Jory wrote:
Big franchises like Star Wars and X-Men assume that the audience has been keeping up with the previous movies, and it doesn't occur to the screenwriters that some exposition is needed to explain things to the uninitiated. There's also pressure to include as many characters as possible so they can sell more action figures and t-shirts. Smaller and more personal movies are naturally going to be easier to follow. These are usually original (non-franchise) movies like Drive, but not always. Sometimes a movie like Creed or Mad Max: Fury Road will come along that's a sequel in a long-running series but is easy to follow because the filmmakers cared more about telling a coherent story than pandering to geek culture and selling Taco Bell collectible cups.
I don't know, it would make it pretty cumbersome and redundant if they back tracked too much in movies like that to catch people up whenever they release another.
I mean take Lord of the Rings, that is only a trilogy but yeah the movies are around 3 hours long not sure how they would have fit in a bunch of back tracking to make sure people who hadn't seen the first movie are caught up with the third movie. Each movie can be entertaining as a stand alone movie, but it certainly makes more sense when you watch them all in order. I certainly would not wanted to have to sit through a bunch of back tracking in the second and third LOTR movies, I don't think it would have been as good.
_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.