Jump to content

Talk:Lists of multimedia franchises/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible additions

[edit]

bd2412 T 00:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Monty Python has the requisite number of works, but they don't have franchise characters or scenarios. Would we consider A Fish Called Wanda to part of the same "franchise" as Fierce Creatures merely because the two movies share the same ensemble cast? bd2412 T 02:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added Monty Python, because I don't see how it is different from any other franchise that is based on a TV show. There are multiple Monty Python books, Monty Python films, Monty Python albums, etc., but they are all part of the same franchise, because they all have "Monty Python" in the title. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should break out some smaller lists, for example separating out franchises based on ensemble storytelling like Monty Python and Twilight Zone. Technically, Saturday Night Live can be called a franchise, if we count the movies spun out of SNL characters (The Blues Brothers, It's Pat, A Night at the Roxbury, etc.). bd2412 T 03:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNL might be a movie franchise based on a TV show, but I don't think it would qualify as multimedia. Otherwise, any ensemble TV shows that meet the minimum criteria, should also have a universal "brand" that is applied to all the media in that franchise. That's why I think Monty Python still qualifies. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're getting at. The Blues Brothers might qualify, having started as a segment on SNL and then being made into movies, with some video games based on the movies; but the movies and video games are not branded as "SNL" products. bd2412 T 17:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are Alien vs. Predator, Alien (franchise), and Predator (franchise) considered 3 separate franchises, or should they be grouped together? The1337gamer (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should do what the navbox is doing. Which puts them all together. Jhenderson 777 20:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider them separate. They originated in unrelated media, and each was adapted in multiple media that did not reference the other prior to their combination. I would list them separately with a note on each listing indicating the relationship with the other. bd2412 T 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The note thing sounds fine to me. Jhenderson 777 21:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added all three with note explaining Alien vs. Predator is a crossover franchise of the other two. Hopefully that will suffice. The1337gamer (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slew of possible additions

[edit]

Siawase (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question with respect to each of them is, do they have at least two installments in each of two forms of media, and at least one installment in an additional form of media? bd2412 T 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through them as I created the list, and barring mistakes or differences in definitions of separate media/installments, they should be within the criteria. Siawase (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I touched upon in the "Criteria" section above. I would suggest that the criteria be modified to be "works in at least four forms of media", otherwise this list could become very large very fast. Using books, comics, film, tv and video games as the main criteria, everything is covered by at least four, with the exception of "Franchises originating in video games and excluding film and/or television works". Again, I'm just trying to keep the list manageable and objective. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am leery of that. I look at something like the Hannibal Lecter series, which has multiple high-profile books, which have been licensed to create multiple high profile movies, and a TV series, and can not see the value of a formula that would exclude that. Suppose, however, that we were to require individual notability with respect to these individual components? Suppose our language read, "In order to qualify as a multimedia franchise for purposes of this list, a franchise must have notable works in at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate, individually notable works in at least two of those forms of media"? bd2412 T 01:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and I'm not trying to exclude franchises such as Hannibal or Harry Potter, but there has to a line drawn in the sand, or else this list starts to become WP:OR. I'm not sure that notability is what needs to be added though, because technically every link on this list is "individually notable", otherwise there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that, for example, it is mentioned in the Kirby (character) article that there are Kirby comics, but there is no article on the comics themselves. Perhaps a better solution still would be to require, in addition to the variety of media, a cited minimum dollar amount to the value of the franchise (like this). For example, if we limit the list to franchises that can be shown to have made a billion dollars or more, we will eliminate a lot of minor examples without having to worry about the Hannibals and the Harry Potters. bd2412 T 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it until after I put together the list above, but Category:Media franchises does have a lot of entries that probably qualify under the current criteria, so this list could potentially grow very long. Setting a dollar amount is probably a more effective way to gauge real world impact. It's possible to milk a niche franchise by spinning out to several forms of media that only appeal to a small audience, but to rake in the big bucks there needs to be a wider appeal/impact. Siawase (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised Peanuts isn't in the list or mentioned yet.Jhenderson 777 20:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to add any franchise that meets the requirements set out in the lede. bd2412 T 20:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. But I am more so on my Ipad lately. That looks like a hard edit for me on a IOS device. When I get back on my PC I will do gladly do it though. Jhenderson 777 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added it. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, is there really a pressing need to throttle back the list? By my count, there are currently about a hundred franchises listed. There are about thirty more proposed on this page, and quite frankly I think we've hit most of the big ones, and don't need to worry about the list getting overly long. For all that has been added to it, it's still under 48K! bd2412 T 23:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it won't be too lengthy using the current criteria then, especially since a few franchises in the category can probably be lumped together the way Marvel and DC have been. If we're sticking with the current criteria I'll work my way through the list above. Thought of another one that should qualify btw, Sesame Street. Siawase (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the book inclusions that I thought of.

[edit]

I'm back and I thought of a lot more additions and all I am starting with is just the books for now. I am aware that I can add if they qualify but some of them I am less sure of. Also it seems that editors are worrying about too much inclusions as well. So here we go on books that I thought of so far:

Obvious franchises:
Less sure of:
  • Blade Runner: Got more popular after a loosely based movie on a book. Just like the Shrek franchise.
  • Roger Rabbit: Same as Blade Runner. Became well known and had more media after a loosely based movie on a book.

Jhenderson 777 19:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting side note is that all public domain works arise in literature, because there are far fewer works in any other media in the public domain at all. It is actually not technically correct to call these works "franchises" since there is no licensing involved. We may need to break out a separate list for multimedia adaptations of public domain works. bd2412 T 22:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that and separating public domain might be a good idea but what about the ones mentioned before that are obviously are not public domain. Jhenderson 777 22:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dune certainly qualifies - multiple works in each of three or more media. The rest, I don't know. Has Dan Brown's work been translated to media beyond books and movies? Have the Dark Materials and Space Odyssey works? By the way, I have now created List of public domain works with multimedia adaptations. bd2412 T 22:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His Dark Materials#Adaptations should tell you everything. There is also a Da Vinci Code, Bourne and Left Behind video game. Left Behind also has graphic novels, other different books beside the main series and a film series along with a reboot to the film series. Barsoon is obviously multimedia. But I am not sure if it is public domain or not. It is just about as old and popular than Tarzan. Winnie-The-Pooh is also a no brainer as a mutimedia. Space Odyssey also has a comic that I know of. Blade Runner has comics, book and a film. Roger Rabbit has books, shorts, comic books and video games. This article talks about most of them. Jhenderson 777 00:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had any discussion as to whether radio or stage productions "count" towards a franchise being multimedia, although I have generally tried to list them on the page. I suppose it is hard to argue that they wouldn't. By that measure, Blondie (comic strip) should also be added. bd2412 T 01:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking specifally about His Dark Materials I am guessing?Jhenderson 777 01:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is hard for me to reconcile this level of usage with the idea of a multimedia franchise. bd2412 T 01:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are uncertain of all the ones I mentioned except for Dune? I definitely think Dune belongs along wih Winnie-The-Pooh and Barsoom ( which probably belongs in public domain). Everything else is a maybe for me as well. Jhenderson 777 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not uncertain, just haven't had a chance to check them out. Barsoom is definitely PD, though. bd2412 T 04:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings

