Are film franchises more common nowadays?

Discussion in 'books, films, TV, radio & writing' started by Lord Camomile, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    It's an age old complaint that Hollywood has run out of ideas and is just producing remakes and sequels, but it does really feel like now franchises are almost expected when first starting any reasonably big production. And it's definitely a franchise, rather than just a sequel or two based on good box office receipts.

    Recently we've had (off the top of my head, so there's bound to be more):
    6 x Fast and Furious
    4 x Bourne
    8 x American Pie (I think there's a good argument to consider it this generation's Carry On)
    4 x Pirates of the Caribbean
    4 x Terminator, with a 5th apparently on its way
    All the superhero films which show no signs of stopping, including 4 x Spiderman, 3 x Batman, 3 x Iron Man, and the Avengers series.

    Any more for any more?

    I haven't included horrors in the above list as they've always had a tradition of producing a series of films.
     
  2. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    Harry Potter and Twilight! Though those always kinda came as a package...
     
  3. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    by the time the Middle earth sequence is done we will have 6 films there. 7 including the suprisingly good fanfilm
     
  4. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    9 star wars by the time the next three are done
     
  5. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    also: bond shows no sign of giving up the gun
     
  6. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    theres loads of Pink Panther films
     
  7. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    Confessions of and Emmanuel
     
  8. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

    When you compare the most successful films of the year now to those of the 70s and before you will find that most of those now tend to be part of a franchise, while then most used to be originals. There have always been movie franchises of course, but now it is generally expected that a successful film will spawn a franchise that spawns sequels and studios are much more reluctant now to go with something that doesn't already have some sort of brand recognition.
     
  9. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    Sure, like I said, there have always been franchises, but it feels like there's a different attitude to them now, with cast and crew being tied into multiple-picture deals before they even start the first film.

    I think perhaps like most things it's been part of a cycle - franchises have a boom for a while, people get bored, then they come back again.

    And yes, I know this kind of thread is part of that cycle :p ;)
     
  10. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    Yeah, exactly, that's what I mean. I really should let other people do the talking.
     
  11. pissflaps

    pissflaps i've got a headache in my pants...

    those carry on films... will they ever end!
     
    weltweit likes this.
  12. bi0boy

    bi0boy Power User

    Graphs. We need graphs.
     
  13. Stigmata

    Stigmata sexual tyrannosaurus

  14. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    They did, in '91.
     
  15. marty21

    marty21 One on one? You're crazy.

    Mickey Rooney was in a series of films in the 1940s
    Bob Hope and Bing Crosby on the road movies in the 40s
    Carry on movies in the 50s/60s
    Bond franchise since 1962
     
  16. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood

    but how recent is the reboot thing?

    Spiderman was rebooted with what seems almost unseemly haste
     
  17. pissflaps

    pissflaps i've got a headache in my pants...


    [​IMG]
     
    skyscraper101 likes this.
  18. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I think sequels have become more viable as there have been more of them.

    Die hard, die harder, die hard with a vengeance, die hard with a hardon ... :)

    Matrix and reloaded..

    If I was a screen writer writing a movie and spending all that time developing characters and plot whatnots I expect I might well be thinking about the bigger picture / sequels et al ... plus the audience gets to know the characters and if they like them then a sequel could pay off for everyone concerned.
     
  19. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

  20. pissflaps

    pissflaps i've got a headache in my pants...

    symptomatic of the success of TV serials i reckon.
     
  21. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

    weltweit likes this.
  22. Remus Harbank

    Remus Harbank Cake and whipped cream…

    i think the numbering system (I, II, III, etc) started in the 1970s. But franchises go way back ie Marx Bros.
     
  23. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

    That's not the point. Everybody knows that there always have been film franchises. The point is the ratio of franchises to originals. Before the 70s most franchises were B-movies like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, the Universal horror films and Charlie Chan. They weren't what the studio almost exclusively relied on to make their money with as they do now.
     
  24. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Sequels bother me less than remakes.

    I think Hollywood does remakes for the same reason they do sequels, it reduces the investment risk over a new original film. But I don't like it. Often the original is not yet cold in its film container and the remake is being made. Heresay!
     
  25. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist my world is fire and blood


    you mean heresy

    can go both ways though. For instance the remake of Alfie was just a load of shit, whereas the Thing remade was far, far better than its original.
     
  26. Remus Harbank

    Remus Harbank Cake and whipped cream…


    The point is the ratio – fine but how would you know what the ratio is today? Just because the franchises have got higher marketing/PR budgets and therefore more entrenched brand recognition factor doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of non franchise films made every year you've never heard about.
     
  27. pissflaps

    pissflaps i've got a headache in my pants...

    [​IMG]
     
  28. Dillinger4

    Dillinger4 Es gibt Zeit

    I have been wondering about this for a while. Where are all the original screenplays? I mean, there are thousands of people writing them. I understand it is about risk and payoffs, there is more sense in putting money into a franchise because it has a guarantee of a return on the investment. But the amount of sequels and the lack of original screenplays is bizarre to me. It really turns me off mainstream cinema.
     
  29. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I didn't see either of those.

    The remake of the postman always rings twice was actually quite good, though I liked the original a lot.
     
  30. Reno

    Reno The In Kraut

    Of course there are hundreds of non-franchise films made around the world, but only a very small minority of audiences goes to see them. They have become niche foreign or art house films. Even in their own country they make a lot less than the likes of the latest Superman or Iron Man. Hollywood has stopped investing in medium and lower budget films which were of interest of those adults who want to see something else but endless superhero CGI spectaculars. Many of the US directors who still made something a little more challenging like Stephen Soderbergh or David Lynch have stopped making films or announced they would stop, because they can't get the money anymore.
     
    spliff and Fez909 like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice