I'm going to jump in again and say, since Stoo could probably make this point clearer than he has, that just because other film series can rightly be called franchises does not mean that Indiana Jones can.
kongisking said:May I make a suggestion, you two?
Kiss and make up:
This begs the question: which is Spurlock and which is Stoo?
Attila the Professor said:I'm going to jump in again and say, since Stoo could probably make this point clearer than he has, that just because other film series can rightly be called franchises does not mean that Indiana Jones can.
Spurlock said:I didn't want to come off as actually having a strong opinion in the matter, just an observance.
And I think I'd be the tiny mouth inside the big mouth
How about a list of requirements for a property/film series to earn the title of *franchise*.
Montana Smith said:That's much the same as fast food franchising, isn't it? A successful business with a well-known name sells the rights for companies to copy their model in order to represent the brand.
Spurlock said:I think I'd be the tiny mouth inside the big mouth
Actually, franchise is still such a relatively new term (even in it's actual) meaning that it doesn't exactly have a Finnish equivalent. When we talk about a film series, we simply say the Finnish word that literally means a film series.Stoo said:I'm curious to know if this misuse is just an English phenomenon so you're a fitting person to ask: Is the Finnish equivalent of "franchise" often used to describe the Finnish equivalent of "film series"? There are many Germans here. Is this going on in Deutschland?
Anyway, who is a grumpy old-timer?
That's great, Spurlock, and I wish you all the best in your studies. My mother is an English teacher so you can imagine how I was raised!Spurlock said:Stoo, i'm taking AP English Language and Composition this year, with a Miss Seymour of a teacher.
Again, I ask: It's popular amongst whom? Popularity doesn't make it right. (See below)Spurlock said:And the popular lexicon is just that, popular.
Nah, I've been feeling it since 2008 and have mentioned this several times before. You're only the 2nd person to challenge it. Anyway, I thought you like to LEARN so why ignore what is being discussed here?Spurlock said:I guess you can fight it, but in the end, the storm has already come, you are just finally feeling it's blow.
Thanks for your reply, Finn. It's well appreciated but the term has essentially meant the same thing (a grant) for about 700 years so if that's "relatively new", then you Finns have a lot of catching up to do!Finn said:Actually, franchise is still such a relatively new term (even in it's actual) meaning that it doesn't exactly have a Finnish equivalent.
A wise man from Finland (YOU) once said:Finn said:You can try correcting one man if he keeps constantly erroneusly utilizing a term, but when you notice a thousand men doing the same, over a lengthy period of time, it could be deduced that something has changed.
Which is precisely why it's so much simpler and safer to say "film series" because there's no ambiguity nor error involved (and it won't sound pretentious).Attila the Professor said:Not that there aren't borderline cases:
I daresay that the associations said word has got in the modern corporate world are still quite fresh. If you go after every meaning of the word, then sure, we have equivalents for most of them. Multiple, in fact.Stoo said:Thanks for your reply, Finn. It's well appreciated but the term has essentially meant the same thing (a grant) for about 700 years so if that's "relatively new", then you Finns have a lot of catching up to do!
Not the same analogue at all. Etymology and religion are two different things in my book.Stoo said:Which leads to this...
That's interesting to know, Finn, because the "modern corporate" usage in North America has been around for more than a century (we're talking c.100 years...possibly even 200 years).Finn said:I daresay that the associations said word has got in the modern corporate world are still quite fresh. If you go after every meaning of the word, then sure, we have equivalents for most of them. Multiple, in fact.
Well, "franchise" and "series" are also two different things. As you said before about religion: "Strength in numbers" isn't a "good argument" to make something correct.Finn said:Not the same analogue at all. Etymology and religion are two different things in my book.
I've really no comment on the meaning of the word in Finnish because for us, said business model has been around barely 40 years. First companies utilizing it landed here in the 70s. As a matter of fact, it hasn't even yet fully landed as it is, considering the year we got our first Starbucks and Burger King was 2013...Stoo said:That's interesting to know, Finn, because the "modern corporate" usage in North America has been around for more than a century (we're talking c.100 years...possibly even 200 years).
While its meaning in the "modern corporate world" may still be relatively fresh in Finland, you've already answered my original point, which is that "franchise" is not being flaunted in your language as the standard description for a film series (this isn't being done in Switzerland either so I'm interested to hear from other Europeans).
