And what constitutes or defines a franchise?

So far my top find is Andy Serkis

LOTR, DC, POTA, King Kong, Star Wars, MARVEL, Simpsons

Would you consider LOTR/Hobbit two different franchises? I tend to label it as one, maybe call it Tolkien?

Are titles such as Blade Runner or The Expendables considered franchises? Would Philip K Dick be a franchise? or Stephen King?

I would regard anything that tries to link up with some established title, character or brand as a franchise. One movie or show isn't a franchise, maybe a failed franchise attempt. But 2 movies or more based on the same character or characters becomes a franchise title. These days that generally means at least a trilogy, but it can be made by different people, in different eras. Multi universes are definitely franchises.

My pick would be Samuel L. Jackson. He has turned up in nearly everything. Early in his career the roles may have been small and short, like in Jurassic Park or Die Hard. Then he was a star by the time of Star Wars and lots of Marvel and Kong: Skull Island, and Unbreakable. He did bits in the Robocop remake, Incredibles, Kingsman, Kill Bill, Hitman. He was even in The Legend of Tarzan. There is more you could pull out of his resume.

He is a popular, familiar actor who works a lot and shows up in many large casts, as well as smaller projects from known film makers who seek him out.

Yeah Sam is a good one. Not sure I would agree with some of the titles you listed but he is in at least 9 of them.

Jackson - Jurassic Park, Star Wars, MARVEL, Tom Clancy, Die Hard, King Kong, Robo Cop, Garfield, Incredibles

Here is a definition I found.

a series of related works (such as novels or films) each of which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe with characters from the other works.

I think my impression of a franchise would also include something that generates alternative products and marketing. A franchise tends to let you know it is there even if you aren't in the theater. Not counting standard advertising and promotional type products.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Here is a definition I found.

a series of related works (such as novels or films) each of which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe with characters from the other works.

Good enough of a definition, with maybe a nod to having some firewalls between instalments, because keeping up a running storyline with the same characters can become both boring and stupid.

Scream worked for 3 movies maybe, but by the 4th one it was too unbelievable to be scary. And its still running. Aliens has ditched all original characters except the Alien, and I don't like the jumping around with timelines. Timelines, sequels, prequels, reboots, reimaginings, and good old fashion remakes have all become hallmarks of the franchise titles to drag an audience into something that sounds familiar. Ghostbusters, anybody?

I don't agree with the collective works franchise idea. As an example, all movies and shows derived from Stephen King's books don't make up a franchise, but conjoined films like "The Shining" and "Doctor Sleep" are the start of a franchise. Same if you put together "Salem's Lot" related stories. To me a franchise would be defined by the fictional characters and their world, not simply by any material coming from the same writer or a film director's catalog.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Yeah Sam is a good one. Not sure I would agree with some of the titles you listed but he is in at least 9 of them.

Jackson - Jurassic Park, Star Wars, MARVEL, Tom Clancy, Die Hard, King Kong, Robo Cop, Garfield, Incredibles

Here is a definition I found.

a series of related works (such as novels or films) each of which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe with characters from the other works.

I think my impression of a franchise would also include something that generates alternative products and marketing. A franchise tends to let you know it is there even if you aren't in the theater. Not counting standard advertising and promotional type products.

I think it's gotta be Jackson for this, in part, just due to the sheer amount of movies he's been in.

In addition to those named above, Samuel was also in two "Hitman's Bodyguard" movies, all 3 of the "xXx" movies. He appeared in "Spiral", which is part of the "Saw" horror franchise and in that same vein, "Exorcist III". He was also in the both of the modern "Shaft" movies.

Finally, he played the same character in "Unbreakable" and "Glass" which were also tied into the end of "Split", all working towards another movie in that universe, which is now in doubt do to Bruce Willis' unfortunate condition.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I don't agree with the collective works franchise idea. As an example, all movies and shows derived from Stephen King's books don't make up a franchise, but conjoined films like "The Shining" and "Doctor Sleep" are the start of a franchise. Same if you put together "Salem's Lot" related stories.

Of course if you make the Castle Rock connection then it spreads quickly.

