Flicks And The City and also on the song Honey Honey it explains how Donna did it with Sam first, then bill ,and at last Harry, an old friend. But on the sequel she first does it with Harry (who she just met )then Sam, and at last Bill. Its still a great movie, but I feel it would have been better if they remembered that detail.
Totally understand where you're coming from, Miranda! For me, the inconsistencies in the timeline and differences between the two movies didn't stop me enjoying the sequel. :-)
I didn't care about the timeline at all. What matters is I enjoyed the movie and my family and my friends had so much fun. I even watched it twice, first with my friends then with my husband and daughter and I cried twice too to that part when Meryl Streep was singing "My life my love " I would love to have a DVD of this movie.
I always imagine Sam getting home and speaking to his sons: "So I went to this ex-girlfriends island this vacation and I kinda got married. I'm here really quickly before I move back with Sophie, oh yeah: Sophie is her daughter. She might also be your sister. Anyway see yah fella's"
It’s not confusing if you’ve seen both movies. Here it is Ruby is left by Fernando Ruby gives birth to Fernando’s daughter Donna Donna meets the dynamos. Donna graduates from college Donna meets and sleeps with harry Donna meets bill Donna meets, falls in love with, and sleeps with Sam Donna get dumped and then sleeps with bill Donna finds out she’s pregnant Donna gives birth to Sophie and christens her Mamma Mia! The movie takes place Donna Sheridan-Carmichael dies of an unknown cause Sky and Sophie agree to make the hotel Bella Donna, skye goes to New York Skye is still in New York when the massive storm hits The party is back on, Sophie finds out she’s pregnant Ruby comes and gets back with señor sinfuegos Nine months later or so Sophie gives birth to her son Sophie christens her son and says a last goodbye to her mother. Sophie and her family remember Donna, and keep her memory alive.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, Miriam. As I said in the video, I very much enjoyed the movie, but that does not mean that I don't notice inconsistencies in the movie. :-)
Personally, I am very upset about the inconsistencies with the first movie, they already had facts written, they just had to film it! And yes, I liked the second movie and I'll see it a thousand times, but that does not make me feel any less angry.
The dancing waiter could have been the father of the clean-shaven young man. And, as to the guitar - Harry, alias Head Banger, could have bought a second guitar for Donna in Paris, for which he paid with the T-shirt and the ten spot, AFTER he was seen playing his own... and that may have been the reason he followed her to Kalokairi to give it to her, since he missed her. I really thought Harry should have been more "metal" and at least worn the studded collar and eyeliner.
Am I the only one who noticed the biggest anachronism of them all: Bill was driving a brand-new Mercedes X-class. That takes us to 2018 or at least 2017.
And wasn't the same band that Donna met at the island playing at the grand opening in the same costumes and also without aging, but now not singing an Abba song? Sofias son?
Well spotted, Doug, yes, it was Sofia's son's band who played at the bar and the grand reopening! Same distinctive waistcoat though he did get a haircut in those 25 years! :-)
I mean the original musical was made in 1999 so the diary dates would've made more sense back then but since the movie was filmed in 2018 I think it just made more sense to film the present scenes in the contemporary time period ;)
As you mentioned Sophies phone looked like a 2013 iPhone, the computer was also a 2013 model. If the movie was set five years after the events of the first MM, that would set MM1 in 2008 and MM2 in 2013 since it was five yeaes after. The only issue is that Sophie was 20 at the time of the first movie, so really it's MM2 that messes with the timeline.
You know what’s funny. Donna’s friends kind of flirt with the guy who sang with Cher as if he were their age but it turns out he used to be with Sofia’s grandma when they were younger
Andy García/Fernando Cienfuegos isn´t portrayed as an elderly in their 70s nor does Grandma/Cher looks like a grandmother with a 55 year old daughter like Donna or an almost 30 year old grandaughter. In thata case, Fernando considering his physical age could be considered as one of Donna´s fuck buddies, cof cof I mean hippie friends.
The weird thing is that donna. Beeing valedictorian with an oxford degree, decides to stay in a remoted greek island. That's fine but...she then has truble keeping the hotel
Some people have suggested that the story of Ruby and Fernando be the subject of a future sequel. How about Donna having three possible fathers as a plot twist?
One issue I think we should bring up is what happened to Sofia. Sofia was Bill’s great aunt through his mother, a Greek immigrant. In the musical script, it says that Donna had been running the hotel (which she got from Sofia) for 15 years. Another thing that hints to her fate is that Sophie states that Donna cared for Sofia (whom she describes as an old woman when she was little, hinting at it being near when she died). As the musical takes place in 2000, we can presume that Sofia died around 1985.
Also the problem with ages. Donna and the 3 men were in their late teens when she had Sophie so in the first film they should be late thirties and in the second early to mid 40s. And they r definitely not that young bill even says “I’m a man in my fifties”
There are loads of plot holes between how Donna met the three dads in the 2 movies. But the biggest timeline inconsistency is if she really wanted to know who her real dad is, why didn't she ask for a paternity test? They started in 1960!