[edit]
Now the SPI has been resolved, I feel closure is needed. There is a clear consensus to merge the two into one franchise in the list. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings be considered the same franchise? Both of them qualify for the list separately otherwise. The1337gamer (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely consider them a single franchise. They occur in a single fictional universe created by a single author, with characters who interacted with one another from the beginning. bd2412 T 14:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion and considerations in this case are not really relevant, however. LOTD and The Hobbit are not the same franchise, nor is the franchise's title "Middle Earth". They're two separate franchises with separate film series and separate merchandise, despite sharing some characters and similar settings. You also might wanna work on your definition of a media franchise but we'll get to that eventually...--DesignDeath (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition has been established for the duration of this article. You are, of course, welcome to seek consensus in favor of the definition that you prefer. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not mean LOTR and The Hobbit are the same franchise. You're the only person I've encountered who seems to think that. "Middle Earth" is purely the setting of the franchises as well, it is NOT the title. --DesignDeath (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very interesting that I'm the only person you've encountered who seems to think that, since a different editor added the franchise to the article under the name "Middle Earth". Frankly, I would have no qualms about having the entire franchise under the name, "The Lord of the Rings", but The Hobbit is still merely a prequel within the franchise, establishing an earlier part of the story of the fictional sequence of events involving the same fictional characters in the same fictional setting (and now they even have Legolas in the Hobbit films). This is no less an installment in a series than Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd is an installment in the Dumb and Dumber franchise. bd2412 T 12:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, two people have also already complained about it on the tapk page. The Hobbit is not an installment in the LOTR series, it is the first instalent in The Hobbit series. The Hobbit is an independant franchise that happens to be a prequel to an existing franchise. Nobody refers to The Hobbit as "the fourth installment of the LOTR franchise" therefore no, it is not merely a prequel "within" the franchise. And on the other hand the Dumb and Dumber prequel is referred to as the second installment, which is a completely different story.--DesignDeath (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Nobody?
I searched for all of ten minutes to find these. Also, where do you see two people complaining? I hope you are not referring to the editor who actually added the material to the article as "complaining" about his own addition. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While that is impressive, did you check the film's Wikipedia article though? According to this very website, it's "It is the first installment of a three-part film series based on the novel..." So come on, It is not the fourth installment of anything. And while I am surprised there even are any, some of your online discoveries state it's the "fourth installment of a trilogy", and I honestly dont think statements from a person who thinks a trilogy can even have a fourth installment are very valid in this case. And another one of the quotes you found is from a Wordpress blog, so do you see what I'm getting at? Please do a search for people who reffer to The Hobbit as a stand alone trilogy and you'll find much more material supporting my claims, trust me. I believe even Peter Jackson stated they're two seperate entities, which in my opinion is more important than what several internet websites have said. If we want this article to go anywhere we should both take it easy though and listen to each othrts suggestions, because trust me I am knowledgeable about this topic.--DesignDeath (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is generally awkward to refer to anything as the "fourth installment of a trilogy", but many of these references are merely to it being the "fourth installment of the series" (also, plenty of people have also referred to, e.g., the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film that way; it does not detract from the relatedness of the media). Once could say the same thing about the Christopher Nolan Batman films, which were very different in tone from the earlier series, and could be characterized as separate entities from the original, or as a first, second, and third installment in a new series, but were also clearly within the larger Batman franchise. That said, I would have no objection to changing the section from "Middle Earth" to "Lord of the Rings" I respect that you are knowledgeable about the Tolkien compendium, but the question of what constitutes a "franchise" is really about marketing and intellectual property law. bd2412 T 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on though. For example, let us look at the Alien vs. Predator franchise and the soon-to-be Prometheus franchise. Both are related to other franchises and one is even set in the same universe another one is but they're both separate franchises with separate merchandise, individual franchise logos (see, this is the most important aspect of everything and something you seem to ignore - more than one brand logo cannot be used in one franchise because then clearly it is not the same brand, all of the franchises above have their own logotypes that are used for all installments and additional merchandise - which proves that a franchise has its own identity). They are also all usually released in separate box sets, proving that the production compaines and distributors also intended them to be looked at separate entities. These are just some examples though, and the fact that some people consider a "franchise" to be a random collection of somehow related products really irks me. Anything that is an individual, established brand should be considered a franchise, and this follows the encyclopedic definition of one. The Hobbit is clearly an entirely new brand, instead it would be titled The Lord of The Rings: The Hobbit or something along those lines.--DesignDeath (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wanted to have a combined entry on Dungeons and Dragons and Lord of the Rings media, I would agree that it was a relatively random collection. I do not think that it conflates "a random collection of somehow related products" to have under one heading the collection of works by a single author detailing a single consistent stream of events all occurring in a single fictional world, and involving an overlapping set of characters. As for the titles, note that the second and third Christopher Nolan Batman films do not contain "Batman" in their titles either. Manhunter and Red Dragon don't contain "Hannibal" in their titles. The Hound of the Baskervilles doesn't even contain "Sherlock Holmes" in the title. bd2412 T 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have already established that they are related but this still does not mean they aren't two separate brands. It's not like there's a single movie titled "The Hobbit" that is a prequel to the LOTR series. If that were the case I'd definitely be wrong. However, there are three movies titled The Hobbit: + subtitle, and the series' merchandise is also titled the same way. For example, the recent Hobbit video game is titled "The Hobbit: Armies of the Third Age", while one of the LOTR video games is titled "The Lord of the Rings: Aragorn's Quest". If this doesn't make it painfully clear that "The Hobbit" and "Lord of The Rings" are two different brands, I don't know what is. --DesignDeath (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we are getting to the point of talking in circles here. I have provided sources that support the proposition that The Hobbit media is considered part of a larger franchise. At this stage, you bear the burden of providing more persuasive sources in support of the proposition that The Hobbit is not considered part of a larger franchise. Since we have only been talking back and forth between ourselves, it would also be useful to solicit some additional opinions. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll do that when I have the time. There are also a few other things about the article that are questionable to me but I'll get to that too.--DesignDeath (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan I will link This article and this article for further explaining. Jhenderson 777 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Perhaps we should rename the section Tolkien's legendarium, then. bd2412 T 02:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did think of that but Middle-Earth makes sense to me too. Perhaps we can have inclusion of both links in some way. Jhenderson 777 03:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they are both subsets of a larger franchise then it makes sense to just list the superset of both. If we split LOTR and The Hobbit, then this means Marvel should probably be split into a dozen or so franchises and many others on the list would need splitting to. I asked the question initially because I not very familiar with Tolkien's work. The1337gamer (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it odd that Marvel has been listed as a franchise, since Marvel is merely a comic book publishing company. This is the first time I've heard of somebody referring to Marvel as a franchise. So yes I'd say it does need splitting but clearly we are not on the same page here.
Oh, and as promised, this is a list of sources referring to "The Hobbit" as a single franchise (I didn't list any Wordpress blogs or anything similar so I'd say these sources can be considered credible)
If needed, I can easily list even more sources since practically the entire internet, except Wikipedia apparently, reefers to LOTR and The Hobbit as separate franchises and individual entities, including their owners. I hope it's safe to say that a separation of the franchises is the logical thing to do, and since I've spend an hour looking up credible sources for reassurance, I feel justified for doing so. --DesignDeath (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be clear, I didn't ask for sources showing that The Hobbit is considered a franchise, I asked for sources specifically showing that The Hobbit is not considered part of a larger franchise. It is entirely possible for several franchises to exist as subsets of one larger franchise. As User:Jhenderson777 points out above, we have an article on Tolkien's legendarium which encompasses all of this media. I therefore agree with User:The1337gamer, that "if they are both subsets of a larger franchise then it makes sense to just list the superset of both" - which, by its own definition, is Tolkien's legendarium. I would certainly agree with renaming the entry Tolkien's legendarium on this basis. bd2412 T 21:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why haven't you cited sources that explicitly state that The Hobbit is a part of a larger franchise? And besides, how could a franchise possibly be a part of another franchise? It makes absolutely no sense. To me, it seems that the situation here is that lumping as many things together as possible is a way of keeping the article's length minimal. Yes, there are franchises that are related, but who is to say that they automatically form a "larger franchise" and should be categorized as a single brand? Tolkien's legendarium is also merely the name of the fictional universe the characters are set in; however, I think we have already established that a franchise ≠ a shared fictional universe. Now that I've looked up numerous websites reporting various things about the films, I have also noticed that Harvey Weinstein refers to The Hobbit as a single franchise in interviews, and he's the producer of it. I believe franchise creators (in this case deceased, however) or their current owners and producers should have a say in the matter. --DesignDeath (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source stating "make no mistake: this is a continuation of Lord of the Rings franchise" is fairly explicitly stating that The Hobbit is a part of a larger franchise. As for how a franchise can be part of a larger franchise, it can be if it is just a continuation of the story of another franchise, having the same settings, and sharing characters. For comparison, there have been several X-Men movies (and countless comic books and TV series), and at the same time several Wolverine movies; there are going to be several Avengers movies, and have already been several Iron Man films. In the comics, and in the TV series, these characters consistently occupy a single fictional universe, and their actions are inextricably intertwined. It would be irreconcilably weird for Wolverine to show up in Middle Earth, but it is not at all weird for Legolas to show up in the Hobbit films. bd2412 T 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay first and foremost, The Hobbit is not a continuation of Lord of The Rings. Last time I checked it was a prequel, wasn't it? Regardless, TH is LOTR's predecessor plot-wise, but as I've already said and proven It's a distinguished brand of its own. Both Wolverine movies are installments of the same film series the X-Men films are, so you can't take that a an example. And all of the Iron Man/Avengers films are a part of a franchise titled "Marvel Cinematic Universe", and they're a part of that franchise only. Unless of course a film can be a part of more than one franchises or a film series simultaneously all of a sudden. I think we've already established that characters such as Legolas appear in both franchises, but again, that doesn't mean that they're the same franchise, or a part of a "larger franchise". That "larger franchise" doesn't even exist. If it did, it'd have a name and neither "Tolkien's legendarium" nor "Middle-earth" are its title. One is the name of a fictional universe while another is the name of a fictional setting. Never have I read or heard anyone refer to a franchise that goes by either of these titles. But I've seen and cited countless sources that clearly talk about a LOTR and a Hobbit franchise. --DesignDeath (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think we are talking in circles. We disagree, and apparently have differing interpretations of what constitutes a franchise. With respect to the continuity issue, the second Star Wars trilogy is a prequel to the first, set a generation earlier, and with its own merchandise. Are they not part of the same franchise? Star Trek: Enterprise takes place a generation before the original series. Are they not part of the same franchise? The story of the Lord of the Rings can not be licensed without including characters from The Hobbit - Gandalf, Bilbo, Gollum. At the end of the day, there still needs to be a consensus of the community to change this. bd2412 T 03:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to support the notion of the two being separated. Congregating two individualized brands that are related in succession seems rather pointless and a very "fanboy-ish" thing to do. You can't really justify this by listing any other examples either because while the Star Trek movies are divided into three "eras", they're all a part of the same film series, which obviously is not the case with Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit. On promotional material and merchandise, I've seen both The Lord of The Rings™ and The Hobbit™ use the registered trademark symbol, meaning that they in fact are individually registered trademarks, DESPITE having trademarked characters appearing in both brands/franchises. But then again, other franchises have gotten crossed over and other franchises used trademarked characters belonging to other brands. A great example is how they needed to licence the Ghostface mask from the Scream films for the Scary Movie parody or how the person who owns the copyright (RJ Torbert) wrote a novel featuring the masked character but the novel has absolutely nothing to do with the Scream films nor is it a part of the franchise. Are Scream and Scary Movie automatically a part of a "larger franchise" even though the latter is merely a parody? Following your logic, everything that used a same licensed character or setting is a part of a franchise, and that is not what a franchise is (feel free to prove me wrong) though. I think you need to ignore what the story is about and focus on the fact that that the franchises are still individually licensed brands despite, let's say, Legolas showing up in both of them.