Years ago, an elderly person that I knew got REALLY upset about the word 'kids' being used to describe children.
Y'see, when this elderly person had been a child, the word 'kid' still just meant 'young goat', so they took offense with the more contemporary usage of that word.
Kid. Hardware. Gay. Novel. Icon. Franchise. Like it or not, language evolves constantly.
I agree. This word has always bothered me. The related concept of how we all follow box office numbers now is even worse to me though.
Why do we know this pointless trivia? Even worse, why would you talk about it? No one does this for any other type of product.
"You know, I was thinking about purchasing a roll of Charmin toilet paper to wipe my ass with, but I read they only did like $9.1m in sales this week, much less than they were expecting. And after all the marketing and ad buys Proctor and Gamble did this quarter! Then again this is traditionally a bad three day holiday weekend for taking shits across the country, so that might explain the numbers. I might just go ahead and wait to see what the overseas receipts look like before I decide."
What is your job title again? Executive Producer? No. No it is not. You're not even a best boy grip. (Is that a thing?) You're a dude who watched a few episodes of Entourage (and this is almost sort of redundant) who has nothing else to talk about. [putthatshitonthelist.blogspot.com]
You've sold me on throwing out 'franchise.' However, I am now going to adopt "drama product." That may be the best descriptor of Transformers I could imagine. It's like the Spam of the movie world. I pretty much love that term.
Hang on. Isn't that Google news chart massively deceptive? I mean, I was very young back then, but I'm guessing there aren't as many websites mentioning movie franchises from back in 1996 because of reasons that have nothing to do with movie franchises and everything to do with THE INTERNET. Look, it plateaus at around 2001. What could have happened around then concerning the Internet... hmmm.
@deworde: You're wrong, that searches in an archive of newspapers. I thought the same and searched "movies", and at first I got a graph that looked like that one, but it started in 1910. Try searching "movies" since 1980 and you'll get a chart that doesn't look like this one at all.
You're right, mate, but here's the thing. Transformers HAVE NO STORY. In fact, an unspeakably high percentage of those movies (etc) has no story, no concept, no brilliant idea. They have costumes, gadgets and "characters" (recognizable stereotypes, not the real thing). OR, they used to have one, but it got old at the second reincarnation. These movies (etc) don't DESERVE anything better than the word "franchise".
Of course, every now and then, from such a procedure springs up something original, worthwhile and wonderful - like BSG. No one denies that. But most of the time, franchise means one thing: milking a cow which was no big deal in the first place, not in any conceivable way other than bringing easy bucks, at least.
Honestly though, if the whole "intellectual property" doesn't get nerfed (or abolished...), we'll never get rid of that crap.
Private property of popular culture is a contradiction in terms. ;-)
Seriously?
This is like writing an article that complains about the use of Franchise because you have to mail your taxes to the local Franchise Tax Board, and paying taxes is evil so they shouldn't connect it with geeky movies.
The word "franchise" didn't start with fast food, Charlie. Just because you're unfamiliar with the actual definition (rather than the fast food connotation), doesn't make the usage invalid.
Does anyone here know how franchises function for the franchisees -- the people who buy, say, a new Subway franchise for Fargo, ND -- in the business world?
1) Buy into an already-tested and proven concept.
2) Duplicate it exactly in your local market.
3) Profit! (hopefully)
What's the crucial concept here? The "duplication" part. The franchise concept strips away all creativity of the people who own the individual franchises. Why? Because the original works ... so don't change it!
When it comes to the business world, it usually works well, as far fewer franchises go under as compared to businesses started from scratch.
But when it comes to creative content like movies, the final product can sucketh. Why? By adhering to what made the original successful, the sequels generally suffer. And the more you duplicate (let's say, oh, Spiderman 3), the more sucketh they become.
"Story" sounds too much like something "creative" and "artistic", terms that give corporate money men the shivering fits. If it can't be commodified and sold by the truckload to slack jawed yokels, they aren't interested. That's why "creativity" is the first thing excised in the Hollywood development process.
@FergusonDeepak: Uh because I used to live there, and that's sort of the point. You can drive from one McDonalds to the other and see that they're the same.