You know, I have actually had this conversation with my sister about the timeline in Mamma Mia because the Mamma Mia series is our fav movies!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣(i have seen both movies millions of times) And we are still confused!!!
Just something else I noticed today, at the beginning, Sophie is about to send a letter to her grandmother, Ruby, to an address in Beverly Hill, CA, however, just as Rosie and Tanya arrive, and question if Sophie invited her, she said that she hasn’t been seen out of Las Vegas for decades. So why did she send it to Los Angeles?
Fernando isnt necessiraly Donna's father, Donna said to Harry that her mom had been heartbroken in South America once , that could have been after Donna was born
We hosted a private movie screening of Mamma Mia 10 years ago at our local cinema house for our 40th Wedding Anniversary. So when Mamma Mia Here We Go Again debuted the same weekend this month, how could we resist a "dedeux" for our 50th Wedding Anniversary. Many of the same guests and new friends enjoyed this version at the same cinema house as before. No one cared about the little differences, this version was also joyful and a great way to celebrate love. If you are still doing give-aways, my husband and I would love a souvenir
It is kind of implied that Donna named Sophia after the lady who was there and helped her give birth, That Bartender lady who was the relative of Bill and owned the house that Donna ended up at.
The biggest plot hole issues would have been solved by having the flashback and pregnancy happen in 1984. Would line up perfectly for Fernando to be donnas dad (based on the affair in 1959, birth in 1960) allowing Donna to be 24 at the time of her graduation, as well as being in one of the first female inclusive graduating classes at oxford. The first film would take place in 2005 allowing at least an early model of the iPhone to appear in the second film set in 2010. Or you know, could have had an accurate age gap and set the movie in 2015 (or even 2012 where July 7th is actually a Saturday)
In the first one Donna’s diary mentions that she slept with Harry last and in the second one it’s first. That’s my main issue with it. Also she has Harry’s guitar in the first one but he leaves without her having it in the second one so how did she get it?!
In the first movie, Donna's diary says that on July 17 Sam took her to the island and ..., then I think it was Aug. 4th she slept with Bill and the on Aug 11 she was with Harry. In the second movie she slept with Harry first, then Sam and then Bill.
A main character? Though she's mentioned a bit in both movies, Cher's character is hardly a main character. In fact, with only 7 minutes of screen time her character could be considered a cameo at best.
I love this movie but here’s one for you. The band Young Donna likes is the one that plays at the opening night when Sophie says “they’re a great band” k bye. Also love this film to care for any of hese
2 more mistakes, not that I care. Just noticed. 1. Grandma hasn't been seen out of Vegas in yrs. But the invitation goes to Beverly Hills, California 2. Graduation was in Aug, yet she met Sam in July Absolutely love both Films
to be honest, when it comes to mamma mia, aliens could land in the middle of the hotel, poop out unicorns, and reveal donna is secretly another alien. as long as after they do all that they sing dancing queen, i'm cool with it!
i wish they had paid closer attention to the details that they stated in the first movie and followed through with them! it wouldve made for some pretty fun callbacks, like bill's knee tattoos, sam's bagpipes, harry's guitar. still, great movie regardless :)
I am not a fan of these movies but I like to think that the time line from the first film is from Meryl Streep's character's point of view. The second movie tells the truth of what really happened in the past.
When harry proposed they sleep together and donna said that her family doesn't respond well to vacation romances or whatever young Donna said that her mother had her heart broken in South or Central America A YEAR AGO and i just assumed that it was by fernando. so how could fernando be donna's father?
I think the film makers don't worry about things like this because they don't expect the audience to go home and Google " when were females allowed to attend Oxford?"
I think here we go again was meant to be set in 2013 - 5 years after the first film in 2008 and that’s why there was an iPhone 5s. It’s just Sophie’s age dates don’t quite match up x
The waiter in 1979, and the modern day waiter (portrayed by the same actor) could be father and son. Living in a small nearby town, and small town Mediterranean men tending to pursue the same career as their fathers (i.e. generations of fishermen), it stands to reason the waiter from 1979 would have a son, who strongly resembled him, would live nearby, be in the same line of work, and be in his early 20's. Identical waiters in both films, explained WITHOUT time travel!.
Was there something someone said or did in the movie that made you think that, Tessunia? Just asking as it'd be great to know so I can look out for it next time I watch. Thanks! :-)
You see there was something I noticed with Harry's passport. He was born in 1955 so in 1979 he was 24. So if we forget the fact that possibly Donna was 15 , she was around 21-22 when she graduated. So that would make it impossible. But I might be mistaken as it's been a while since I saw the movie
It can be so tempting to suggest that they can just use 1985 as the time of graduation of Donna and solve the problem. But the trouble is that the 1980s fashions were much less funky than that of the 70s. They just have to regret that they showed too much modern gadgets in part 1.
It's quite fun to see the logic in movies, but at the same time, I don't let that cloud my overall judgement of the movie as a whole, I did find the timeline rather odd though...
