The Film Series is NOT the Franchise

Why do certain people keep referring to the Indiana Jones theatrical film series as "the franchise"? The misuse of this term has been noticeable since c.2007 and grown at an exponential rate ever since. Not only is the definition wrong, it's pretentious.

Franchise is all about rights, permission and privilege. The 'franchise to vote' is a right to vote. Sports team franchises pay money to be allowed entry into their respective leagues. The James Bond film franchise has the license to use Ian Fleming's character and stories. Don't get me started with McDonald's and other fast food chains...

The "Indy franchise" is NOT THE MOVIES (nor the TV show). The Bantam books are a franchise. The Marvel & Dark Horse comics are a franchise. The Mattel & Hasbro toys are a franchise, etc. because the character & branding were licensed by those 2nd party entities. This is not the case with the films. LUCASFILM OWNS INDIANA JONES (even if Disney now owns Lucasfilm) and do not need anyone's authorization to use the property. This is the distinction that many people fail to recognize when describing the 'Indy film series' as a franchise.

Abuse of the trendy term has increased at an alarming rate so if you get some personal JOY by sounding like a PARROT, please reconsider your terminology.



The Indiana Jones Film Series is NOT the Franchise!

Splitting Hairs: The Movie. Starring Stoo as Your Humble Moral Guardian.

Yes, you're technically correct, but it's not a despicable mistake like you make it sound, man. I hate to think what you're like on YouTube comments, where people make itty bitty errors like that every few seconds...

kongisking said:

Splitting Hairs: The Movie. Starring Stoo as Your Humble Moral Guardian.

Click to expand...

Maybe if it's popular, it could start a franchise!

I don't mind Stoo defining for once and for all the misuse of the word 'franchise' in relation to Indiana Jones. I think a lot of the times it was used was almost absent mindedly, or colloquially in a way, albeit incorrectly.

The word "Franchise" has really grown into a synonym for "brand". When people refer to the Indiana Jones franchise they're simply referring to Indiana Jones as an overall brand; the movie series, the tv shows, the theme park rides, video-games, comics etc. everything. Like how Star Wars, Batman, James Bond, Star Trek are also franchises(James Bond is a perfect example of a "franchise" seeing how there's several different takes on Bond with multiple different actors as the lead so you can't really call it a series as not all of it is continuous, same with Batman). I guess the word "franchise" will fit better for some if we ever get Indy movies without Harrison Ford as the lead.

Stoo said:

The "Indy franchise" is NOT THE MOVIES (nor the TV show).

Click to expand...

But the tv series does contradict the continuity of the movies a few times, so it's hard to really claim the show is in the exact timeline as the movies.

Agreed. Well, with one important qualification.

Stoo said:

LUCASFILM OWNS INDIANA JONES (even if Disney now owns Lucasfilm) and do not need anyone's authorization to use the property.

Click to expand...

Disney-Lucasfilm (aren't hyphenates great?!) could make a dozen Indiana Jones pictures if they were willing to let them sit on the shelf until the end of time. Or, whenever the distribution rights to the film properties revert back to Lucasfilm. Which is probably never. I think Paramount owns them in perpetuity.

Disney-Marvel had the same problem with Paramount as well. Paramount had the distribution rights to The Avengers and Iron Man 3 before Marvel's acquisition by the House of Mouse. In this case though, Iger wrote a $115-million dollar check and guaranteed Paramount their 8-9% distribution fee.

I don't know about you, but I could use $90-million for doing nothing.

Brad Gray said:

“Five years ago, when Paramount and Marvel made our initial deal, both our businesses were very different places. We are grateful for the partnership we have had with the terrific Marvel team over these years and proud of the work we have done together. Today, this new agreement is the right deal for Paramount, for Marvel and for Disney. We look forward to working together on Thor and Captain America, and we wish Disney and Marvel the utmost success, in what we know will be a very productive and wide-ranging partnership.”

Click to expand...