--AngelaVidal (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., parodies generally do not require licensure. In any case, I don't think that parodies have ever been considered part of a franchise, or else we would also have to include Bored of the Rings. My logic is not premised solely on use of the same licensed character, but on the same character in the same setting, which is part of the same overall fictional history. The characters in Scary Movie were not expressly living in a universe where the events depicted in the Scream films were part of their own history. bd2412 T 17:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what about the last two Star trek movies, the reboots? They aren't even set in the same universe the first 10 movies are, but they're still a part of the series/franchise. A single franchise can share more than one continuity but two franchises can't share one? I've noticed that you previously said a "franchise is really about marketing" so why are you using in-universe elements such as continuity as your argument here? And yes, Scary Movie did require licencing because of the use of the trademarked Ghostface mask, and the trademarked character has been used in other media that is in no way considered a part of the franchise, so why should the fact that same characters appear in both LOTR and The Hobbit franchises be overruling argument here? Because of the setting? On another note, please give me a source that supports your definition of a franchise because the ones cited are practically incoherent and to me it seems that you're either making up or adding your opinions to these definitions yourself.--AngelaVidal (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we gonna drop this discussion for no apparent reason whatsoever? A consensus has not been reached, far from it.--AngelaVidal (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "a consensus has not been reached" - the question, then, is what happens when a discussion of a proposal to modify an article has a lack of consensus? bd2412 T 14:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like these, I assume that an edit majority of the users agree with should be made. And since the impression I got was that it's two versus one + one neutral user, I figured that the temporary separation would be the logical thing to do. Apparently not, however. And I'm baffled. --DesignDeath (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you counting Elizium23's comment, "Support inclusion as one franchise", as actually opposing inclusion as one franchise? bd2412 T 00:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that it's too early for a consensus. We still haven't even decided that Marvel and DC Universe is a franchise and if we still that universe all together then Middle-Earth seems that it stays together too until we decide what's a franchise or not. Jhenderson 777 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think if you feel they should be divided with support of your argument. Then we would have to divide the DC Universe and the Marvel Universe too. I personally think we should stick with one universe when it is in the same universe. Jhenderson 777 17:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who said we should divide DC and Marvel? Neither of those are franchises anyways, they're the companies owning various franchises. Yes, it is a lot of franchises at the end but if the article's length is an issue it's something that should've been thought about before creating it.--DesignDeath (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was thought about, and the current resolution was determined. bd2412 T 17:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think those aren't franchises. The maybe you want to go to List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing franchises and film series (which is on a featured list article) and discuss if the Middle-Earth films and the Marvel Cinematic Universe belong there or in the same place. Jhenderson 777 18:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise to this list myself. I never said it wasn't a franchise, what I'm saying is that "Marvel Comics" isn't a franchise, but rather a company. And yes, the fact that people on this site seem to pretend that a franchise titled "Middle-earth" even exists is odd to me, since even on Google search very, very few people even refer to a franchise that goes by that title. And I think we have established that not even "Middle-earth" is the correct title, isn't it "Tolkien's legendarium" now? Somebody is clearly wrong, regardless. --DesignDeath (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. It is a company. Their names should be changed too. DC Comics should be changed into DC Universe. Avoiding V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I don't believe are in the same universe. The only other debatable thing I think about that is whether Watchmen or the Vertigo universe characters such as Swamp Thing, John Constantine and The Sandman are connected in the main DC Universe or not or should they be separate. Also Marvel Comics should change into Marvel Universe so we can avoid Men in Black , Kick-Ass and Red Sonja which are not a part of that universe but still Marvel owns. That's my two cents. Jhenderson 777 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm glad we agreed on something. Still, however, those are all franchises and DC Universe is the name of the fictional universe all of the franchises are set in. It does need splitting. Please try to keep in mind that Franchise ≠ Fictional universe.--DesignDeath (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one franchise The Lord of the Rings trilogy of books continued the story from the Hobbit. The Hobbit sold 100 million copies, and Lord of the Rings sold 150 million copies, those books some of the best selling books ever written. See: List of best-selling books. It was insanely popular before any of those films came out. Previously there were cartoons made based on those books. Not sure how much merchandise was done before the films, but they have tons of it now. Dream Focus 18:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a very good point. It's not as though the book came out and was adapted into a film and other media, and the success of the film prompted the writing of the other books. The Lord of the Rings was understood to be a continuation of The Hobbit long before any adaptations existed in any other media. bd2412 T 01:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one franchise, for the reasons that I have already given in the move request discussion. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one franchise For the reasons already given. The books may not have been originally intended to be split into a trilogy, and one book may have been originally intended to be a direct continuation of another, but today Lord of the Rings is an established brand of its own as is The Hobbit - they are both separate brands, with separate film series, separate video games, separate comic book adaptations etc. without much linking them to each other non story-wise. This is indeed quite awkward but I strongly believe that they should not be together purely because of in-universe relations between the two. --AngelaVidal (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about Star Wars? The original trilogy was released many years before the prequel trilogy, different toys, different video games and other merchandising. What about Star Trek the original series and Star Trek the Next Generation? Different book series based on each group, different comic book series, video games, and toys. What about Planet of the Apes, which had an original series many years before the current one came out? Both had their own comic book series and films based on the same books. Dream Focus 16:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Point being? Those franchises are clearly divided into "eras", however all of them are a part of the same franchise. For example, Next Generation is referred to as the "seventh film in the Star Trek franchise" (on its article), whereas the three Hobbits are all installments in a franchise of their own. Every installment in a popular franchise like Star Trek is going to receive its own merchandise (comic book adaptations, novelizations etc.) and again, all of that merchandise is still going to be listed as a part of the same franchise, regardless whether there was a comic book based on Next Generation or the Alternate Continuity films. And I also don't really think we should be looking at "abnormal" franchises like Star Trek or Star Wars as examples because they expanded so much installment-wise you can't really properly compare them to any we discuss here. --AngelaVidal (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided plenty of references above to the Hobbit films being referred to as films in the "Lord of the Rings franchise". bd2412 T 20:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose one franchise Both Lord of The Rings and The Hobbit are extremely popular, so if the two of them form a "franchise" of some sort, why isn't there even an article about this franchise? Why is there no mention of this franchise almost anywhere? On another note, why doesn't this franchise even have a name? Why is there struggle in naming this unassumingly very popular "franchise"? Middle-earth, Tolkien's legendarium? That's a bit like naming the Pokemon franchise "Pokeverse" - it's not the name of the franchise, it's the name of the universe. All of this is probably because that franchise doesn't even exist. So in my opinion, it should be separated just like Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator franchises were rightfully separated. I've always viewed TH and LOTR as separate entities anyways and I figured most people do. --Teentox (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You sure seem new, Teentox. I hope in your case you are not a alternate account. Jhenderson 777 20:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? Are new accounts not qualified to be involved in discussions now? --Teentox (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lol. No comment. Jhenderson 777 21:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can participate in a discussion, but new accounts are generally given little weight by closing administrators, and may be subject to sockpuppet investigations by checkusers, who can tell which geographic regions and what computers or other devices edits are being made from. bd2412 T 21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your mistake is what made me laugh. I think we should strike this review. Also yes doing things like this makes you get blocked really easily. If I was a administrator I would be kind enough to give you a warning but not all administrators are not that merciful. Jhenderson 777 21:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd block myself If I were an admin at this point, this couldn't have been any more desperate (much like creating this article in the first place, but alas). Do me a favor and terminate me immediately. --Teentox (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting to it. I can tell you are somebody who likes to edit Wikipedia so I would recommend the sockpuppet accounts to maybe be blocked...and maybe a block for a limited time for the other account. (That's for a administrator to decide) But not a forever block. Jhenderson 777 21:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete me altogether before I throw myself down a set of stairs. --Teentox (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel for you. Not on Wikipedia but on other stuff. It doesn't feel good being caught...but you are still welcome here (as DesignDeath) it seems. You were just warned...and I even had warnings first starting out on Wikipedia. So it's no big deal. I also have a alternate account too honestly...but not for a bad reason though. Jhenderson 777 21:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DesignDeath, do you have any other sockpuppets? If you do, you had better put them out in the open now, before I initiate a CheckUser request. bd2412 T 22:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it. User:AngelaVidal might need to be questioned since they both agreed as well. If so he needs to get some credit for being good at being sneakier than we thought. Jhenderson 777 23:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also honestly think he probably would be too ashamed to come back and answer. We will see. Jhenderson 777 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck all comments by all confirmed sockpuppeteer/sockpuppets (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AngelaVidal/Archive). Since this discussion has gone for five days with no participation or comment by any other editors, I would propose that it be closed as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criteria