I'm ok with the word "franchise." Sometimes words acquire new meanings. Languages grow and change, like all cultural phenomena. Do you also object to the word "icon" no longer being the exclusive property of Greek Orthodox priests? Does it annoy you that computer geeks stole that word away from old-school church people?
@cletar: Good point, but this new meaning is just kind... gross. Impersonal. You know what? When I read the word franchise in this context, it almost feels like a middle finger to people who actually dig stories and don't look at them exclusively as products to be exploited.
I'm going to take the contrarian view that "franchise" is swell. The alternative term "universe" really only makes sense to me when you're referring to stories that take place in continuity with each other. Thus, for example, Transformers and Transformers 2 take place in the same "universe," but they don't take place in the universe of the original Transformers animated series. (See also, e.g., the Burton/Schumacher Batman films vs. the Nolan Batman films -- clearly different universes.)
However, a term is needed to describe the situation where you're using the same, or very similar, characters/concepts/etc., in different media or different remakes/reboots/reimaginings/etc. You also need a term that encompasses merchandise that isn't part of the story, but relates to the characters/concepts/etc. "Franchise" fits the bill well and I'm not the least bit ashamed of using the word to describe different types of media that I enjoy.
08/23/09
Y'see, when this elderly person had been a child, the word 'kid' still just meant 'young goat', so they took offense with the more contemporary usage of that word.
Kid. Hardware. Gay. Novel. Icon. Franchise. Like it or not, language evolves constantly.
08/22/09
And movies are too big to fail, right? Right?
08/21/09
Why do we know this pointless trivia? Even worse, why would you talk about it? No one does this for any other type of product.
"You know, I was thinking about purchasing a roll of Charmin toilet paper to wipe my ass with, but I read they only did like $9.1m in sales this week, much less than they were expecting. And after all the marketing and ad buys Proctor and Gamble did this quarter! Then again this is traditionally a bad three day holiday weekend for taking shits across the country, so that might explain the numbers. I might just go ahead and wait to see what the overseas receipts look like before I decide."
What is your job title again? Executive Producer? No. No it is not. You're not even a best boy grip. (Is that a thing?) You're a dude who watched a few episodes of Entourage (and this is almost sort of redundant) who has nothing else to talk about.
[putthatshitonthelist.blogspot.com]
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Of course, every now and then, from such a procedure springs up something original, worthwhile and wonderful - like BSG. No one denies that. But most of the time, franchise means one thing: milking a cow which was no big deal in the first place, not in any conceivable way other than bringing easy bucks, at least.
Honestly though, if the whole "intellectual property" doesn't get nerfed (or abolished...), we'll never get rid of that crap.
Private property of popular culture is a contradiction in terms. ;-)
08/21/09
08/21/09
This is like writing an article that complains about the use of Franchise because you have to mail your taxes to the local Franchise Tax Board, and paying taxes is evil so they shouldn't connect it with geeky movies.
The word "franchise" didn't start with fast food, Charlie. Just because you're unfamiliar with the actual definition (rather than the fast food connotation), doesn't make the usage invalid.
[dictionary.reference.com]
08/21/09
08/21/09
1) Buy into an already-tested and proven concept.
2) Duplicate it exactly in your local market.
3) Profit! (hopefully)
What's the crucial concept here? The "duplication" part. The franchise concept strips away all creativity of the people who own the individual franchises. Why? Because the original works ... so don't change it!
When it comes to the business world, it usually works well, as far fewer franchises go under as compared to businesses started from scratch.
But when it comes to creative content like movies, the final product can sucketh. Why? By adhering to what made the original successful, the sequels generally suffer. And the more you duplicate (let's say, oh, Spiderman 3), the more sucketh they become.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
However, a term is needed to describe the situation where you're using the same, or very similar, characters/concepts/etc., in different media or different remakes/reboots/reimaginings/etc. You also need a term that encompasses merchandise that isn't part of the story, but relates to the characters/concepts/etc. "Franchise" fits the bill well and I'm not the least bit ashamed of using the word to describe different types of media that I enjoy.
08/21/09
08/21/09