Disney now holds the distro rights to Thor & Captain America as of the 30th of June 2013. In fact, almost all Marvel holdings are back in Marvel-Disney's money bank. Only Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, and those damn mutants remain out of house. Spider-Man may be the hardest to pry away.

Could Disney hand a bunch of money to Paramount again? Sure. But it might not be so cheap to pry Indy from Paramount's grasp, and the long term viability of the franchise is highly questionable. Once Disney-Lucasfilm internally answers that question, a fifth movie might gain some traction.

Here's what you're going to see in the next five(?) years: Disney is going to kick Bruckheimer to the curb after taking a bath on John Carter and The Lone Ranger after he delivers the next Pirates of the Caribbean flick and the third National Treasure. The stock price is stable, but Pirates needs to be a monster hit for them to consider continuing that first look deal. Even if it is, I don't expect the partnership to continue.

Marvel acquisitions will continue. It's not likely to happen, but Disney-Marvel could feasibly hand a cool billion bucks to Sony for all feature film rights to Spider-Man. Why? They could recoup the expense in a year, and the returns would be absolutely massive. Spider-Man in a third Avengers movie? A not-so-small corner of the internet would explode.

Finally, Star Wars. Lots of Star Wars. So much Star Wars that fans of the series will get sick of it. Toys? Check. Rides and character encounters at the parks? Absolutely. Teevee shows? Coming soon to a screen near you.

That's my five-year roadmap for Disney. Side projects like Big Hero 6 will bolster the bottom line, but don't expect an Indy picture until around 2020.

The Too Long;Didn't Read answer:

Disney doesn't play well with others.

Haters Gonna Hate.

kongisking said:

Splitting Hairs: The Movie. Starring Stoo as Your Humble Moral Guardian.

Yes, you're technically correct, but it's not a despicable mistake like you make it sound, man. I hate to think what you're like on YouTube comments, where people make itty bitty errors like that every few seconds...

Click to expand...

Don't bother thinking about that, Kong, because commenting on YouTube videos isn't something that I do (apart from my own channel). This isn't "splitting hairs" since words have meaning for a reason. It wouldn't make sense if people started referring to a tree as an apple. Anyway, what does morality have to do with this? It's about language, communication & understanding.

Spurlock said:

Maybe if it's popular, it could start a franchise!

Click to expand...

Maybe, eh? Whomever would want to start such a franchise would need permi$$ion from Kongisking!

So tell me, Spurlock, why do *you* use the word, "franchise", to describe the film series? (Don't say that you haven't because you have.)

Mickiana said:

I don't mind Stoo defining for once and for all the misuse of the word 'franchise' in relation to Indiana Jones. I think a lot of the times it was used was almost absent mindedly, or colloquially in a way, albeit incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Right on, Mick. It seems to be a mistake that keeps being repeated over & over again because some people think it sounds hip, without realizing what the word actually means. Funnily enough, I only notice this misuse on the internet and never in real-life conversation.

Forbidden Eye said:

The word "Franchise" has really grown into a synonym for "brand". When people refer to the Indiana Jones franchise they're simply referring to Indiana Jones as an overall brand; the movie series, the tv shows, the theme park rides, video-games, comics etc. everything. Like how Star Wars, Batman, James Bond, Star Trek are also franchises(James Bond is a perfect example of a "franchise" seeing how there's several different takes on Bond with multiple different actors as the lead so you can't really call it a series as not all of it is continuous, same with Batman). I guess the word "franchise" will fit better for some if we ever get Indy movies without Harrison Ford as the lead.

Click to expand...

Hi, Forbidden Eye. SEVERAL people here at The Raven use the term to describe the films and ONLY the films. Examples are all over the place. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an issue.

As for James Bond, multiple actors playing the role are not what make the those films a franchise. As I stated above, that series is a franchise because Eon Productions are licensed to use Ian Fleming's character. Lack of continuity within that series has nothing to do with it. (There are actually *4* Bond film franchises: The Eon series, "Never Say Never Again" and the 2 earlier versions of "Casino Royale".)

Future Indy films without Harrison would only be a franchise if they were made by a company other than Lucasfilm.