[edit]

I removed Aqua Teen Hunger Force and South Park for the time being. Both have one animated series, one animated movie, and a host of video games. Per the lede of this article, neither one qualifies as a large enough franchise, because "a franchise...must have at least two separate works in at least two of those forms of media", and video games is the only category that they have more than one. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If every film that spawned a TV series (or vice verse) were included, there would be a large number of listings that can't really be called either "multimedia" or a "franchise". (for example, Animal House and The Paper Chase). bd2412 T 15:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are several franchises that barely qualify, because they are technically covered in three different types of media. I would suggest that the criteria be modified to be "works in at least four forms of media", otherwise this list could become very large very fast. I think it's great that User:The1337gamer has been adding video game franchises, but IMO ones such as Metal Gear and Starcraft don't really fit the definition of multimedia, when they have never been portrayed in film or television. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I split the baby. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for doing that! What about others that barely qualify, such as Despicable Me, Hannibal and Harry Potter? Fortdj33 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how some of those "barely qualify". Harry Potter is fairly ubiquitous, even if it hasn't made it to TV or comics. Hannibal has multiple books and movies, along with the TV series. Despicable Me wouldn't qualify without the second film. bd2412 T 18:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Other Media" column aside, those three are currently the only ones that are covered by only three forms of media. Using books, comics, film, tv and video games as the main criteria, everything else in the first table is covered by at least four. Just trying to keep the list manageable and objective. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered by it. With respect to Hannibal Lecter and Harry Potter, there are multiple books and films, and both series are very well known. I am unconcerned about the lack of a Harry Potter TV show, a Hannibal Lecter video game, or a comic book in either genre to round out the media. bd2412 T 19:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several? Various? Numerous?

[edit]

When I started this project, I thought I might list every example of the media in which each multimedia franchise has existed. This quickly proved to be impossible, as some media have a very large number of examples. Therefore, I started putting "several" or "various" or "numerous" in a kind of haphazard way to indicate where there were a few examples, or a large number of examples, or a very large number of examples. However, for consistency's sake, I think we need to set some rules for exactly how many works constitutes a "numerous" amount, and so forth. Also, I would like to propose that we have some rules for which works we are going to spell out and link to, and where we will instead link to a single page covering multiple media. bd2412 T 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that in any case where Wikipedia has an article covering multiple media, that link should be used, rather than spell everything out. If the first instance of that media is the franchise's introduction, that specific link can be listed in bold, with a link to the media article for more information if necessary (or "several sequels" if a comprehensive article is not available). Chances are if there are more than three articles to list in a category, there is "List of" or "(comics)" or "(film series)" article that would be easier to link to. Otherwise, I think that any link to a section of a disambiguation page or franchise article warrants a "various". Fortdj33 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I would still like to individually note the best known examples, like the 1939 Wizard of Oz, or the film adaptation of Silence of the Lambs. bd2412 T 15:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{unreferenced}}

[edit]

I see that an {{unreferenced}} template has been added to this page. I would like to discuss this, and specifically would propose to remove it on the grounds that the page contains hundreds of links to well-referenced articles supporting the proposition that the linked media does in fact exist. Beyond that, I am really not clear what it is that we are supposed to "reference" on a list of this sort. It is certainly not reasonable to expect that we will add a list of thousands of references indicating the existence of these franchises across each form of cited media. bd2412 T 15:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference for the use of the term, "multimedia franchise"; as the article now has a reference for this salient point, I have removed the tag. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, a stand-alone list article should "generally only represent consensus opinion". Therefore, "the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed". As I understand it, that means as long as we have a consensus on the criteria of what belongs in this list, the references for any articles included in the list serve as references for this article as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I don't think we should need to find a source for each instance stating, for example, that "Star Trek is a multimedia franchise",<ref>Mark Clark, ''Star Trek FAQ: Everything Left to Know about the First Voyages of the Starship Enterprise'' (2012), p. 1, isbn=1557839638: "Star Trek, which once struggled to survive from one season to the next, has become immortal—and, beyond that, inescapable. The series, and the '''multimedia franchise''' that grew from it, is now woven inextricably into the fabric of America and the world".</ref> or that the same can be said of Superman,<ref>Ian Gordon, ‎Mark Jancovich, ‎Matthew P. McAllister, ''Film and Comic Books'' (2007), p. 161, isbn=160473809X: "[W]hen considering Superman as a '''multimedia franchise''', and critical interpretations of him, it would seem that development and variety have been central to his longevity".</ref> Mario,<ref>Roger Parry, ''The Ascent of Media: From Gilgamesh to Google Via Gutenberg'' (2011), p. 317, isbn=1857885708: "Along with associated feature films, comic books, and character merchandise, Mario has become a hugely valuable global '''multimedia franchise'''".</ref> The Matrix,<ref>Lincoln Geraghty, ''American Science Fiction Film and Television'' (2009), p. 94, isbn=1845207963: Multiple readings of the film are plentiful and highlight the polysemic nature of the text and subsequent '''multimedia franchise'''".</ref> Harry Potter,<ref>Nick Hunter, ''Popular Culture: 2000 and Beyond'' (2012), page 11, isbn=1410946266: "The Harry Potter series was another huge '''multimedia franchise''' that triumphed at the box office".</ref> and James Bond.<ref>John Sutherland, ''Lives of the Novelists: A History of Fiction in 294 Lives'' (2012), p. 195, isbn=0300182430: "It was the films, beginning with Dr No in 1962, which made Bond into a '''multimedia franchise''' which continues to turn over more money per annum than any other literary creation of the twentieth century, with the possible exception of the Harry Potter films".</ref> bd2412 T 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be pointed out that being a list article does not exempt it from needing references, no matter what it links too. --Falcadore (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, do you propose needs to be referenced? For example, do we need to provide a reference in this list that "RoboCop: The Animated Series" is an animated series? That works identified as having various films, novels, comic books, and video games, are "multimedia franchises"? bd2412 T 16:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that this article didn't need references, but I think the ones that BD2412 has provided are sufficient. Since this list is about "multimedia franchises", any references provided should be to support that fact for any given franchise, while the links to the various forms of media are supported by the references on their individual articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

