Film franchise mock question

How important are film franchises for audiences and producers?

There are various positives and negatives for both producers and audiences with film franchises and I will be going through them in my answer.

Over the last few years, the most popular of blockbusters have been a part of franchises, for example Iron Man made $1 billion worldwide whereas compared to a star-based film like Oblivion which only made $2 million this proves that audiences are enjoying franchise films rather than relying on star power. There are various films that offer us a journey with the characters, for example one of the most popular franchises to commit to that would be the Harry Potter franchise as personally I watched the first Harry potter when I was young and as more sequels started to come out, you started to grow up with the characters too and develop alongside them.  We then start to notice that at the start it was quite a light hearted fantasy franchise but when they developed further the genre started to grow older and a lot more complex as it moulded to the audience’s expectations and desires. Another good example would be of the fact that there is a Harry Potter theme park based around the area of which the film is situated in, this includes the great Hogwarts castle and the very busy and magical streets of Diagon Alley. This gives the fans more of a personal experience with the film as you are able to have food and drink at the three broomsticks inn or see which wand suits you best at Olivander’s wand shop, so despite that the films have ended temporarily it still lives on with it’s synergy of games, it’s theme park, books and other types of merchandise. However there are negatives to the modern importance of film franchises for audiences.

Popular franchises are starting to develop more sequels and prequels to their famous films, for example Iron Man which generated $1 billion worldwide from the film only, and with there not being much choice in the cinema there is now a lack of decisions for us. A good example would be of Marvel who generate roughly three movies per year, of which are usually one of the most popular franchises alongside two other superhero films that aren’t usually as famous. Some say franchise films are insulting the intelligence of their audience and personally I agree as producers are starting to develop more of the same movie plots but giving them different titles and different characters, for example Iron Man 2 is most likely going to be the same as the first Iron Man because it was so popular in 2008 and producers guess that that’s the bar of expectation and we’re not going to expect much more in any of the sequels. Sometimes we are required to watch previous films in order to understand the films that are either recent or upcoming, for example I had to explain the background of the Marvel Universe to my friend in order to understand Guardians Of The Galaxy.

Producers have a wide variety of pros for this statement. If any of the franchises are successful, it gives them the opportunity to gain more profit out of it for the near future, for example, The Avengers was an incredibly successful movie at the box-office in 2012 and that gave them the option to start handing out merchandise from that franchise, such as the superhero costumes, utensils, clothes, and it also gives them the opportunity to create a sequel as millions of people enjoyed the film so that if they were to create another, there is a high likelihood that they will watch the second film, this is called synergy. We know that some franchises can go wrong at times with films that are unpopular however if they're successful enough with all other films they've put out before they are able to brush it under the carpet like it never happened, for example, John Carter was one of the most unsuccessful Disney films as it's budget was $250 million. However, worldwide it grossed $282 million. This clearly wasn't a very successful movie and Disney moved on straight away onto the movies they knew were going to hit the box-office, such as Brave and Wreck-It Ralph.

However this idea of repetition throughout certain franchises can bore audiences which is one of the major problems for producers. For example The Chronicles of Narnia was the second most popular film of 2005 (http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2005,2005&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter,asc) with the budget of $180,000,000 and the end profit making $720,539,572, however in 2008 they decided to make a sequel of the film, Prince Caspian's budget was $225,000,000 and they grossed $417,341,288 back worldwide and that doesn't reach for two times it's cost and even after that they continued on to make another film for the franchise, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader which cost $155,000,000 and gained $418,186,950 which made it $100,000,000 past the doubled figure. However this was also earning most profit back from the failure of Prince Caspian. If a film franchise is a failure, it will also effect the success of the other synergy branches, this is possible for the upcoming 'Avatar 2' in 2016 as if the franchise fails with the film they have spent millions of dollars for a theme park of Pandora in Disney's Animal Kingdom and only the few who enjoy the film will be visiting the park within that time.

In conclusion, franchises can have positives and negatives for both producers and audiences, however with the points for audiences and producers I think that franchises aren't important for audiences yet they are important for producers to gain success.