Films

[edward d]

Which franchise has the most movies?

[JJ109]

Carry On - 30 films ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On_(franchise)

[Mozz71]

Godzilla perhaps? Currently at 36.

[ToraToraTora]

I'd say carry on. Godzilla has more i suppose but what really constitutes a Franchise? A lot of Godzilla films are remakes of the same thing for example a bit like king Kong, there must be a dozen versions of what is essentially the same film.

[Mozz71]

Definitely shaky ground Tora, although Evil Dead is known as a trilogy, even though the second movie is basically a remake of the first with a better budget. Depends on technicalities I guess.

[Mozz71]

Some would argue for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to be considered now too. With the Sony Spider-Men appearing in No Way Home, and the X-Men rumoured to feature in the upcoming Doctor Strange movie, that would retcon the previous Spidey and X-Men movies into the MCU. (I personally consider that a cheat, but it could be argued I guess)

[ToraToraTora]

they've gone complete;y mental with the whole Superhero sector. I like the Christopher Reeve Superman films and the early Batmans, even the really early one with Adam West! the dark knight was pretty good but after that they've gone completely bonkers I've stopped keeping up with them.

[Mozz71]

They make money, so they'll keep churning them out. The last Spider-Man film is in the all time top 5 money makers, despite being limited by the pandemic. People want what they want I guess.

[jno]

a franchise is just the right to use a brand or a logo under which to sell your goods. Arguably the Carry Ons aren't a franchise at all, since they were all made by the same studio, the same limited number of writers, directors and cast, though Columbus was maybe an afterthought that made it some sort of franchise.

After that, Godzilla I think.

[Mozz71]

Jno, in that case, couldn't all films feature Sherlock Holmes, Dracula or even Charlie Chan be considered franchises? They all number over 40 individual movies.

[jno]

I'm not sure, Mozz. The idea of a franchise in the narrow sense is that you have to pay for the right to use it. If you still have to pay the Conan Doyle estate to use the Sherlock character, then yes. Whereas you can make all the Robin Hood films you want, so I don't think that counts as a franchise.

[drmorgans]

I thought copyright ended 70 years after the death of the author?

[jno]

I don't know, the Americans keep moving the goalposts. Mickey Mouse was supposed to be out of copyright in 1984, but they extended it to 2003 and then 2023. You can bet Disney's lawyers are leaning on Congress to extend it further asap.

[Etch]

I was watching Red Dwarf on Dave last night and Lister mentioned "The new Friday the 13th movie - Friday the 13th part one thousand six hundred and forty nine", so that must be it, surely?

[ToraToraTora]

jno, a movie "franchise" is not a franchise in the retail sense, it's a name given to a series by subject and often production source. The most famous being the Bond "franchise".

[jno]

well, yes but no but. Does anyone think the David Niven/Woody Allen Casino Royale constitutes part of the Bond franchise?