[edit]

What about shows in the same franchise but technically in different continuity? For example, in any of Transformers TV shows, films, comics or whatever, we always see Optimus Prime as the leader of Autobots, but technically, Prime in G1 cartoon, Prime in live-action films and Prime in Transformers: Prime are slightly different in detail despite all having Peter Cullen as their voice.

Also, what about sub-continuities (right word?) within a continuity? Transformers: War for Cybertron and Transformers: Prime are in the same continuity of what is tentatively called Aligned Universe, but both are in the separate group of self-named sub-continuity respectively, and have slightly different description of same material (for example, Dark Energon). JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources I cited in the article says, "when considering Superman as a multimedia franchise, and critical interpretations of him, it would seem that development and variety have been central to his longevity". I think the key is that no matter what version of Superman or the Transformers or Star Wars you're looking at, you know which franchise you are partaking in. Franchise is a marketing term; what falls within a given franchise is everything that would not have come to exist but for the success of the initial work presenting the characters and setting that would become that franchise. bd2412 T 18:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple continuities are common in multimedia franchises. But no matter which Transformers continuity you're dealing with, it is still part of the Transformers franchise. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain franchises

[edit]

I have included six examples of multimedia franchises arising from works in the public domain - Alice in Wonderland, Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and The Wizard of Oz. I am wondering if we can really call these franchises, though, because there is no need for licensing of the original work. Obviously, we could not call "werewolves" or "zombies" a franchise, since there is no single original work from which the body of media is derived. What about William Shakespeare? What about a frequently remade play like Romeo and Juliet? bd2412 T 01:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think those franchises should stay, because even though they are in the public domain, there is still an original work that the other media is based on. William Shakespeare brings up a different question though, regarding body of works that contain more than one multimedia franchise. There was some discussion after your initial post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#List of multimedia franchises about whether DC Comics and Marvel Comics should be consolidated into one franchise, since they both have multiple characters portrayed in multiple forms of media. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel and DC have those characters tending to interact with each other as part of the same fictional universe, and involved in each other's storylines. In Shakespeare (with the exception of Falstaff), his characters are unique to the play. Also, many of his plays are "histories", retelling the stories of historical kings and so forth. There are lots of works in multiple media about Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, but we wouldn't call them multimedia franchises. I can see how, individually, Romeo and Juliet could be one, although it also bothers me that all of the various adaptations are merely retellings of the same story. There is no continuation, no story telling what happened to other characters in the play after the leads were dead. bd2412 T 03:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split the list.

[edit]

I have split the list by origin of the work. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could just be me but I would probably prefer if it was done that way with the franchises in the particular media section than by alphabetical order. Just seems more interesting to me and more of a fun read. What do you think?Jhenderson 777 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. bd2412 T 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean (for example) Beatrix Potter seems to be the oldest in the book list so we start in chronological order with that particular franchise all the way to the newer franchises besides doing alphabetical order.Jhenderson 777 22:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that we have ascertained the earliest dates of every franchise, but I have no particular objection to a chronological ordering, except that it may make some things harder to find to the casual browser. bd2412 T 23:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Avatar?

[edit]

I noticed this list from WikiProject Comics and was wondering what about Avatar: The Last Airbender / Legend of Korra universe? Jhenderson 777 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't notice any from Nickelodeon, Where is SpongeBob? Jhenderson 777 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar: The Last Airbender definitely qualifies, with two TV series, multiple video games and comic books, and a movie. SpongeBob SquarePants also seems to have had some films, video games, and books. I note also that we don't yet have Mickey Mouse here. bd2412 T 19:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about it. Disney can be described as a entire franchise in (that has it's own universe sometimes) . Definitely in video games such as Disney Universe, Kingdom Hearts and Disney Infinity. But yeah Mickey Mouse belongs in some kind of way. Jhenderson 777 20:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The basic set of Disney characters - Mickey, Donald, Goofy, etc. - were in films and on TV long before there was a larger Disney universe, much of it containing co-opted public domain fairy tale characters. bd2412 T 20:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am aware of that and see your point. Tom and Jerry and Scooby Doo I would think belong too. A lot of Hanna-Barbera cartoons I would think count. That is unless you put them in one universe because thy crossover a lot. Jhenderson 777 20:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The crossovers tend to be more like afterthoughts, with the franchises already being independently well-established. Don't forget that Scooby Doo also had crossovers with The Addams Family and Batman. bd2412 T 21:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well DC Comics and Hanna-Barbera are owned by the same company. So of course that means Batman and Scooby-Doo can crossover. But I am not sure that doesn't mean they have their own universe like the DC universe. I see so sign of that they are related though except for there being a article that focuses on all the characters together right here on Wikipidia. Jhenderson 777 22:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I see what you are saying. I feel it's a lot like Nintendo. They have their divided franchises. (like Mario (franchise) and The Legend of Zelda) or they can cross over in one franchise (Super Smash Bros. (series)). Also I didn't notice Donkey Kong. It is part of the same universe of Mario but still it is their own franchise too. Jhenderson 777 22:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donkey Kong can't rightly be called a crossover; he was an antagonist to Mario in his very first appearance. bd2412 T 22:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were a crossover. I was talking about all the Nintendo characters starting out. I meant that he has his his own franchise and should probably be on here. . Just click on the link. It's about the franchise not the character. Jhenderson 777 23:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but I would still consider this an extension of Mario Brothers, just as media about Robin is an extension of the Batman franchise, which is tied inextricably to the DC universe generally. bd2412 T 23:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it. I went in the Mario franchise it seems to focus on Donkey Kong franchise as the subject of it too. I at first thought it only talked about games with Mario as the main star but it probably focuses on Donkey Kong, Yoshi and Luigi games too. Jhenderson 777 23:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I could see Avatar: The Last Airbender and SpongeBob SquarePants qualifying as separate multimedia franchises. But I think that for now, companies such as Disney and Hanna-Barbera should be consolidated into one line covering all of their characters. If you start to separate Disney characters and Hanna-Barbera characters into their own lines, you'd have to do the same for DC Comics, Marvel Comics, and any other company that has multiple characters with their own franchises. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Avatar: The Last Airbender and SpongeBob SquarePants are both Nickelodeon products, I don't see that as any reason to treat them together (remember that, for example, Star Wars, Predator and Buffy the Vampire Slayer all began as Twentieth Century Fox products). The difference with respect to Looney Tunes, Disney characters, Marvel Comics characters, and probably Hanna Barbera characters is in the degree to which these groups of characters are treated by their creators and owners like elements within a single franchise in products like Laff-A-Lympics. bd2412 T 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Theatrical" films.

[edit]

I think it may be helpful to add that films must be theatrical films, i.e. films that were actually shown in theaters. A made-for-TV movie or a straight-to-video production should not count towards multimedia franchise status. bd2412 T 20:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added one that the original film was theatrical but the rest were home movies (like a lot of Disney movies). I hope that is alright. It of course has more than just that. Jhenderson 777 15:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we can't count straight-to-video productions as anything other than films, since they are not themselves made for TV. bd2412 T 13:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add creators?