So to me when sofie says that her grandma was 25 years too late to being a grandma, in the first movie she says how they started taking care of old lady Sofia when she was a child so it might be from that age on so if sofie was 5 when they started taking cake of Sofia, plus 25 years too late would make sofie 30 hence the first movie was released 10 years ago and she was 20 then. But that would mean sofie was born in 88 and not 1980.
I know it's dumb, but have you noticed that while Donna, Tanya and Rosie were younger Donna was a little taller than Tanya, And in their older version Tanya is much taller than Donna. I do not know why it bothers me so much
i think maybe the second movie is based in 2013 that would explained the technology and maybe the 5 years gap is from 2008 to 2013. So Sophie in that way have 25 years in 2013. But they said that Donna Graduated in 1979 in She said in the first movie that she is 20 so in that case is 2000 and the second one 2005. I think the didn't think about that
I dont understand the part where Sam, Harry and Bill have the long hair and style of the 70's, but they all look like the older guys instead of the younger ones and young Sam, Harry and Bill are all clean cut.
Just to clarify, I am still confused about the time line. If the first film was set in 2000, then Sophie was well and truly 20 years old. Given the first model of Sophie’s up to date phone was a model of 2013, then the first film was set In 2008 the potential release of the first film. Leaving Sophie with a 5 year old child. That means that Donna must of died around the time of early 2006 or late 2007. Considering Sophie’s child might of been born in 2013/ 2014. 4 to 5 years after Donnas death. That means Donna might of been born In 1959 because she was 20 when she had Sophie. This all add up to: the second film using models from 2013 which are pretty up to date. Sophie found out that she was pregnant with her son in the summer of 2013. Giving only nine month of pregnancy, Sophie’s child had to be born somewhere in April of 2014. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I am just saying on what I know. Hopefully, this explains it a bit better. One more thing: Fernando might be Donnas father considering he Hooked up with Ruby in Mexico In 1959. Leading Donna to be born somewhere between 1960. Giving my explanations, for Sophie’s wedding, Donna could of been in her 50s. By the time she died, she was in her early 60s. This might explain the confusing MM timeline. ( Fernando might not be Donnas father because after is split from Ruby, it is believed that she met another man). Problem: in the first film, Ruby was dead...
1. Donna was definitely not 20 when she had Sophie - I don’t know where this comes from but it does not coincide with the facts in both the movies and the musical script. We know that if she graduated in 1979, she would’ve been 21 or 22 (possibly older). 2. Fernando couldn’t have been Donna’s father if we consider this- the affair took place in 1959 and Donna would’ve been alive then (born between 1956 and 1958). 3. Ruby wasn’t necessary dead in the first film - they were estranged and judging her looks and Donna’s unusually young death age, it could be that she thought Ruby had died.
The pictures in the first Mama Mia don’t match up to the characters in the second one. I know why but they could have tried a little more to get them similar
Am I the only one who noticed the fact they swapped around the order of the guys she met.... It’s meant to be Sam, Bill, Harry But now in the sequel it’s Harry, Bill, Sam (you could swap Bill and Sam around because she didn’t actually sleep with Bill until after she met, slept and saiid goodbye to Sam but then it still wouldn’t be in the right order BECAUSE SAM WAS FIRST, BILL SECOND AND THEN HARRY
I got confused because I’m the first one the diary is backwards she does ... with Harry then she does ... with Sam then she goes back to bill and does ... with bill
The timeline makes absolutely no sense. If Cher is Meryl Streep’s Mother when did she conceive her, when she was two? They should have rethought this and made her, her sister. Also, MAMMA MIA is a direct remake of the 1968 film by Mel Frank, BUONA SERA, MRS. CAMPBELL with Gina Lollobrigida, Shelley Winters and Peter Lawford. This has never been acknowledged by the creators of MAMMA MIA and I’m wondering if the rights were ever secured from the Mel Frank Estate? Even if the rights fell into the public domain, ethically speaking it’s only right to acknowledge where the story came from. At the time in ‘68 BUONA SERA, MRS. CAMPBELL was a major hit directed and written by a high profile director, Mr. Frank (A TOUCH OF CLASS with Glenda Jackson). I know I’m not the only one to notice this, check any chat room online to realize most cinephiles are aware of this plagiarism. Was a deal made by ABBA to avoid a lawsuit over this ‘billion dollar property?’ Perhaps, but why no acknowledgement to the original creator of the film? WIKIPEDIA openly acknowledges this as fact.