Forbidden Eye said:

But the tv series does contradict the continuity of the movies a few times, so it's hard to really claim the show is in the exact timeline as the movies.

Click to expand...

The Indy timeline is irrelevant. That TV show was made by Lucasfilm, not by some other company who paid for the rights. (Plus, don't forget that certain aspects of "Doom" contradict "Raiders".)

Le Saboteur said:

Disney-Lucasfilm (aren't hyphenates great?!) could make a dozen Indiana Jones pictures if they were willing to let them sit on the shelf until the end of time. Or, whenever the distribution rights to the film properties revert back to Lucasfilm. Which is probably never. I think Paramount owns them in perpetuity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the distribution of future films is a whole other can of worms but Lucasfilm still remains Lucasfilm. The difference is that George doesn't own nor control it anymore.

Anyway, great post, Sabo, and well suited for Moedred's thread: Disney vs. Paramount

Stoo said:

Anyway, what does morality have to do with this? It's about language, communication & understanding.

Maybe, eh? Whomever would want to start such a franchise would need permi$$ion from Kongisking!

So tell me, Spurlock, why do *you* use the word, "franchise", to describe the film series? (Don't say that you haven't because you have.)

Click to expand...

Egad, you gotta get better at recognizing playful ribbing or comedic exaggeration.

And Spurlock, you have my permission to do so. Let's make this franch-um, I mean, film series happen!

Stoo said:

Maybe, eh? Whomever would want to start such a franchise would need permi$$ion from Kongisking!

So tell me, Spurlock, why do *you* use the word, "franchise", to describe the film series? (Don't say that you haven't because you have.)

Click to expand...

Because film series and franchise have become synonymous over the years, and I adapted to the popular lexicon.
Yes, franchise could have different meaning originally, but the meanings of words change. All whole oppose this oppose the adaptation and survival of the language as a whole. I'm keeping this language alive man, you're all welcome.

Spurlock said:

Yes, franchise could have different meaning originally, but the meanings of words change. All whole oppose this oppose the adaptation and survival of the language as a whole. I'm keeping this language alive man, you're all welcome.

Click to expand...

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.

kongisking said:

Egad, you gotta get better at recognizing playful ribbing or comedic exaggeration.

Click to expand...

Egads, Kong, I thought it was funny and laughed out loud. In other words, I LOL'd! (See: I can adapt. I'm hip! I'm hip!) I just felt that the "moral guidance" bit was out of place, that's all.

However, this is no time for jokes, dammit. This is bloody serious business!

Spurlock said:

Because film series and franchise have become synonymous over the years, and I adapted to the popular lexicon.
Yes, franchise could have different meaning originally, but the meanings of words change. All whole oppose this oppose the adaptation and survival of the language as a whole. I'm keeping this language alive man, you're all welcome.

Click to expand...

The popular lexicon of whom, exactly? Popcorn-munching internet bloggers? Parrots? Sheep? Lemmings? Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're suggesting that the actual meaning of the word is dead and obsolete. Try telling neighbours that your local McDonald's down the street is now a film series and see how they react.

You being an aspiring writer*, Spurlock, it's surprising to learn of your comfort with this distortion.

(*For a 16-year-old, I think your writing is superb, by the way, so hats off to you.)

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, but sometimes words change because the general public keeps repeating the same error. I actually mentioned how languages change when discussing certain terms (including "franchise") in this thread: Isn't Lucas using the term MacGuffin wrong? (Coincidentally, I also mentioned the Oxford Dictionary in the same conversation).

The thing is, I haven't noticed "a thousand" people abusing the word over the past 5 years. The number is probably closer to something like 40-50 (or less) and, from the amount of people who frequent The Raven, that figure is a considerable chunk.

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?



Bottom line: The Indiana Jones films aren't a franchise.

Are you the type that has every item in your house perfectly organized, clean and in their proper position, Stoo? Man, I wish I could have some of that obsessiveness over little things...

Fellas, lots of film series <I>are</I> franchises: James Bond, the Marvel films, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. It's just the Indiana Jones isn't one of them; it was an original IP, originally intended for the screen. It's only by poor analogy with its film series brethren that it can be called a franchise.

kongisking said:

Are you the type that has every item in your house perfectly organized, clean and in their proper position, Stoo? Man, I wish I could have some of that obsessiveness over little things...

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Certain things in my house are very organized but some areas do get messy at times. When guests comes over, however, everything is clean & proper (as they should be). Is that obsessive behaviour?

You seem to have a problem with the constant slandering of "Crystal Skull" so what I'm doing here is in the same vein. The difference is that my argument isn't about opinions. Get it?

Attila the Professor said:

Fellas, lots of film series are franchises: James Bond, the Marvel films, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. It's just the Indiana Jones isn't one of them; it was an original IP, originally intended for the screen. It's only by poor analogy with its film series brethren that it can be called a franchise.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU, ATTILA! The Professor has spoken so stick that in your pipe and smoke it, folks.

Stoo said:

You seem to have a problem with the constant slandering of "Crystal Skull" so what I'm doing here is in the same vein. The difference is that my argument isn't about opinions. Get it?

Click to expand...

That would be libel rather than slander, as it's the written word.

But if the statements aren't false then they aren't libellous at all.

Hence, if the Indiana Jones films were a franchise, they'd be down to one dodgy burger bar currently closed while being investigated by the Food Standards Agency.

Attila the Professor said:

Fellas, lots of film series <I>are</I> franchises: James Bond, the Marvel films, Lord of the Rings, Batman, etc. It's just the Indiana Jones isn't one of them; it was an original IP, originally intended for the screen. It's only by poor analogy with its film series brethren that it can be called a franchise.

Click to expand...

I agree. Eloquent as ever.

Brand. I like the word Brand. Or does that totally clutter up this semantic exercise?

Pale Horse said:

I agree. Eloquent as ever.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but if you guys keep quoting it, someone's going to notice where I used "the" instead of "that"...

Pale Horse said:

Brand. I like the word Brand. Or does that totally clutter up this semantic exercise?

Click to expand...

I like that too; it's probably better than what I use. I most frequently find myself using IP for things like this, albeit mostly for those where it's a given body of work for which the rights have changed, or easily could change, hands. But intellectual property is obviously broader than things like this.

All three of these, of course, are pretty transactional, commercial language, which arguably goes to show the extent to which even fans are perfectly happy to lap up the language of the <I>real</I> reasons these films get made.

Montana Smith said:

That would be libel rather than slander, as it's the written word.

Click to expand...

Hey, Smiff, you must be living in the dark ages. Don't you know that "slander" has now become synonymous with "libel" on the internet? Screw the actual meaning of those words because they don't matter anymore. (Seriously, though, you are 100% correct. My mistake and I'm not ashamed to admit it.)

Pale Horse said:

Brand. I like the word Brand. Or does that totally clutter up this semantic exercise?

Click to expand...

Not at all, Mr. Horse. The Indy franchise IS the "brand" (as myself & Forbidden Eye mentioned above).

kongisking said:

Yes, you're technically correct, but it's not a despicable mistake like you make it sound, man.

Click to expand...

While the mistake may not be "despicable" to you, it's no excuse for letting the misinterpretation continue.

"Who is the more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?"

Stoo, i'm taking AP English Language and Composition this year, with a Miss Seymour of a teacher. First thing I read was an essay on the changing of languages over time. So when something such as the meaning of a word changing, it doesn't strike me as annoying, but rather as proof of the english languages strength.

And the popular lexicon is just that, popular. Since you've posted this thread, I've seen you acknowledge several solecisms in the passed couple of days. The fact that you've needed to make this thread proves that the meaning has branched out, not changed, but come to signify more than one subject.

I guess you can fight it, but in the end, the storm has already come, you are just finally feeling it's blow.

May I make a suggestion, you two?

Kiss and make up:

This begs the question: which is Spurlock and which is Stoo?