[edit]

I am thinking about changing the first column heading ("Franchise") to read:

Franchise
(Creator)

and to add the initial author responsible for the work to the franchise. I think it would be neat to identify the individual historically responsible for coming up with each of these worlds. bd2412 T 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Wouldn't mind the inclusions of creators myself. Jhenderson 777 22:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few. I think it looks good. bd2412 T 22:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to list a company as the creator? The1337gamer (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would have to be, in the case of works with no identifiable specific person behind them. However, even companies have creators. Are you thinking of Alien vs. Predator? bd2412 T 15:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more about video game works. It's difficult to identify specific people as the creators for some of them. The1337gamer (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume that if no individual creator is identifiable, then we would credit the company/publisher. bd2412 T 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conan

[edit]

I read the Conan article. Apparently Conan seems to be on the public domain judging what the bottom of the article said. Jhenderson 777 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case on the edge, since the copyright is reportedly in dispute. However, it is not much different than the copyright situation for Peter Pan, and a few others. I have no objection to moving Conan to the public domain list. I think the controlling criteria would have to be whether adapters can create new works using these characters and settings, without getting a license from anyone. bd2412 T 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please copy your above list of likely public domain "franchises" to Talk:List of public domain works with multimedia adaptations. I don't want to "steal" your work by copying it there myself. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reboots and remakes.

[edit]

It seems abundantly clear to me that remakes and reboots are installments in the same franchise (for example, the 2005 King Kong is a remake of the 1933 King Kong, but both are part of a "King Kong" franchise embodying the same core intellectual property). I therefore propose that it is appropriate and correct to mention remakes and reboots in the lede of this article. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of King Kong, should it be on the list? I don't see it on there and I think it qualifies. The1337gamer (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
King Kong definitely should be on the list; there are still a number of things missing that clearly deserve to be added. bd2412 T 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various issues.

[edit]

I'm expecting this to be quite long and I'll be talking about several things and issues concerning this article. First of all, I'd like to ask why this article's title is "List of multimedia franchises"? The article's very first sentence states that a multimedia franchise is a media franchise for which installments exist in multiple forms of media (...), however, by definition, isn't a media franchise and a multimedia franchise exactly same thing? If not, what does a "media franchise" mean? This is the first time the term "multimedia franchise" has been used on this website and I believe this might be a mistake. If not, please feel free to correct me.

The second thing I'd like to point out is the criteria. Why exactly does a franchise need to have "at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate works in at least two of those forms of media" to be qualified? Isn't the fact that a franchise branched out into different forms of media itself enough for it to be qualified as a media franchise? Isn't the "two or more separate works" requirement pushing it a bit? I feel like the excessive requirements are just gonna ultimately make the article incomplete by having many franchises not included purely because they didn't qualify due to an awkwardly constructed "rule".

Another thing I'd like to talk about is the definition of a franchise itself. I see that a pair of quotes have been cited as sources but to be quite fair they don't really say anything about what constitutes a media franchise explicitly. The definition of a media franchise in this article's lead section therefore comes across as slightly biased and unprofessional. And while we're at it, I'd like to see a credible source that states a franchise is that broad of a term. Because, for example, the Die Hard franchise's first installment is based on a novel, that film then received several sequels which formed a film series and then that film series received various types of merchandise, creating a franchise. The franchise's infobox doesn't include the novel the first film is based on, and I'd like to see a source that explains why it even should. I hope you understand what I'm getting at. If a film series spawns numerous types of media and merchandise why shouldn't the film series be viewed as the "stepping stone" of a franchise? The first Die Hard's source material was the Nothing Lasts Forever novel, so should that novel be considered a part of the franchise even though no other films in the series are based on it, and the comic books and video games derived from the film series have nothing to do with it? I may be asking to be presented with sources explaining this but I know there aren't any, since I'm sure people don't really focus on these kinds of things. Or another example, the Cruel Intentions trilogy - the first film is very loosely based on a French novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, and the novel already received numerous adaptations. So hypothetically let's say what if the film series received tie-in comic books and video games and other merchandise, would the "Cruel Intentions" franchise automatically be lumped together with the numerous adaptations of the French novel despite not having much to do with it? I wish there was some sort of a guide on what constitutes a franchise because there are more than a few interpretations and this can get quite confusing (or maybe at least to me because I do tend to overthink everything).

Another thing I should warn you about is the relationship between remakes, reboots and franchises (keep in mind that I'm talking exclusively about film franchises here). In case I need to remind you, a franchise is a single series made in a particular medium + that series' additional merchandise (according to the encyclopedic definition). Now I'd like to explain the difference between a remake and a reboot, since this seems to be a rather common misconception: a remake is a film based on an already existing film; a reboot is a film in a series that breaks continuity by either being a remake of a previous film or by ignoring the previous installments. A reboot can be a remake, and it if is a reboot then it's an installment in the series as well. And on the other hand, a remake may be based on a film that is a part of a series but that doesn't mean it's automatically a part of the same series. A film series is a collection of sequels related in succession, so that's why the term „reboot“ was introduced in the first place - it is a type of sequel that is technically a remake, allowing it to be a part of a franchise. We can take the Halloween franchise as an example. The 2007 Rob Zombie film was a remake of Carpenter's 70s film but it was also a reboot of the Halloween series, and is therefore referred to as the ninth installment in the Halloween franchise. An opposite example – The Grudge was a remake of a film Ju-on: The Grudge that is actually the third installment of a franchise called Ju-on, but this didn't make The Grudge an installment in that franchise all of a sudden. The Grudge was followed by several sequels and received merchandise of its own and the Ju-on franchise simultaneously continued with fourth, fifth and sixth installments as well. The franchises are most certainly related just how the Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator (+ Prometheus) franchises are by one deriving from another, but they're still separate franchises by definition. You can go to the Reboot (fiction) page and look up the definitions and lists of reboots. Also, both J.K. Rowling and Warner stated that the upcoming Harry Potter spin-off Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is neither a sequel or a prequel to Harry Potter but rather a franchise of its own despite being set in the same universe. And I highly doubt there is anything more valid than the word of the person who created it. So my point is that there can be franchises related to each other, and who is to say that they form a "larger franchise"? You cannot have a franchise inside a franchise, again, it goes against the definitions of a media (or multimedia) franchise. Each franchise is trademarked, and its characters are trademarked, but that doesn't mean franchises that share trademarked characters cannot be stand-alone franchises.

And lastly, what I truly don't understand is how "Dr. Seuss" is listed as a franchise. Seriously? Dr. Seuss was an author, not a franchise. The Grinch and The Cat in the Hat are most certainly not a part of a franchise titled "Dr. Seuss". Is Harry Potter a part of a franchise called "J.K. Rowling"? And "DC comics" is not the name of a franchise either, that's the name of a company.