No think timeline has missed some important details like ruby did die because donna looked sad and looked on top saying about her mother. She d i d have trouble with her mother and all the break upps she h ad would make her depressed. Nobody kn knows what really happened to donna and could explain. I guess ruby died by old age witch co u I'd be in t he 3rd movie. Might be about mother and daughter and how it all happen. T hats all from me
Yes, I did, Romy - well spotted you too! They did at least give the son a hair cut, though from what I remember, it doesn't look like 25 years have passed since we first saw him! Same waistcoat he had in 1979 as well! Lol. :-)
Another inconsistency is in the first movie it was sam she met first and he is the one who brought her to "the little island " then bill then harry they did it completely backwards they didnt match up the story lines of the guys either and they never said how donna died... i was very upset about those issues but other than that it was an amazing movie but i spent more time crying then laughing
witch40 in mm1 sophia said that Donna named her after a Sofia and that a lady on the island named sofia helped give Donna money to buy the hotel. Bill said that his great aunt gave her money to new family, so it has been hinted at that the lady at the bar was bill (and maybe Sofia) was the one that helped Donna give her the hotel
In the movie when the dads first got to the island for the wedding Sophia said she was named after a Sophia and bill said I have a great aunt named Sophia, so he did mention her
The guitar thing it does say in the diary entry after Donna has already been on the island that Harry showed up out the blue and in the 2nd 1 it shows harry getting his passport stamped to wait for the ferry to go there. But anyway I ent see why any of it really matters much Thy r us films enjoyable to watch I ent see why ppl wanna get all technical about a bit of fiction anyway Thy r only a bit of fun
it is confusing cause timeline doesn't match and mistakes in the film, besides that I enjoyed so much this musical it was so much fun and joy but in my opinion, they really fucked up to make Donna passed away without any cause, that was really weird, no reason just died.
Are you confused by the Mamma Mia timeline? 😲
Well it doesn't really make a lot of sense, but then I suppose it's a musical right?
LOL, I really enjoyed the music but when I stopped to think it through I couldn't figure it out!
MrGoldxfinger Hope you still enjoyed it anyway! I certainly did! :-)
Robb Stark Great to hear you had fun watching the awesome song-and-dance routines, even though you found the timeline confusing! :-)
Flicks And The City and also on the song Honey Honey it explains how Donna did it with Sam first, then bill ,and at last Harry, an old friend. But on the sequel she first does it with Harry (who she just met )then Sam, and at last Bill. Its still a great movie, but I feel it would have been better if they remembered that detail.
I try not to get too wrapped up in the logic of movies. I watch to escape reality and have fun. Trying to understand timelines run the fun.
Totally understand where you're coming from, Miranda! For me, the inconsistencies in the timeline and differences between the two movies didn't stop me enjoying the sequel. :-)
Exactly! I had so much watching this movie. Obsessed with it and the soundtrack 💫
I didn't care about the timeline at all.
What matters is I enjoyed the movie and my family and my friends had so much fun.
I even watched it twice, first with my friends then with my husband and daughter and I cried twice too to that part when Meryl Streep was singing "My life my love "
I would love to have a DVD of this movie.
Same
True
I always imagine Sam getting home and speaking to his sons: "So I went to this ex-girlfriends island this vacation and I kinda got married. I'm here really quickly before I move back with Sophie, oh yeah: Sophie is her daughter. She might also be your sister. Anyway see yah fella's"
That is so great 😂😂
but....what happened to Sam’s BAG PIPES
Mamma Mia 3: Bring Back the Bagpipes! ;-)
And how did Donna have Harry’s guitar
@@avawinn1457 I imagined he came to the island after Donna met Bill and perhaps gave her his guitar
I've seen this movie twice and I dare say, it gets better with every viewing.
Also seen it twice and really enjoyed it as well, CA! :-)
Creativa Artly I saw it three times, and every time I cried less.. woops
Ive seen multiple times and I second this!!
NICELY SAID !!!
Creativa Artly exactly what me and my mum said 😂
It’s not confusing if you’ve seen both movies.
Here it is
Ruby is left by Fernando
Ruby gives birth to Fernando’s daughter Donna
Donna meets the dynamos.
Donna graduates from college
Donna meets and sleeps with harry
Donna meets bill
Donna meets, falls in love with, and sleeps with Sam
Donna get dumped and then sleeps with bill
Donna finds out she’s pregnant
Donna gives birth to Sophie and christens her
Mamma Mia! The movie takes place
Donna Sheridan-Carmichael dies of an unknown cause
Sky and Sophie agree to make the hotel Bella Donna, skye goes to New York
Skye is still in New York when the massive storm hits
The party is back on, Sophie finds out she’s pregnant
Ruby comes and gets back with señor sinfuegos
Nine months later or so Sophie gives birth to her son
Sophie christens her son and says a last goodbye to her mother.
Sophie and her family remember Donna, and keep her memory alive.
Of course, it's not confusing if you watch both movies. The thing here is that it is so incongruous and changes everything said above.
Just one problem: Ruby was dead in the first movie...
Kara Stub but the diary says Donna met Sam first
alexe. The second movies storyline makes a hell of a lot more sense, so I’m going off of that one.
Kara Stub 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Well is confusing but one thing is sure, the film is Amazing!!!!!!
I certainly agree with you, Daniela - really enjoyed it! :-)
Chers 3 years older than Meryl Streep...and she plays her mom😂
And she looks 3 years younger-
@@ggfr6132 I don't think so.
Can we please just enjoy the movie and not worry about the timeline
The two aren't mutually exclusive, Miriam. As I said in the video, I very much enjoyed the movie, but that does not mean that I don't notice inconsistencies in the movie. :-)
I agree completely Miriam Chase. No one wants to worry about that and its not even that confusing anyway
Miriam Chase ik
Did young Bill have the eye shaped tattoos on his knees when he met young Donna?
