Film franchises have been a staple of films since the beginning of cinema itself. Many of them have come and gone through the years and others are keeping the film franchise a strong and relevant idea. But like everything else in the world, there comes a point where a franchise’s luck has run out for better or worse. There are several reasons why this happens: an entry didn’t get the reviews or make the money it was expected to; maybe too much time has passed and the tastes of the audience have moved on; maybe the films are simply churned out and the franchise is seen as nothing more than a cash cow and the audiences are tired of it. Or the simplest explanation – that it just wasn’t a good movie and as a consequence, studios face the ultimate price and bring the franchise to an end regardless of whether or not there were things that filmmakers still wanted to do with it.
These are just indicators of what can happen to a film franchise. I think it’s a lot like a chess game where you hope to make the right moves but somewhere along the way mistakes will be made and if a smart move isn’t made quickly enough the impact can be devastating.
I don’t think there is something definitively known as a healthy franchise, but it’s safe to assume that a franchise in its infancy is normally the best time for it. It’s seen as new and fresh and has plenty of potential. I’m sure many people would happily go and see the first entry of a film that looks set to become a franchise that stays around for a while. But a film in the eyes of its studio is business first, and one thing going wrong can derail just about anything.
When I think of franchises that went with the approach of releasing one film a year, the results could have gone either way. Two good examples of this I think are the first four James Bond films where one was released every year from 1962 to 1965. The majority of audiences would agree that the films released in that period were all made with a good level of quality put into them. I’m sure it’s just coincidence but after that point (except for the gap between Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun which were released one year after the other) audiences had to wait more than a year for each new Bond film. Another example of this would be the first two Harry Potter films which came in 2001 and 2002. They both had a lot of the same people working in front and behind the cameras and despite the sequel being released less than a year after the previous one, it still managed to win praise.
There’s no denying that a studio would work hard and quickly to follow up something like Harry Potter. In fact when director David Yates found himself directing not one but four of the Potter films, all of them except Order of the Phoenix (his first) were all released one year after another. This could be attributed to how the films were being produced, where Yates could have one going through preproduction while another was actually being filmed. I’m also not forgetting that Deathly Hallows was filmed back-to-back. Audiences didn’t seem to mind they were getting one Potter film and even Bond film per year, in fact they seemed to like it.
When it comes to films there are two very logical reason for a lengthy gap between entries of a franchise. One being that filmmaking is a serious endeavour that the people behind want to do at their best. Or production may be stalling due to disagreements with the crew and the studio. When the latter occurs the film is often far from great and could lead to problems both critically and financially.
Thinking about entries released years after the previous one, it’s not difficult to view them as either a cash grab or a gamble that could go horribly wrong, especially if it’s a franchise that had seemingly concluded. In 2003 it would have been reasonable to assume that the Spy Kids franchise was gone for good. But then in 2011 Spy Kids 4 was released and despite having the same director and some of the same cast as the previous one it bombed hard. It now seems to have been rebooted as an animated Netflix show, which I would have to say is quite a step down.
Some franchises take their time getting to a desired level of respectability. It can be said that something of this kind happened with The Fast And The Furious where the first four films weren’t received well critically, but since then that has changed and now an entry like Fast and Furious 9 can afford not to go down as well with critics without any major concerns. Mission Impossible was in a similar position, where the first one was well liked but not so much for tampering with an iconic character. Then the second one came out which became known as the worst, and after Tom Cruise endured some controversy. But they have since found their stride and maintain a level of quality entertainment.
When a franchise tries releasing a new film, particularly if it’s a series that was popular in the 20th century but just can’t seem to reach the same heights in the 21st, that would be taken as a sign that luck is not on its side. Consider what’s happened with The Terminator. Back in the 1980s and 1990s one film came out in each decade and both are hailed as science fiction classics, a position they have rightfully earned. Then in the last twenty years or so, no fewer than four Terminator films have been released and none of them has managed to reach the level of acclaim that the first two did. Other franchises have suffered similar fates like Predator and Alien, all of which have failed to thrive in a new era, no matter how hard they tried. Strangely enough both gaps between Terminators 1 and 2, and Alien and Aliens were longer than usual, but both sequels still managed to be excellent films.
On the other hand, a franchise can wait a long time for a new entry and it actually turns out well. Think of what happened with Rocky Balboa from 2006 – it seemed as if that would be the end, but then in 2015 Creed is released and does quite well, even getting a sequel. I actually find the success of Creed to be a little ironic as Stallone’s other franchise Rambo tried twice to stay relevant but failed on both occasions. Bill and Ted also went from having two films in 1989 and 1991 to having a third out as late as 2020 and I understand it didn’t do too badly.
I think there are franchises (or maybe I should say, series of films) like the Has Fallen series where the first one, Olympus, seemed like it was enough. But the money and success that it made demanded more and now it has two sequels, along with a third in the works and a TV show. I know this can be said of many franchises but it feels to me very true with this one.
When enough time is felt to have passed, another thing that can happen is that a film can be remade. People often scoff at this, but there is a feeling of validity to their perspective. Remakes, especially those in the horror genre, have a terrible track record of getting far from good receptions. Examples of this would include the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which was panned but somehow got a prequel. Other attempts would be made to keep the franchise going for modern audiences but personally I think it’s nothing more than sad desperation.
The horror genre also has the ability to produce franchises that have many entries without much concern given to how poorly they’re received. Years ago back in the 1980s, this was the state of the Friday the 13th franchise. It started in 1980 and by the end of the decade it had eight films. It’s clear that the studio were just milking it for all it was worth. Both Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street got remade in 2009 and 2010 but neither performed very well. They likely have their fans, but if they aren’t producing the results studios wish for nothing else is likely to happen. The SAW franchise also went on to have six films, one release per year from 2004 to 2010. Most didn’t get good reviews but even now they are still being made, just by different people and in a new direction.
Just about any genre is guilty of trying to renew itself and falling. Just think about what happened with the likes of Die Hard and Home Alone. Both were big for years but now they are just seen as either classics or good for the value of nostalgia.
Sometimes a franchise can get itself into such trouble with an entry that’s there’s only one option left, which is to reboot it. There are two obvious instances where rebooting a beloved franchise actually worked. Batman and Robin eventually led to Batman Begins and Die Another day led to Casino Royale and both franchises have for the most part enjoyed fair amounts of success. But it is very unfortunate that this is the only the fate of a very lucky few. Something similar happened with Halloween (2018) which brought back Jamie Lee Curtis and ignored most of the prior sequels. Even Top Gun: Maverick is getting good reviews and making good profits at the box office as I write this. But let’s not forget about the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. They came out after a long gap but while the new entry seemed to be okay, the ones that followed just got worse and worse both in the eyes of critics and audiences.
Another way a franchise will try to stay relevant is spin-offs and crossovers. I don’t have too much experience with them apart from Fantastic Beasts but given that the ones that come to mind often are Alien VS Predator and Freddy VS Jason, it’s safe to say that most of the time they don’t work and are seen as gimmicky and desperate. But then again, some spin-offs can be very successful. Like many things in the world I think spin-offs and crossovers can go either way in terms of success of failure.
Film franchises are likely to continue for as long as film lasts. Some will be fondly remembered like Harry Potter others will remain the butt of jokes, like Twilight. But just remember that with a franchise it may look like it’s on top of its game and can do no wrong but all it takes is one mistake and then its fortunes change forever. It has happened before and I’m sure it will happen again. It will be interesting to see which franchises go on for many years and what will be left of them when their time is up.