While creating this article was definitely a good idea I don't think it started off very well, as some things on the list contradict what was already established on this site a long time ago and proper definitions aren't being followed as they should. Thanks for reading. --DesignDeath (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I agree that it is a stretch to deem Dr. Seuss a franchise. Please note, however, that you generally can't remove material from an article with no edit summary - if you do so, you are liable to be reverted immediately, even if you happen to have given an explanation somewhere else. As for the page being a list of "multimedia" franchises, there are many works that occur across multiple installments but only every appear in one media, and which may be referred to as franchises. There are also works that appear in one media, and have been adapted into one other media (Category:Novels adapted into films and subcategories thereof contain over 1600 articles alone); the point of this list was to capture all of the most substantial franchises, wherein an author had created a work, and that author's work had spawned multiple adaptations in multiple forms of media. Frankly, I think that the term "franchise" can be very flexible. The aim of creating a concise list (to serve the interests of readers who want a snapshot of what major franchises are out there) is best served by using a broad interpretation, one that tends to capture everything in the largest collection of media that could be considered a single franchise - for example, the interrelated features created by DC Comics, and every TV series, film, and video game derived from that body of work as a whole. Note that with respect to Les Liaisons dangereuses, and similar adaptations of public domain works (Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes, etc.), these are contained in a different list because they are not franchises under the control of any owner. Anyone can make a film adaptation of Les Liaisons dangereuses, without getting permission from anyone else. We could just as well rename this article, List of copyright-protected works for which multiple installments exist in multiple media, which would capture its intention perfectly, but that's a bit of a mouthful. bd2412 T 00:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even realize Les Liaisons dangereuses was in the public domain. Anyhow, I still do feel that the term "franchise" is being viewed as too broad of a term. It's not that I don't want the article to be more concise, it's just that I'd rather it be more accurate. I feel like a hard evidence needs to be presented before adding a new franchise or combining more into one because accuracy and notability are in my opinion the entire point of Wikipedia. I also think this article might confuse people more than anything, because I wasn't even aware certain things were considered franchises before reading this article and I'd consider myself knowledgeable about the topic. The DC Comics (or DC Universe) still isn't a franchise though, it's a company and the name of a fictional universe! Having it listed makes as much sense as having all the Pixar films under one franchise. I think it might make for an interesting chart if we were listing studios, but that is not what we are doing. If a franchise doesn't have its own article here I'd refrain from adding it. --DesignDeath (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is at all inaccurate or confusing to present closely related works that originated with shared characters in a shared setting as a single entry on the list. I also think that DC Universe is a perfectly fine entry, as it Marvel Universe, both of which detail the exploits of interacting characters in the same setting, and have generated works in a wide variety of media. The Pixar films, by contrast, have no such interaction, and offer no hint that they occupy a single fictional universe. If the comics are any guide, when one sees Spider Man swinging around, one imagines that somewhere in that same world, the Hulk and Wolverine also exist. bd2412 T 03:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But please remember that this is supposed to be a list of franchises, not fictional universes. There is no rule that states everything occurring in the same fictional universe should be included in a single entry or be considered a single franchise. And as somebody had already pointed out, using in-universe arguments such as shared continuity or universes is indeed quite extemporizing and not very professional. I feel like this needs to be worked on.--DesignDeath (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this article is basically summing up the franchise. If we didn't. We obviously would have Archie, Sabrina and Josie and the Pussycats all in a different areas.This list would be extremely huge if we added Marvel. Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil/Elektra, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Ghost Rider, Avengers, Defenders, Punisher, Wolverine, Blade, Doctor Strange, Deadpool, Ant-Man, Black Panther, S.H.I. E.L.D., Howard the Duck, Man-Thing, Venom, Silver Surfer, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Nova, Spider-Woman and Namor are just a few that would probably be divided. Jhenderson 777 19:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. The list would certainly be long. But then again, this is something that should've been though abut before creating the article. I still think that preserving an article's minimal length is less important than the article's accuracy.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to disagree with your assessment of the article's "accuracy". There are a number of ways that a franchise can be defined without ending up in Tommy Westphall Universe territory. Here, we merely use a definition that brings together all of the licensable property that would legally be within the ambit of the original author of the earliest work, and which is characterized by interconnected settings and characters from that point of origin. bd2412 T 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that Spider-man, X-Men, The Hulk etc. all fall under the same licence? I still don't understand how "Marvel Comics" or "Marvel Universe" can be considered a franchise. Marvel Universe is merely the name of a fictional universe all of the franchises are set in, a quick Google search proves this is the general opinion as well. This just seems to be an attempt at cramming as many franchises into one category as possible to shorten the list, which can definitely be deemed as unprofessional. On another note, could you please add sources to the Marvel and DC Universe entries that support or even hint that the fictional setting is considered to be a "franchise". And again, just because all of them share a setting doesn't mean they all share the same licence (unless proven otherwise, which I doubt is possible in this case). I'd also like to add that not everything that was "licensured" is necessarily considered a part of a franchise from which the licence originated from, such as the prevalent use of licensed masks or characters in different types of media that is not generally considered a part of a franchise and remains almost entirely unrelated. The definition of a franchise is therefore not as formulaic as one might think (most likely because there isn't a solid one) and it really depends from franchise to franchise what is considered an installment. And by the way, I don't think the complaints about the criteria I made in my original post have been addressed at all yet. --DesignDeath (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that it is within the power of the original creator of all of this media to allow someone to use all of those properties under one license. Marvel can license an Iron Man vs. Hulk movie if it wants, because it originated these characters, and owns the rights to them. Marvel could not license a Superman vs. Hulk movie without first acquiring some kind of licensure of Superman from DC Comics. With respect to sources, on the one hand, there are things like Philip C. DiMare, Movies in American History: An Encyclopedia (2011), page 265: "The box-office successes of the Spiderman and X-Men franchises were enough for Marvel Comics to decide to form their own production studio". This suggests that each character is considered an individual franchise. On the other hand, there are things like Dan Wiederer, Blue Streak: The Highs, Lows and Behind the Scenes Hijinks of a National Champion (2010), p. 97: "'Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe' had become the video game du jour for the Heels, a fighting challenge pitting Mortal Kombat warriors like Kano and Kitana against characters from the DC Comics franchise – the Joker, Wonder Woman, the Green Lantern". This suggests that the the larger collection of characters contained in the works produced by this company can also be considered a franchise. As I said, I think the definition of "franchise" is fluid, and can include the broader reading as well as the narrower reading. To the extent that some series like Blade and X-Men could be seen as operating in their own world (none of the Blade or X-Men films thus far reference the existence of anything in other Marvel films, and vice versa), I concede that there is a compelling argument to list these separately. With DC Comics, I note, there have been multiple versions of Justice League and Superfriends media that tie together all of the main characters owned by that company. bd2412 T 19:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, this is getting silly. I have already written so many things explaining why DC Comics cannot be a franchise, but a company that owns various franchises, yet all I've received is the same argument from your side without any valid evidence supporting it. Blue Streak: The Highs, Lows and Behind the Scenes Hijinks of a National Champion is written by a sportswriter, not a market expert or even a film writer. So this is clearly not enough to support a considerably controversial edit such as this. Warner Bros. is sometimes mistakenly referred to as a franchise as well, but obviously this isn't true. Warner Bros. is a company, and so is DC Comics. The fact that some of the franchises owned by DC share a fictional universe is entirely irrelevant. Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th are both set in the same universe (as evidenced by Freddy vs. Jason) and are both owned by New Line Cinema, so is it okay for me to go and add a new franchise titled "New Line Cinematic Universe" to the list now? No, it is not. And neither is listing a comic book publishing company as a fictional franchise purely because its characters interact with each other. That is an in-universe element that should remain irrelevant to this article. And also, since out of four people involved in this discussion, two oppose LOTR and The Hobbit being listed as a single entry and one user is neutral, you remain the only person who supports their merging. The majority of the community is leaning towards the separation. Therefore, they will be separated until an agreement is reached. --DesignDeath (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of multimedia franchises to "List of multimedia <insert name here>

[edit]

Can anybody think of a better name than franchise to help identify with what is on the list. If so just let me know. If anything this article is a "List of fictional multimedias" or "List of fictional multimedia universes" to me. Jhenderson 777 19:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"List of multimedia" is way too broad and it doesn't quite mean the same thing. I don't think you even understand how long of a list you'd have to make.--DesignDeath (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't quite clear on what I meant on the section header so I changed the title. Jhenderson 777 20:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional universes with multimedia adaptations? bd2412 T 00:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am game with anything that you both can agree on. ;) Jhenderson 777 19:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clamp (manga artists)

[edit]