Reading Donna' s diary Sophie tells "Bill rented a motorboat". What for when he had his own one???
I know, right?! And in the new movie young Bill tells Lily James's Donna that an elderly relative on the island helped him buy his boat! :-)
In the scene in Japan there is clearly a boruto billboard in one shot. However the anime wasn't released until 2017
Personally, I am very upset about the inconsistencies with the first movie, they already had facts written, they just had to film it!
And yes, I liked the second movie and I'll see it a thousand times, but that does not make me feel any less angry.
The dancing waiter could have been the father of the clean-shaven young man. And, as to the guitar - Harry, alias Head Banger, could have bought a second guitar for Donna in Paris, for which he paid with the T-shirt and the ten spot, AFTER he was seen playing his own... and that may have been the reason he followed her to Kalokairi to give it to her, since he missed her. I really thought Harry should have been more "metal" and at least worn the studded collar and eyeliner.
At the beginning, Sophie addresses invites for an event for Saturday July 7th.
July 7th of 2005 was a Thursday.
Am I the only one who noticed the biggest anachronism of them all: Bill was driving a brand-new Mercedes X-class. That takes us to 2018 or at least 2017.
And wasn't the same band that Donna met at the island playing at the grand opening in the same costumes and also without aging, but now not singing an Abba song? Sofias son?
Well spotted, Doug, yes, it was Sofia's son's band who played at the bar and the grand reopening! Same distinctive waistcoat though he did get a haircut in those 25 years! :-)
I preferred it short 😂
omg that was the only thing that confused me
Singing ABBA songs!!! "Hole in Your Soul" and "Hasta Manana"!!!
Yes, another thing that does not make sense.
If Donna was such a friend of the band, why did not they play at Sophie's wedding in the first movie?
😂😂
I mean the original musical was made in 1999 so the diary dates would've made more sense back then but since the movie was filmed in 2018 I think it just made more sense to film the present scenes in the contemporary time period ;)
As you mentioned Sophies phone looked like a 2013 iPhone, the computer was also a 2013 model. If the movie was set five years after the events of the first MM, that would set MM1 in 2008 and MM2 in 2013 since it was five yeaes after. The only issue is that Sophie was 20 at the time of the first movie, so really it's MM2 that messes with the timeline.
You know what’s funny. Donna’s friends kind of flirt with the guy who sang with Cher as if he were their age but it turns out he used to be with Sofia’s grandma when they were younger
Ciarah Castilli Sophie*
Andy García/Fernando Cienfuegos isn´t portrayed as an elderly in their 70s nor does Grandma/Cher looks like a grandmother with a 55 year old daughter like Donna or an almost 30 year old grandaughter.
In thata case, Fernando considering his physical age could be considered as one of Donna´s fuck buddies, cof cof I mean hippie friends.
The weird thing is that donna. Beeing valedictorian with an oxford degree, decides to stay in a remoted greek island. That's fine but...she then has truble keeping the hotel
I thought Fernando may be Donna’s dad! Someone needs to make a video about it!
Given Andy Garcia's comments and the film itself, it does seem pretty likely! :-) (PS: loving your name, "burdenedwithgloriouspurpose"!) :-)
oh i say does it matter its film world 🤣
Some people have suggested that the story of Ruby and Fernando be the subject of a future sequel. How about Donna having three possible fathers as a plot twist?
Im pretty sure he is her father........
One issue I think we should bring up is what happened to Sofia. Sofia was Bill’s great aunt through his mother, a Greek immigrant. In the musical script, it says that Donna had been running the hotel (which she got from Sofia) for 15 years. Another thing that hints to her fate is that Sophie states that Donna cared for Sofia (whom she describes as an old woman when she was little, hinting at it being near when she died). As the musical takes place in 2000, we can presume that Sofia died around 1985.
Also the problem with ages. Donna and the 3 men were in their late teens when she had Sophie so in the first film they should be late thirties and in the second early to mid 40s. And they r definitely not that young bill even says “I’m a man in my fifties”
There are loads of plot holes between how Donna met the three dads in the 2 movies. But the biggest timeline inconsistency is if she really wanted to know who her real dad is, why didn't she ask for a paternity test? They started in 1960!
In the first movie when Donna sees the dads there dressed up in clothes that the characters we need in the second movie probably wouldn't wear
There was also someone from the band of Sofia’s son that was a dancer in Waterloo
I can't believe mamma Mia 2 is the most controversial movie of 2018.
4:22 I think I heard from somewhere that Donna was 21 when she graduated
You know, I have actually had this conversation with my sister about the timeline in Mamma Mia because the Mamma Mia series is our fav movies!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣(i have seen both movies millions of times) And we are still confused!!!
Thank God someone pointed out the iPhone thing, I thought I was the only one. Also yay I won! 😊
Congratulations, Rose! :-)
Flicks And The City 😊
Same, it really annoyed me!!