I think Christopher Lee has everyone beat.
From movies, he's got:
LOTR/Hobbit
Dark Shadows
Star Wars
Police Academy
Return of the Musketeers
Marvel (Captain America II: Death too Soon [1979])
Airport '77
Bond
Sherlock Holmes
Dracula (Hammer)
Frankenstein (Hammer)
Mummy (Hammer)
Hercules (Italian series)
Fu Manchu
Horatio Hornblower
Return from Witch Mountain
Howling II

Does 2 movies make a franchise? If so, include
Gremlins II
Crimson Rivers II



Television:
The Avengers
Charlie's Angels
Young Indiana Jones
New Adventures of Robin Hood

Christopher Lee was always a favorite of mine. He would certainly be a contender.

The only reason why I wouldn't pick him over Jackson is because I would count all those Hammer Studio roles as one franchise, Hammer films. He played all those iconic Universal monsters for Hammer, but they had to differ from the Universal creations, which is why I wouldn't lump his Dracula with other Draculas, or his Frankenstein's Monster with other Frankenstein Monsters. "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (Sherlock Holmes} was also done by Hammer. Not sure about Fu Manchu.

Also, if you are going to pick Lee, you might as well pick Peter Cushing too. They were in practically every movie together, Hammer and others.

I didn't know Horatio Hornblower had a franchise. I liked both those Crimson Rivers movies, but I doubt many people have heard of them unless they were fans of Jean Reno.

Guess I forgot to put the rule in that we are talking official autograph cards.

As much as I would love a Cushing autograph card.

So would you count Dracula/Mummy as the franchise or separate them between Hammer and Universal?

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
So would you count Dracula/Mummy as the franchise or separate them between Hammer and Universal?

If you're asking me, I would regard Hammer as a franchise unto itself because there was a sort of road company cast of actors and because we have card sets based on the Hammer films catalog.

But I could understand someone else saying as long as it's the same character, all Draculas and all Mummies are in their own group. Could you lump a Dracula with all other vampire movies that don't have Dracula? Maybe some would.

I think that would take it too broad, but it could still be in line with the definition "exist and interact in the same fictional universe with characters from the other works". Getting too complicated, probably best to leave it at sequels, prequels and remakes.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Guess I forgot to put the rule in that we are talking official autograph cards.

Serkis has a King Kong auto card? Planet of the Apes?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Guess I forgot to put the rule in that we are talking official autograph cards.

Serkis has a King Kong auto card? Planet of the Apes?

Nope, just an official autograph card out in the hobby. Obviously who has a card in the most franchises would be a different category.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I would count all those Hammer Studio roles as one franchise, Hammer films.

I suppose, then, that we have to combine the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies into a single franchise because they both come from Lucasfilm?

No, I think mykdude's definition of a franchise is pretty good. Films from a single studio may have something in common -- style, a stock company of actors, etc. -- but that doesn't mean that they constitute a franchise. Gerry Anderson's "Thunderbirds are Go" and "Stingray" have much in common, but they aren't a franchise.

quote:

I wouldn't lump his Dracula with other Draculas, or his Frankenstein's Monster with other Frankenstein Monsters.

Dracula (Hammer) has more in common with Dracula (Universal) than it does with Mummy (Hammer).

quote:

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" (Sherlock Holmes} was also done by Hammer. Not sure about Fu Manchu.

The Christopher Lee Fu Manchu appearance was in a series from Constantin Film. There were other Fu Manchu movies by other studios, going back to the silent era.

quote:

Also, if you are going to pick Lee, you might as well pick Peter Cushing too. They were in practically every movie together, Hammer and others.

Aside from Hammer and Star Wars, they weren't in that many franchises together.

quote:

I didn't know Horatio Hornblower had a franchise.

A 1951 movie, a series of TV movies ca. 2000, a 1963 television show, and radio episodes. Not as tightly strung together as, say, the James Bond movies, but a consistent set of characters and settings.

There are four Superfly movies, and Samuel is in one of those.

In the TV world:
He was in a "Spenser: For Hire" episode, which show had sequels, spin-offs and remakes. The Jesse Stone movies exist in the same universe (connected, at least, through the books).

He was in an episode of "Law and Order".