and if they would've released them chronologically, the dynamic between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker wouldn't have worked as well.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe nearly all film series with odd chronological orderings begin with a single film that wasn't expected to set up for a larger universe (Star Wars being somewhat of an exception, though that was certainly not guaranteed to be such a franchise).


If the film-creators knew they'd get a certain number of films they probably would have released them in a more coherent order.

An aside in-regards to Star Wars would be to mention that it wasn't originally released as "Episode Four: A New Hope," it was released simply as Star Wars.

Its years since Ive seen it, and Im not a Star Wars geek either, but does it say in the scrolling text at the start that its episode 4? My brother is a total SW nerd and Im sure even when he was sitting me through them before the prequels came out, they were still called episodes 4-6. Out of intetest, why did Star Wars start at episode 4?

You're right! I could have sworn the screen crawl always said episode 4, but it totally didn't until the re-releases (which are the ones I grew up on).


Then it's definitely another example of chronology being made after initial success (and thus, odd ordering).

I always thought the opening crawl was introduced with "Episode IV: A New Hope" but it seems that that was a later addition.

Interesting! Must have been the same ones I saw too, my brother had the original trilogy on video.

When were they added then? Were the prequels in the offing by that point?

This explains why I don't remember the IV when I first saw it. Why did the filmmakers choose to add that though?

Yea probably when Episodes 1, 2, 3 were made,then after they decided that the star wars movie that came out in the 70s was Episode 4 to continue the story. I mean it would look silly to make three movies and just ignore the 70s one only to make a whole new episode 4

Gonna side with the people who say that it's fine as long as the prequels have at least some reason for existing and/or were created to expand upon a successful original (e.g. Godfather Part II is justified by how it's supposed to contrast young Vito's anti-heroic rise to power against Michael's increasingly villainous use of his own power). I daresay Back to the Future was always meant to be a trilogy anyway - the first part ends on a sequel hook and the latter parts were shot back-to-back so there really wasn't much call for any further development.

One noteworthy example of chronological sillliness is the Fast and Furious series, which killed off a character in its third installment and then made the next three movies after that into prequels (despite clearly advancing in terms of technology and style in the meantime) just to keep said character around.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

It's difficult to actually give an accurate answer for why they decided to start Star Wars at Episode Four. It wasn't until a year after release they opted to re-release it as "Episode Four - A New Hope" when they realized what a success it was and that they'd, in-fact, be able to make more of them.

According to George Lucas, his intent was to start "in the middle" of everything that had happened (a narration technique known as In Medias Res), in an interview he talked about how the whole series was about the fall and redemption of Darth Vader, and even though he had too much material for one film, Star Wars was planned as a smallish budget film without any guarantee a sequel would ever come to fruition.

This method isn't actually that uncommon, in a smaller extent, a lot of films or television shows have opened with a character in a moment of action, only to rewind it back "two days earlier" to show how they got there.

If you think about it, this is likely why the Death Star is destroyed in A New Hope, then, a second time, in Return of the Jedi. If we're being honest - I always thought how quickly the Death Star was brought down in A New Hope and fast it seemed. Frankly put, it felt odd to have the start of a Saga end with the main-character destroying the looming threat, only for it to be built and destroyed again in the final act of a Saga. I think this is likely because George Lucas always intended the destruction of the Death Star to be series' end, but he chose to include it in the first Star Wars because it was doubtful he'd receive enough films to actually capture what he intended.

Fast and the Furious' chronology is actually one I forgot about, likely because I've never been a fan of the series. But, that's definitely a strange and bizarre one to say the least.

Although it isn't a chronological issue but, instead, a very strange series continuance and alternative timelines, Halloween is noteworthy:

Halloween 1 & 2 conclude the story with Laurie Strode, and, ultimately, effectively kill Michael Myers. Then, after Halloween 3, which isn't about Michael Myers, but, instead, an evil corporation called Silver Shamrock, marketing deadly masks to children, in Halloween 4-5, his focus is on Laurie's daughter Jamie (Laurie is assumed dead). Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is its own bag-of-worms, but follows after the timeline for 5.

In Halloween H20, however, it's revealed that Laurie Strode faked her death. This almost would fit into the said-continuity, and in the original outline for the film, it even featured a scene mentioning Jamie's death and Laurie Strode vomiting in a bathroom. The film ultimately retconned everything that had happened and eliminated Jamie's character. This effectively created a second timeline that was then followed by Halloween: Resurrection, which began with the death of Laurie Strode.

Then, of course, there's the Rob Zombie remakes.

And, finally, now with the upcoming Halloween 2018, a new timeline will now exist, disregarding Laurie's death in Resurrection, her stated death in Halloween 4, and disregarding the events of Halloween 2, opting to directly followup the original John Carpenter film.

Yeah, I did think of Halloween as well - all those divergent continuites (which I guess also happened to Texas Chain Saw Massacre). There's also Highlander constantly changing its continuity - the second one was set in the future with aliens, the third one was set in the present day, and the fourth and fifth ones followed the plot of the TV show (which was also separate from the third one).

I don't mind them either as long as it makes sense, like Texas Chainsaw Massacre it didn't really need two prequels.Yea Fast and the furious movies needs to end, once Paul Walker passed away they should of just ended the series.

T(he creators of "Back to the Future" never expected to do a sequel. They have commented that the ending of the first was meant as a joke and they didn't know how successful it would be and that they were writing themselves into a corner for the sequel. If you watch them again, there are continuing plot threads in II and III, but the premise and conflicts introduced in the first one are mostly resolved there.
Probably the best general answer to your question is that with some exceptions (Star Wars being one.), the first film's creators didn't expect to be doing sequels and when the first films proved successful, they or others (It's not always the original creators who are involved.) looked at how they could develop the story further. Sometimes that means going forward, sometimes it's going backward.

Others have pointed out that Star Wars wasnt an exception.

Thanks for that, clears things up a lot for a non-fan!

I did assume that was the case with the destruction of the Death Star at the end of Star Wars, as a sequel wasnt guaranteed. Take away all the sequels, and Star Wars can stand on it's own as a complete story. It kind of goes back to my earlier point about 'origin' stories often slowing down the first in a series, Star Wars doesnt really have that, it just jumps straight into the action at the start, and is conceivably all wrapped up at the end, had it not done as well as it did.

Mr. TagoMago, I'm not sure I get your meaning. Do you mean others in this thread or elsewhere? If you don't believe sequels were planned before "Star Wars" was made, check out these links:

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-fir...ck-1201669419/

It's true that "Episode IV" was added to the crawler later but that doesn't mean sequels weren't envisioned.

Sorry, here's the other link:
https://deadline.com/2015/12/star-wa...ck-1201669419/