Emily Ehlers it is all I was thinking about. Drove me crazy. 😩😂
Just something else I noticed today, at the beginning, Sophie is about to send a letter to her grandmother, Ruby, to an address in Beverly Hill, CA, however, just as Rosie and Tanya arrive, and question if Sophie invited her, she said that she hasn’t been seen out of Las Vegas for decades. So why did she send it to Los Angeles?
In the first film didn't Sam take Donna to the island then Sam went home to get married then she met Bill and Harry then took them to the island?
Goodness, can we just appreciate a great film w/out dissecting it?!?
When you try to use old phones today it’s clearly imposing since they’re all distroyed
Fernando isnt necessiraly Donna's father, Donna said to Harry that her mom had been heartbroken in South America once , that could have been after Donna was born
We hosted a private movie screening of Mamma Mia 10 years ago at our local cinema house for our 40th Wedding Anniversary. So when Mamma Mia Here We Go Again debuted the same weekend this month, how could we resist a "dedeux" for our 50th Wedding Anniversary. Many of the same guests and new friends enjoyed this version at the same cinema house as before. No one cared about the little differences, this version was also joyful and a great way to celebrate love. If you are still doing give-aways, my husband and I would love a souvenir
Okay cool, but don’t concentrate on stuff like that and just enjoy the movie!
I did enjoy the movie, thanks, Isabella! :-)
they never mention the sophia that donna’s daughter, sophia is named after either.
It is kind of implied that Donna named Sophia after the lady who was there and helped her give birth, That Bartender lady who was the relative of Bill and owned the house that Donna ended up at.
The biggest plot hole issues would have been solved by having the flashback and pregnancy happen in 1984. Would line up perfectly for Fernando to be donnas dad (based on the affair in 1959, birth in 1960) allowing Donna to be 24 at the time of her graduation, as well as being in one of the first female inclusive graduating classes at oxford. The first film would take place in 2005 allowing at least an early model of the iPhone to appear in the second film set in 2010. Or you know, could have had an accurate age gap and set the movie in 2015 (or even 2012 where July 7th is actually a Saturday)
All I found confusing was she met SAM first then bill AND THEN HARRY! Not the other away around! (The movie is still amazing though😂)
In the first one Donna’s diary mentions that she slept with Harry last and in the second one it’s first. That’s my main issue with it. Also she has Harry’s guitar in the first one but he leaves without her having it in the second one so how did she get it?!
In the first movie, Donna's diary says that on July 17 Sam took her to the island and ..., then I think it was Aug. 4th she slept with Bill and the on Aug 11 she was with Harry. In the second movie she slept with Harry first, then Sam and then Bill.
Hang on-
In the first movie Donna says her mom died but in the second one she is there at the present time-
In the first movie, Donna said her mother was dead, but in the sequel, she’s not only alive but a main character in the sequel as well.
A main character?
Though she's mentioned a bit in both movies, Cher's character is hardly a main character.
In fact, with only 7 minutes of screen time her character could be considered a cameo at best.
I love this movie but here’s one for you. The band Young Donna likes is the one that plays at the opening night when Sophie says “they’re a great band” k bye. Also love this film to care for any of hese
2 more mistakes, not that I care. Just noticed.
1. Grandma hasn't been seen out of Vegas in yrs. But the invitation goes to Beverly Hills, California
2. Graduation was in Aug, yet she met Sam in July
Absolutely love both Films
Is it just me or was Mama Mia 2 not confusing
Donna’s wearing her subfusc wrong; her blouse is sleeveless and she isn’t wearing black tights and black dress shoes with her skirt.
to be honest, when it comes to mamma mia, aliens could land in the middle of the hotel, poop out unicorns, and reveal donna is secretly another alien. as long as after they do all that they sing dancing queen, i'm cool with it!
i wish they had paid closer attention to the details that they stated in the first movie and followed through with them! it wouldve made for some pretty fun callbacks, like bill's knee tattoos, sam's bagpipes, harry's guitar. still, great movie regardless :)
One reason why it might not make sense: because you can't plan ahead if there will be a second movie and how it could be possible!
You said Donna was most likely conceived in 1959 and then said it would make her 18-19 the summer she graduated (1979) but that would make her 20.
I am not a fan of these movies but I like to think that the time line from the first film is from Meryl Streep's character's point of view. The second movie tells the truth of what really happened in the past.
When harry proposed they sleep together and donna said that her family doesn't respond well to vacation romances or whatever young Donna said that her mother had her heart broken in South or Central America A YEAR AGO and i just assumed that it was by fernando. so how could fernando be donna's father?
Where did you get your hands on the merch???
I already knew all of this 😂
Omg!!! Hiiiii❤️ Great video! I loved it😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
You always do amazing job! Love uuuu! You made my day sweetheart 💖💖💖
Thanks so much, MG - glad you enjoyed it so much! Have a great weekend! :-)
Oh, thank you so much 💖 You too😍😍😍🤗🤗🤗🤗
🤗
@@FlicksAndTheCity .😘😘
I think the film makers don't worry about things like this because they don't expect the audience to go home and Google " when were females allowed to attend Oxford?"
2:36 i doubt there were iphones back on1979, honey
I think here we go again was meant to be set in 2013 - 5 years after the first film in 2008 and that’s why there was an iPhone 5s. It’s just Sophie’s age dates don’t quite match up x
The waiter in 1979, and the modern day waiter (portrayed by the same actor) could be father and son. Living in a small nearby town, and small town Mediterranean men tending to pursue the same career as their fathers (i.e. generations of fishermen), it stands to reason the waiter from 1979 would have a son, who strongly resembled him, would live nearby, be in the same line of work, and be in his early 20's. Identical waiters in both films, explained WITHOUT time travel!.
MAMMA MIA 2 WAS SET IN 2013 !
at 4:30 you said oxford curses are typically around 3/4 years. but that is now.. what if it was diferent years ago??? that could explain something..
Mamma Mia 3 PLS🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
I thought that Donna was already born when her mother met Fernando
Was there something someone said or did in the movie that made you think that, Tessunia? Just asking as it'd be great to know so I can look out for it next time I watch. Thanks! :-)
You see there was something I noticed with Harry's passport. He was born in 1955 so in 1979 he was 24. So if we forget the fact that possibly Donna was 15 , she was around 21-22 when she graduated. So that would make it impossible. But I might be mistaken as it's been a while since I saw the movie
Nope, but it was fun so I dont care
I think they didnt want to put emphasis on year it was and just make it feel like now
It can be so tempting to suggest that they can just use 1985 as the time of graduation of Donna and solve the problem. But the trouble is that the 1980s fashions were much less funky than that of the 70s. They just have to regret that they showed too much modern gadgets in part 1.
I thought Donna was 29 in here we go again
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ENJOY THE MOVIE?!
Can we pretend that those things where made in those times let’s just be happy that we got more of dancing queen
It's quite fun to see the logic in movies, but at the same time, I don't let that cloud my overall judgement of the movie as a whole, I did find the timeline rather odd though...
So to me when sofie says that her grandma was 25 years too late to being a grandma, in the first movie she says how they started taking care of old lady Sofia when she was a child so it might be from that age on so if sofie was 5 when they started taking cake of Sofia, plus 25 years too late would make sofie 30 hence the first movie was released 10 years ago and she was 20 then. But that would mean sofie was born in 88 and not 1980.
It’s a movie, I kanda get vibes ur tying to make ppl get confused when they r not.
I don’t care about the timeline I have watched the 2 one 4 times in a week
I know it's dumb, but have you noticed that while Donna, Tanya and Rosie were younger Donna was a little taller than Tanya, And in their older version Tanya is much taller than Donna. I do not know why it bothers me so much
You just made me want to be part of the Mamma Mia-verse even more.
i think maybe the second movie is based in 2013 that would explained the technology and maybe the 5 years gap is from 2008 to 2013. So Sophie in that way have 25 years in 2013. But they said that Donna Graduated in 1979 in She said in the first movie that she is 20 so in that case is 2000 and the second one 2005. I think the didn't think about that
I dont understand the part where Sam, Harry and Bill have the long hair and style of the 70's, but they all look like the older guys instead of the younger ones and young Sam, Harry and Bill are all clean cut.
Just to clarify, I am still confused about the time line. If the first film was set in 2000, then Sophie was well and truly 20 years old.
Given the first model of Sophie’s up to date phone was a model of 2013, then the first film was set In 2008 the potential release of the first film. Leaving Sophie with a 5 year old child.
That means that Donna must of died around the time of early 2006 or late 2007. Considering Sophie’s child might of been born in 2013/ 2014. 4 to 5 years after Donnas death.
That means Donna might of been born In 1959 because she was 20 when she had Sophie. This all add up to: the second film using models from 2013 which are pretty up to date.
Sophie found out that she was pregnant with her son in the summer of 2013. Giving only nine month of pregnancy, Sophie’s child had to be born somewhere in April of 2014.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but I am just saying on what I know. Hopefully, this explains it a bit better.
One more thing: Fernando might be Donnas father considering he Hooked up with Ruby in Mexico In 1959. Leading Donna to be born somewhere between 1960.
Giving my explanations, for Sophie’s wedding, Donna could of been in her 50s. By the time she died, she was in her early 60s.
This might explain the confusing MM timeline. ( Fernando might not be Donnas father because after is split from Ruby, it is believed that she met another man).
Problem: in the first film, Ruby was dead...
1. Donna was definitely not 20 when she had Sophie - I don’t know where this comes from but it does not coincide with the facts in both the movies and the musical script. We know that if she graduated in 1979, she would’ve been 21 or 22 (possibly older).
2. Fernando couldn’t have been Donna’s father if we consider this- the affair took place in 1959 and Donna would’ve been alive then (born between 1956 and 1958).
3. Ruby wasn’t necessary dead in the first film - they were estranged and judging her looks and Donna’s unusually young death age, it could be that she thought Ruby had died.
