Reply
Thu 18 Nov, 2010 08:48 am
so i was listening to an interview with the producers of the harry potter films the other day, and the interviewer was claiming that to date the potter series was probably the best film franchise
we won't know for sure until the last two are out, but i tend to agree, the bond franchise has it's moments but it's had enough low points to not qualify in my mind
star wars was certainly a shoe in until lucas made the prequel films and flushed all credibility down the toilet
the bourne movies are great, but if matt damon doesn't participate in the fourth film, it's most likely gonna suck
LOTR might be the current contender, but we've yet to see the hobbit, or should it be included
what's your opinion on the best film franchise
@djjd62,
Star Trek has certainly had a long run, but I doubt it's the best film franchise ever.
How are you defining "best?"
Best money-maker?
Best series of stories?
Best acting?
Best directing?
Best spin-offs of other films and merchandise?
Best critical acclaims and awards?
All of the above?
@djjd62,
Don't forget Lord of the Rings, Tarzan ran for quite a while, Pink Panther, Dirty Harry, spaghetti westerns No Name Clint Eastwood, Rodgers and Hammerstein, etc.
Although i didn't care for the other films after the first one, i'd say the Alien series did very well.
@Butrflynet,
a bit of everything i guess, money isn't crucial, star wars made lots of money, but the franchise crapped out on the 3 prequels
acclaim doesn't matter much to me, a lot of films i like get no acclaim or awards
@Setanta,
That is because Ridley Scott did a marvellous job of the B class science fiction and made it into an A class franchise. The second Aliens with James Cameron did well.
LOTR gets disqualified because it was all one project. With all of the different projects, both on tv and movies, I think that the nod goes to Star Trek.
@djjd62,
Quote:LOTR might be the current contender
Didn't realize you used abbreviation oracronym for the Lords films.
I don't see why LoTR should be "disqualified"--leaving aside that the author of the thread has more right to set the terms than do we, i would think it qualifies because the films were released serially, with the opening of each film benefiting from the popularity of the previous film.
@Setanta,
Quote:I don't see why LoTR should be "disqualified"--leaving aside that the author of the thread has more right to set the terms than do we,
TO me "franchise" by definition is three or more movie projects of the same theme and characters that connect together into a franchise....if it is all one project, as LOTR was, it by definition is not a franchise.
@hawkeye10,
Was not by
your definition--there is no good reason to assume that you define all terms, despite your penchant for behaving as though that were true.
@Setanta,
Quote:Was not by your definition
I believe that it is the commonly accepted definition, but will wait for an expert to render his/her opinion.
@hawkeye10,
I know you believe that, but i can see no reason to agree that your
opinion happens also to be "the commonly accepted definition." If that is so, it should be simplicity itself for you to come up with a significant number of online sources to confirm your claim.
@hawkeye10,
but LOTR is 3 distinct movies, just as it's 3 distinct volumes broken down into 6 books
@djjd62,
Quote:but LOTR is 3 distinct movies, just as it's 3 distinct volumes broken down into 6 books
Unlike other planned franchises, LOTR was filmed all at once, they were making three movies at the same time. I think this disqualifies them from being a franchise. Your mileage may vary.
@hawkeye10,
methinks thou doth protest too much
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace