Are Franchises effective? Also, Discussing Remakes and Sequels

Visit Wolfman Art

What is the Appeal of Franchises?

The appeal for purchasing film franchises is obviously apart of the goals in increasing revenues, particularly in today's landscape of at-home streaming. If a company owning rights to a film franchise means owning rights to more entertainment in quantity (and, meaning that you own the hard-hitters), this leads to expansion in more media and from other products associated with those films' productions for sales /merchandising.

Of course, there is risk in losing quality management over a product if a company/business has fingers in twenty other different things —whether its the original creators that are still the owners or not. When something grows too large, you potentially have prospects for additional growth which, leads to possibility of forming alliances with others, attracting more investors, contractual obligations that can fragment creative processes; and therefore, compromising a work's ongoing quality.

007 Franchise

But, having franchises is also an increasingly effective response for the larger guys in today's world where there is so much audiovisual entertainment that feels gimmicky and short-lived (not to sound cynical). You can look at how last year, Amazon MGM purchased the 007 franchise costed them around $20 million. After the sale, Eon Productions announced publicly that they will be doing more independent and small-scale productions in the future (2025, Weprin).

Movie franchises can provide you with sequels, which can more-or-less keep up with the episodic structures in television and other media being watched and engaged with at home. Throughout history, the 007 franchise has had high artistic/cultural values, as films released in each decade of the 20th century seem to highlight on the trending artistic, cultural, and political considerations of the the times. You can look at the Sean Connory films in the 60s and find some ideas that mirror cold war fears like in From Russia with Love (1963), Dr. No (1962), and You Only Live Twice (1967) which feature global threats using outer space technology and/or using it as means of destruction or intimidation.

Figure 1: Poster of Moonraker (1979). 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Moonraker_%28UK_cinema_poster%29.jpg

The franchise then adapts to a 70s audience that is savvier and attuned to more offbeat films like in late 70s when Hollywood establishes sci-fi as its next prestige genre (James Whale Bake Sale, 2025, 1:08-1:18). This is exemplified by Moonraker  (1979) which radically shifts frameworks (outer space) in the attempts to match the success of recent sci-fi box office hits like Star Wars (1977). 

Franchises with their larger fan bases can adapt and shift gears when necessary, which makes the prospect of owning one way more appealing for companies today. The concern is how a company like Amazon MGM is going to allow commercialization and marketing to get in the way and lead to dumbing down the quality of a movie. If we look at MCU (Marvel), these movies are not striving for subversion like in their earlier peak - its the same formulaic stories, very little to no sense of directorial authorship. Or lets reframe, Raimi's Spidermans in the early 2000s has more pronounced directorial stylizations than his Doctor Strange film, which seems more aligned with the overarching Marvel brand than his own unique vision.

Great Remakes - Judex (1963)

Figure 2: Poster of Judex (1963), remake of Judex (1916)
Note. https://filmartgallery.com/cdn/shop/products/Judex-Vintage-Movie-Poster-Original_1024x1024.jpg?v=1738903326

And then there are remakes...

I want to discuss one of the greatest and most underappreciated remakes, the french film Judex (1963). It is based off the silent film Judex (1916). This movie is like a love letter to early cinema in the way it gathers these classic archetypes, almost mistakenly interpreted as homages to the typical black-suited horror/detective icons. It takes on a silent film concept, decides to have minimal dialogue in moments, and gives the main protagonist little screen time.

Figure 3:Clip from the film Judex (1963)

Note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HM_hN6uDvk

Critics complained that its style was "syrupy" and the story, superficial. But, if you decide to let go of a need for seeking a deeper story and appreciate its challenges of conventions in the detective mystery genre, you might discover that the hammy and light-hearted moments were actually in-part methodical for differentiating it from countless Zorros and Batmans that have existed up until this point.

in retrospect, it magnifies a kind of cultural residue that silent film icons have provided future detective stories like what you find in the noir Gotham that Bruce Timm reveals in BATS. These archetypes—sometimes working in opposition with each other, sometimes not, are like genre signifiers of the past that is teaching something about detective stories with tired tropes, but provide a revitalized meaning when reconstructed on this level.

Great Sequels - Return of the King (2003)

Figure 4: Poster of Return of the King (2003)

Note.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Lord_Rings_Return_King.jpg

High Fantasy comes with risks in live action as it tends to be financially ambitious for the worldbuilding aspect and how it encourages filmmakers to go beyond the limitations of cameras and encourages innovations from other technical departments.  You prioritize ensuring that there is a believability in a film's tonal framework, so that nothing appears too fake. 

High Science Fiction at least, has more room for a story's tone to drift like how George Lucas's Star Wars scene ends and the frame slides out of view for the next one to appear. Or, the comedic interruptions of Jar-jar to disrupt seriousness of characters and the battle action that takes place between his dialogue. How there is greater room for scientific relevancy like when Skywalker's arm is replaced with a robotic one signals futuristic advancements in engineering, making it easier to access these galactic worlds, as opposed to something Alice in Wonderland when logic is more secondary.

In short, High Fantasy might need stricter boundaries in live-action, so a plot's framework doesn't get destabilized by its enormous scale. After watching Fellowship in theater, I remember hearing people's criticisms of how long the film was and that it didn't have a concrete ending like so many older blockbuster films had. Or, up until that point we have similar long-runtime movies like the David Lean-variety that Roger Ebert drew comparisons to, but none of those Lean films pack as much technical sophistication here, such as its effects and motion capture. The sequel the Two Towers (2002) generated similar responses and there of course was competition from recently released Harry Potter films which appealed more to families already steeped in the sensibilities of the Home Alones and Disney Renaissance movies. A High Fantasy like LOTR that would appeal to adults/teenagers and would have these offbeat psychological tensions was a huge shift into what seemed like arthouse fantasy. In that sense, it paved the way for culture to be more accepting of dark fantasy films like Pan's Labyrinth (2006).

Return of the King, the third film in the trilogy, concludes with everything coming full circle, and it was around then that had viewers think of the previous two a lot differently, thinking that all three is like one huge 12-plus hour singular film, only separated into three parts.

Blockbusters like Avatar (2009) and Star Wars (1977) teaches us that cutting-edge technology has the potential  for inviting curiosity of unvisited worlds and the technical innovations used can pan out to an overall acceptance of it. Anything that tries to match it in some way or replicate it in terms of technical scale, effect for effect, risks being watered down, or could be seen as something of a lesser version. Its this overreliance of a disorienting CG in today's landscape that encourages creators to expand upon it rather than going backwards which, could mistakenly be seen as a recycling of sorts.

What's your favorite sequel/remake and why?

References

Weprin, A, (2025, Oct 25) Amazon Paid $20 Million for Control of James Bond, But There’s Fine Print That Isn’t Public. Hollywood Reporter.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/amazon-james-bond-franchise-purchase-price-1236407279/

(n.d.) Film Art Gallery [Image]

https://filmartgallery.com/cdn/shop/products/Judex-Vintage-Movie-Poster-Original_1024x1024.jpg?v=1738903326

(2022, Feb 15) Wikipedia.[Image]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Moonraker_%28UK_cinema_poster%29.jpg

(2024, Apr 3) Wikipedia. [Image]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Lord_Rings_Return_King.jpg

(2008, April 16) Judex (1963) [Video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HM_hN6uDvk

James Whale Bake Sale (2025, Apr 6) Quentin Tarantino on Close Encounters of the Third Kind  [Video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCLqwV9iZ_w