4:58 About the one with Bill. Maybe they knew that Donna liked Bill, but maybe they just didn‘t know she slept with Bill and Harry.🤷🏼♀️
The pictures in the first Mama Mia don’t match up to the characters in the second one. I know why but they could have tried a little more to get them similar
Honestly, for such a stupid two movies......
I feel like having a timeline that mostly make sense, but not 100% makes the film 100x better!
This is looking too far into the film you should watch it to have fun and not to judge it
Am I the only one who noticed the fact they swapped around the order of the guys she met.... It’s meant to be
Sam, Bill, Harry
But now in the sequel it’s
Harry, Bill, Sam (you could swap Bill and Sam around because she didn’t actually sleep with Bill until after she met, slept and saiid goodbye to Sam but then it still wouldn’t be in the right order BECAUSE SAM WAS FIRST, BILL SECOND AND THEN HARRY
The appliances were put there not to be accurate according to time , it was just product placement
I got confused because I’m the first one the diary is backwards she does ... with Harry then she does ... with Sam then she goes back to bill and does ... with bill
The timeline makes absolutely no sense. If Cher is Meryl Streep’s Mother when did she conceive her, when she was two? They should have rethought this and made her, her sister. Also, MAMMA MIA is a direct remake of the 1968 film by Mel Frank, BUONA SERA, MRS. CAMPBELL with Gina Lollobrigida, Shelley Winters and Peter Lawford. This has never been acknowledged by the creators of MAMMA MIA and I’m wondering if the rights were ever secured from the Mel Frank Estate? Even if the rights fell into the public domain, ethically speaking it’s only right to acknowledge where the story came from. At the time in ‘68 BUONA SERA, MRS. CAMPBELL was a major hit directed and written by a high profile director, Mr. Frank (A TOUCH OF CLASS with Glenda Jackson). I know I’m not the only one to notice this, check any chat room online to realize most cinephiles are aware of this plagiarism. Was a deal made by ABBA to avoid a lawsuit over this ‘billion dollar property?’ Perhaps, but why no acknowledgement to the original creator of the film? WIKIPEDIA openly acknowledges this as fact.
Ethan Nielson Mamma Mia is a direct movie adaptation from the 1999 jukebox musical
If you look in the trailer when Sophie is looking at the picture of Donna I calculated that it takes place in 2013
No think timeline has missed some important details like ruby did die because donna looked sad and looked on top saying about her mother. She d i d have trouble with her mother and all the break upps she h ad would make her depressed. Nobody kn knows what really happened to donna and could explain. I guess ruby died by old age witch co u I'd be in t he 3rd movie. Might be about mother and daughter and how it all happen. T hats all from me
No one's mentioned the tavern son's band (where the Dynamos perform). The musicians travel through time! Did YOU notice that Jan?
Yes, I did, Romy - well spotted you too! They did at least give the son a hair cut, though from what I remember, it doesn't look like 25 years have passed since we first saw him! Same waistcoat he had in 1979 as well! Lol. :-)
Yes! ;-)
In her diary in the first film Donna met Sam first but in the second she met Harry first
Another inconsistency is in the first movie it was sam she met first and he is the one who brought her to "the little island " then bill then harry they did it completely backwards they didnt match up the story lines of the guys either and they never said how donna died... i was very upset about those issues but other than that it was an amazing movie but i spent more time crying then laughing
Thete is no mention about the fact that Sofia was Bill' s grandaunt in MM1
witch40 in mm1 sophia said that Donna named her after a Sofia and that a lady on the island named sofia helped give Donna money to buy the hotel. Bill said that his great aunt gave her money to new family, so it has been hinted at that the lady at the bar was bill (and maybe Sofia) was the one that helped Donna give her the hotel
@@Dragon-Reader but when Bill was on the Island, he did not Visit or mentioned Sofia...
One other inconsistency is that in the original Mamma Mia!, Bill said his aunt lived on the mainland, not the island.
@@alangin6998 pretty sure that's a change from the musical- the musical says Sofia lived with sofie and donna
In the movie when the dads first got to the island for the wedding Sophia said she was named after a Sophia and bill said I have a great aunt named Sophia, so he did mention her
I also notice, during the establishing shot of Tokyo, a billboard of the anime "Boruto" which only came out in 2017 XD
The guitar thing it does say in the diary entry after Donna has already been on the island that Harry showed up out the blue and in the 2nd 1 it shows harry getting his passport stamped to wait for the ferry to go there.
But anyway I ent see why any of it really matters much Thy r us films enjoyable to watch I ent see why ppl wanna get all technical about a bit of fiction anyway Thy r only a bit of fun
it is confusing cause timeline doesn't match and mistakes in the film, besides that I enjoyed so much this musical it was so much fun and joy but in my opinion, they really fucked up to make Donna passed away without any cause, that was really weird, no reason just died.
Meryl Streep 😍😍😍
Hello amazing video keep going
Many thanks, NG W! Hope you're having a good day! :-)
@@FlicksAndTheCity Mamma Mia 2 WAS SET IN 2013
YA your right it is CONFUSING