The Film Series is NOT the Franchise

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
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

New member
kongisking said:
May I make a suggestion, you two?

Kiss and make up:
alien3.gif

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

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 :p

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.

How about a list of requirements for a property/film series to earn the title of *franchise*.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
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 :p



How about a list of requirements for a property/film series to earn the title of *franchise*.

Bear in mind that my interest in film <I>as a business</I> is more limited than some others here, but since I've been asked directly, here's what I'd throw out there:

I think what Stoo offered from the get-go is primary: Are the original creators of the work the ones making the film series, or has it been licensed to somebody else to make them? Under this qualification, the Marvel cinematic universe, James Bond film series, Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and the Harry Potter films are instances of a franchise. The estates of Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs still license the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan, from what I can tell; each individual series with those characters could <I>probably</I> be considered a franchise as well.

Not that there aren't borderline cases: will Lucas's more limited involvement in the upcoming Star Wars trilogy render the films a franchise in that case, even though he's still having some input, and actually owns the intellectual property, rather than merely licensing it? Gene Roddenberry wasn't involved in all the Star Trek films; would that mean some of the films are part of a franchise, and others aren't?

I'd think that it's also necessary to have multiple installments in the film series.

Now, I confess that I'm not as comfortable as Stoo is in calling individual bodies of licensed works, such as the Bantam books, the Marvel comics, the Dark Horse comics, and the Hasbro toys, each a franchise unto itself. The analogy with fast food franchises would dictate his reading being correct, but it isn't intuitive to me. I'd be more comfortable suggesting that the Indiana Jones franchise is a single given entity, but that the films and the television series are the source from which they flow, rather than being a part of the additionally franchised revenue streams.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
When it comes to toys (and possibly all manner of merchandizing), companies bid to win the rights to produce items. That was how it was with Kenner and Hasbro with regard to Lucasfilm.

With action figures the rights can be sold to various companies to produce toys at varying scales, which likely increases the overall revenue for the license holder. Two or more companies might then produce the same characters, but in different styles or sizes.

Lucasfilm would charge them a huge sum of money on the pretext that the company would go forth and make plenty of profit out of the rights.

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.

Non-film novels (i.e. expanded universe) are pretty much franchised to their writers. Though, as with all franchising, there is a level of control retained by the owner over the final product sent to market.

As Stewie wrote, 'franchise' could only apply to the Indy films if the owners maintained a 'hands-off' approach and permitted a third party to produce films on their behalf.

That's certainly a situation that couldn't be said to apply to the four films produced so far, which have a tight-knit core uniting them comprised of returning names both behind and in front of the camera. Not to mention Lucas and Spielberg themselves both being heavily involved in their creation.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
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.

That's how the concept is supposed to work in theory. In reality though, it's slightly closer to "I sold my soul to the company store." Well, at least here in the States.

For example, you're first expense is the franchise rights. I've seen them range from $250-thousand to $1-million depending on the type of franchise. If you meet their fiscal requirements -- $250-thousand minimum in liquid assets; at least a million in fixed assets -- they'll grant you the license, then you need to build out your storefront at your own expense. Here in San Francisco, the last time I looked, it cost a minimum of a million bucks to completely build out a restaurant. So before the doors even open, you're out $1.25-million.

McDonald's usually requires "$750,000 of non-borrowed personal resources" before considering an application, according to its website. Taco Bell requires net worth of $1 million, while Burger King requires $1.5 million.

Once you do open, you're obligated for salaries, healthcare, benefits, etc. of however many employees you need. Most, of them, of course will be minimum wage slaves who will be expected to "bring it" every day like they were a highly paid star athlete. You'll need middle management to drive that point home.

Because McDonald's is really in the real estate business, and just happen to flip burgers too, they'll charge you rent. 12% of total sales per month happens to be their going rate this year. You also have to buy all of your food, supplies, and materials from them. No going to a local purveyor to shave off expenses. If you aren't paying rent to the license holder, then you're paying a percentage of your gross monthly receipts to them for the privilege of having their brand name over the door. Chances are that you're paying both. In some instances, the license holder is in charge of your credit card processing and skims from that percentage too.

So, why do people still opt in? Because there's still a lot of money to be made despite all of the overhead. Find whatever filmmaking analogy in that you would like.
 

kongisking

Active member
Spurlock said:
I think I'd be the tiny mouth inside the big mouth :p

Excellent answer. :D

To reiterate my view on this, I'm pretty certain that this particular franchise is going to remain dead until Ford bites it, and then there will be no obstacle to a reboot. Pretty sure the trio would never approve of a film without Harry as long as he's alive, no matter how fit for it he is. :(
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
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?:confused:

Anyway, who is a grumpy old-timer?
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.