Man has no power over the existence of God. A million people believing in him does not really make him any more or less existent or non-existent. And while there is enough physical evidence to point into a certain conclusion, nobody knows for sure.Stoo said:Well, "franchise" and "series" are also two different things. As you said before about religion: "Strength in numbers" isn't a "good argument" to make something correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomonymStoo said:In business terminology, the essence of the word is still the same as it was 700 years ago:
A LEGAL GRANT OF PERMISSION
A smeerp wearing the ceremonial jackflappen.
Wow. Just now this year? For a fast food chain, Burger King makes fairly decent burgers. If you feel like it, try a Whopper and report back here: The Best Hamburger in the WorldFinn said:...the year we got our first Starbucks and Burger King was 2013
Not any more. As I said, you've already answered my question regarding that.Finn said:There's really no point in discussing the meanings of word "franchise" in Finnish.
Fair enough but it's not as if the word, "franchise", was pulled out of thin air and randomly applied. Some film series are indeed franchises. It's not wrong to refer to the James Bond films, the Harry Potter films, etc. as franchises because they are. The Indiana Jones films are not.Finn said:However, man certainly has power over what he wants to call things. If enough men think it would be prudent to call a hopping animal with long ears a "smeerp" instead of a "rabbit", guess what, it IS a "smeerp".
Also, "the strength in numbers" in etymology actually works both ways. It's not only that enough men have to agree that word is being used properly for the use to be proper, enough men also have to agree that a word is being misused to make it a misuse.
Yes, it can mean a "film series", just NOT ALL OF THE TIME and certainly not in the case of Indiana Jones.Finn said:Language systems are funny in that sense that they actually do allow a singular word to have multiple meanings. The fact that "franchise" has a meaning of "a legal grant of permission" does not make it impossible for it to also have a meaning of "film series". All it takes is enough contemporary users to make it so. Which was all I wanted to say.
Notice how the word, "franchise", appears 3 times within the first 3 sentences. The article/blog suffers from, not only misuse of the term but, OVERUSE. Three sentences in a row! It's a shining example of how someone, too immersed in JUNK culture, cannot realize their own stupidity & are willfully catering to the comic-book-fan community. Is that the only way he knows how to describe such a thing? What is wrong with this comic-book-guy and why did he choose to use 'that' word repeatedly?Comic Book Blogger said:As if Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar and Disney’s own original output weren’t enough, Disney owns the Indiana Jones franchise as well. After the disappointing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, fans are very concerned over the franchise’s future.
Right now, Harrison Ford is 71, which means by the time Disney is ready to make the next Indy installment, they will have some big decisions to make about both the casting and direction of the reinvigorated franchise.
Right. So this guy is a now an "English teacher" and calls himself "an educator"? Good Lord. Let's hope his students can rise above their "GEEK/NERD" teacher's limited, pin-headed, JUNK vocabulary & teaching.Comic Book Blogger said:M*** B***** is an English teacher/private tutor by day,and a super-hyper-uber geek by night.
Marc spent six years on the frontlines as a comic retailer before becoming an educator and suffers from severe nerd PTSD as a result.
Stoo said:A link was posted in the "General Indy 5 rumours & possibilities" thread:
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.co...-indiana-jones
This "Comic Book Resource" blog begins with:
Notice how the word, "franchise", appears 3 times within the first 3 sentences. The article/blog suffers from, not only misuse of the term but, OVERUSE. Three sentences in a row! It's a shining example of how someone, too immersed in JUNK culture, cannot realize their own stupidity & are willfully catering to the comic-book-fan community. Is that the only way he knows how to describe such a thing? What is wrong with this comic-book-guy and why did he choose to use 'that' word repeatedly?
Disney now owns the Indiana Jones BRAND. They do NOT own a franchise! F*ck. How long will it take before comic-book-lovin' goofballs recognize this?
I agree with you there "Finn". You wouldn't believe the number of people who won't accept that however. As a friend of mine once put it "English is a language that lurks in dark alleys and mugs other languages for their useful words", constantly evolving.Finn said:This is, indeed, a natural tendency of any language over the times. You can try correcting one man if he keeps constantly erroneusly utilizing a term, but when you notice a thousand men doing the same, over a lengthy period of time, it could be deduced that something has changed.
Even Ye Olde Oxford Dictionary only tells you all the past uses of a word, but not necessarily every present one. It is truly handy only if you wish to defend your own use of a term or another.
The bottom line: Languages adapt. Perhaps it's certain grumpy old-timers that don't.