An editor removed the Clamp (manga artists) entry from the article on the grounds that "Clamp is the name of a group of manga artists, not a franchise". I don't know enough about this subject to say one way or the other. bd2412 T 14:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of multimedia franchises → List of fictional universes with multimedia adaptations – As discussed earlier in the page, there is broad disagreement over how broadly or narrowly to construe the term "franchise", while the list clearly reflects the fictional universes in which various of these franchises occur. bd2412 T 14:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of the sockpuppetry developments earlier on this page, I am withdrawing this proposal (although I note that, as the discussion stands, it would not achieve consensus to pass anyway). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to either support or oppose this, I'm just wondering why we couldn't have simply listed single franchises, in a narrower construction of the term, and not merged one with one another for no apparent reason. I feel that a list of franchises would definitely come in handy, and I don't really think a list of fictional universes is that necessary at all. So my suggestion is that we continue (or start) listing franchises, and not fictional universes or companies that own them. I don't see where the problem with doing that would be. --DesignDeath (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a new different name of some kind: I feel that this should only focus on fiction. Here's a few reasons why. There are franchises in media that is not apparently fiction. In video games there is Tetris. In television there is Idols along with game shows. I can't think of a movie that isn't fiction but there is pobably a movie documentary film series somewhere out there. I don't even think I need to explain this with books. (For Dummies etc.) I think this would just be more of a correct title for the page. Jhenderson 777 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the page should be moved to List of fictional multimedia franchises, and not List of fictional universes with multimedia adaptations. That does not mean the same thing. I don't think you even realize what you're supporting. The proposal is that this page should be turned into a list of fictional universes, not franchises, which I don't see the point of.--DesignDeath (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless telling him that IMO. He will think that won't belong as it is either. I (at least) understand what you are trying to say though. Jhenderson 777 20:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Well that settles it. What we should be doing from now on is finally start listing franchises, and stop listing fictional universes. --DesignDeath (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have made it clear that a overall universe is not a franchise. That seems very debatable right now. Star Wars is a franchise but it has seperate franchises within the franchise too. All the same universe though to mash together in one place and summarize what we are talking about. Jhenderson 777 20:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you made it clear that it is? Star Wars does does not consist of multiple franchises. The franchise's film series is separated into three eras, but it's still all one franchise. SW is a franchise like any other. I don't know why you two struggle so hard with this whole concept, and I don't know why it's so hard for you to just stop listing fictional universes, since obviously there is already a list dedicated to that, and start listing franchises. An alternative is to delete this page altogether since according to your definition of a franchise it already exists at List of fictional universes, making this article entirely pointless. The first time I heard anyone claim a franchise and a fictional universe were the same thing was on this very article. And I wouldn't call the DC Universe/Marvel Universe/Middle Earth thing a "mess". That "mess" could easily be solved by separating the franchises that are a part of those universes, since all of them are already on the article mentioned before. --DesignDeath (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional universes is actually a redirect to Fictional universe, which contains links to several discrete lists, but no list of true multimedia franchises occurring in fictional universes. bd2412 T 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, there are still lists of fictional universes on this site, and since this article isn't supposed to be one, I suggest we stop turning it into one. It is true that there are many definitions of what a franchise is, but the one you seem to support is the last one we should be using because it's still overly controversial and lists of fictional universes already exist, regardless whether those lists aren't of multimedia franchises occurring in fictional universes, they still do make this article more than unnecessary. There are also little to no sources to support it. I don't know where this obsession with merging everything occurring in one fictional universe together as a "franchise" came from, but for the hundredth time, that is not what a franchise is. The "theory" claiming that it is isn't even a valid theory and hasn't been used on Wikipedia prior this, so I don't even know how all of this came about. --DesignDeath (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did research...and Wikipedia definitely seems to call what I am talking about as series mostly. Although series such as The Knight of the Old Rebublic I might feel is a little bit more than a series. It's a video game series that then did have comic books, a novel etc. based on it. Even if you look at the article it is part of the category "video game franchises". Jhenderson 777 21:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old Republic is just one of the numerous video game series that make up the video game branch of the SW franchise, the games might have gotten their own comics and such, but those comics are also a part of the comic book branch of the SW franchise, so yes, it it still all one great franchise. And really, Star Wars has ventured into such extremes merchandise-wise it can definitely be considered the only exception in this case.--DesignDeath (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you at calling Star Wars a "great franchise." ;) Jhenderson 777 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know if it's necessary to change the title of this article, but looking at the disagreements on this page, franchise can be defined any number of ways, including in the sense of all of the media in one fictional universe. Still it is pretty obvious that Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are a single franchise under just about any definition. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 21:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like somebody to explain why LORT and The Hobbit are the same franchise without using in-universe arguments. As I've previously proven, they're both separate brands and I think that's what automatically makes them separate franchises technically. And technicalities are the only thing we should be focusing on here.--DesignDeath (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion should stay in the section for it above. I think I made a pretty good case for them being the same franchise. Talk:List_of_multimedia_franchises#The_Hobbit.2FThe_Lord_of_the_Rings Dream Focus 23:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a bunch of reasons.
All of the books are created by the same author, so at least at the time they were written, that author had full control over the franchise, and could license it as a whole, or in whatever parts he wanted.
Secondly, the way the work is written, it is impossible to make a recognizable adaptation of any of the books without obtaining a license to use the common characters. Even in Star Trek, it's possible to have a Next Generation adaptation which doesn't make any mention of any characters or planets from the Original Series, but this can not be done between The Hobbit and LOTR.
Thirdly, Hobbits are a fictional race introduced in this series, and appearing throughout the whole series, which is also subject to licensing (which is why Dungeons and Dragons has "Halfling" race). "The Hobbit" is just a focus on the adventures of one character in the franchise coming from this fictional race, just like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine (film) are movies that focus on one character in the franchise without needing to be considered a separate franchise. The second movie doesn't even contain "X-Men" in the title. Of course, like the whole Middle Earth thing, the stories in these films include other characters found in other parts of the franchise.
But even putting all that aside, this is a shared universe. It is a highly integrated one, and not just one where fictional events are occurring on opposite sides of a fictional planet, without having any effect on each other. Why should there being a "shared universe" not be considered enough? - WPGA2345 - ☛ 23:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Wolverine movies are installments of the same film series the other X-Men films are, this is not the case with The Hobbit. The fact that LOTR originated as a book trilogy, and The Hobbit originated as a stand alone book automatically indicates that even their origins remain separate, despite one being a continuation of the other. It's not as if it was a quadrilogy - in that case it would definitely be a single franchise. So many things indicate that they're two separate, distinguished brands of their own. And again, in-universe elements shouldn't matter in this case. I might suggest you to read the previous posts on this topic because most of these things were already addressed but the then ongoing discussion was "mysteriously" dropped Talk:List_of_multimedia_franchises#The_Hobbit.2FThe_Lord_of_the_Rings. --AngelaVidal (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of the Rings was written as one book by Tolkien, but the publisher decided to split it into three novels released between July 29th 1954 to October 20th 1955. It was intended to be the sequel to the Hobbit. Dream Focus 07:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AngelaVidal, what, exactly, do you find "mysterious" about a discussion in a transparent public forum being "dropped"? bd2412 T 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all agreement that it's fine now (due to the one who had a commotion being a sockpuppet) although I still think that I still have a point that there are franchises that probably don't qualify as fiction such as Tetris, Battleship, For Dummies, Cluedo, Idols, Bop It, Scrabble, Survivor, Tonka, Monopoly, Wheel of Fortune, Risk, Uno, Lego, The Price Is Right and maybe even Hot Wheels. (The last one is debatable. I would consider this fiction myself). I probably barely scratched the surface on Hasbro and Mattel toys and board games, popular video games, reality shows, game shows and books...but I think you get the point. Jhenderson 777 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

resolve

[edit]

If you guys don't stop resolving on how this page is supposed to be. I am going to have to request protection on the page and am even tempted to AFD this page. If one thinks Buffyverse is not a franchise then you should have talked to it on the page because it's the same exact problem as the DC Universe/Marvel Universe/Middle Earth mess. Jhenderson 777 20:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

I just decided to look at some of the article's category that Design Death is talking about. DC Universe defines itself as a media franchise according to the article. So does Marvel Universe. Middle-earth doesn't label itself as one. Buffyverse labels itself as a media franchise. Clamp I am still trying to figure out but it doesn't say it is. Jhenderson 777 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also before anybody thinks of removing those categories. I would recommend them to discuss talking about it here first. Jhenderson 777 22:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God. This doesn't prove anything. There are characters listed as "media franchises" on Category:Media franchises. Not everything on this site is always correct. In fact those should be removed (well I already did prior to reading your second post) because it contradicts other fictional universes that aren't listed in that category, and there's more of those. --DesignDeath (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not everything here is correct...but also what you (and I) believe is probably not correct either. That's why I feel they need consensus all together. I linked you to numerous WikiProjects. We should have a lot of discussion on this if you talk about this talk page issue on there. I welcome other opinions more than my own at this point. Jhenderson 777 23:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_multimedia_franchises/Archive_1&oldid=1136957975"