So no misuse here, because we don't have the word in our language. People who feel the need to use it in some context, simply say the word in English. Such is actually the case in many new words. Finnish practicality: Because most of us know our English anyway, nobody bothers to think of apt translations to the terms.

Another example of a language evolving, I guess.



And hey, this is the Internet, the land of the young and the brave. Anybody who's past 30 is a grumpy old-timer in here...
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Spurlock said:
Stoo, i'm taking AP English Language and Composition this year, with a Miss Seymour of a teacher.
That's great, Spurlock, and I wish you all the best in your studies.:hat: My mother is an English teacher so you can imagine how I was raised!:eek:
Spurlock said:
And the popular lexicon is just that, popular.
Again, I ask: It's popular amongst whom?:confused: Popularity doesn't make it right. (See below)
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.
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?

Since your participation in this thread, I've seen you intentionally abusing the word, coupled with disclaimers such as (paraphrasing): "Yeah, I'm saying franchise regardless of its actual meaning".

The funny thing is...you've used it correctly even when you thought you weren't!:p
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.
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!:D

Which leads to this...
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.
A wise man from Finland (YOU) once said:

People can make some pretty strong arguments for _______________, but "a billion people can't be wrong" isn't one of them.
http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=278449&postcount=17

Like I said, there are good arguments, "strength in numbers" just isn't one of them.
http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=278963&postcount=30
Attila the Professor said:
Not that there aren't borderline cases:
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).

Franchise_Kid_B_zps05c69e28.jpg
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
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!
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:
Which leads to this...
Not the same analogue at all. Etymology and religion are two different things in my book.

The first one is someone dumping a load of manure on your yard. No matter how hard you insist it's a "decorative element", most people are going to call it a pile of sh*t.

The second one is when no one dumps a load of manure on your yard (or comes and collects the previous one away) - but you regardless keep telling people there is a pile. Yes, no one can see it, so you keep insisting that others just have to believe what you say. In the end though, only people who believe you are those who think there's an invisible pile of sh*t on their yards as well.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
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.
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).

Finn said:
Not the same analogue at all. Etymology and religion are two different things in my book.
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.

Like herds of sheep, internet film reviewers & sci-fi movie bloggers have taken this word and abused it so irresponsibly that it has become a common misnomer, bandied about by a proverbial 'ship of fools'.

Using it unconditionally, consider these examples:

- This McDonald's restaurant has branding guidelines to follow because it is a film series.
- Edgar Degas made a franchise of paintings with ballet dancers as the subject.
- Landed immigrant, Mohammed Abboud, will soon have a series to vote in the next U.S. presidential election.
- Mad Dog Vachon (from Montreal, who just died the other day) did an intense franchise of bench presses the night before his next fight.

---
In business terminology, the essence of the word is still the same as it was 700 years ago:
A LEGAL GRANT OF PERMISSION
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
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).
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...

There's really no point in discussing the meanings of word "franchise" in Finnish. Now, if you wanted to discuss about meanings of say, "booze", or "snow", I'd be happy to keep you occupied for several pages.

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.
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.

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.

Stoo said:
In business terminology, the essence of the word is still the same as it was 700 years ago:
A LEGAL GRANT OF PERMISSION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym

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.

Whether said limit has already been passed or not, I can't say. But if it has, you're fighting against the windmills here. Vamos, Sancho...
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Finn said:
...the year we got our first Starbucks and Burger King was 2013
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 World
Finn said:
There's really no point in discussing the meanings of word "franchise" in Finnish.
Not any more. As I said, you've already answered my question regarding that.
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.
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.

People need to pay attention to when & how they use the word rather than ignorantly believing that it's an automatic replacement.

World Wide Web searches show that other people out there object to the misuse, as well, so it ain't just me.
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.
Yes, it can mean a "film series", just NOT ALL OF THE TIME and certainly not in the case of Indiana Jones.

That's my whole point (and precisely why this thread is in an Indy section of the board and not the Films section). :)
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Comic Book Blog Garbage

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:
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.
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?:confused:

For the kicker, here is the author's self-written profile:
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.
Right. So this guy is a now an "English teacher" and calls himself "an educator"?:confused: Good Lord. Let's hope his students can rise above their "GEEK/NERD" teacher's limited, pin-headed, JUNK vocabulary & teaching.

---
His "frontlines" bit is also ripe for ridicule.
"You haven't seen what I've seen. I was there, man! I was on the front lines at the comic book store!":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
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?:confused:

Yeah, you comic book loving nerd fanboy blog writing character arc diluting hypocrisy living basement dwelling online degree getting five finger loving always debating never relating video game playing trash talking Kevin Smith Diety creating hippy hipster fellas, you...*

















_______________________________________________________
* This obvioulsy sarcastic and all-in-good-fun spirited reply is in direct relation to the post I just made and linked in the astrick herein. Get over it. :p
 

otto rahn

New member
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.
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.
 
Top