Episodic vs Continuous Franchises

[Phlip]

So I had previously wondered "How is it that James Bond as a franchise has lasted so long?" and I figured out a literal answer. A huge part of that IMO is down to the format being episodic. The franchise has a great base concept to work with - a hard edged MI6 agent with a license to kill, which is a simplistically great concept which allows for so much creative room for different stories and interpretations. The same with Indiana Jones, it's episodic and will continue because it can also re-invent itself without, necessarily the need of rebooting.

Then there are franchises that are so well loved such as Star Wars, which is one continuous story. With this, there is an end, and so sometimes in these situations to allow for the universe to have another film/story, interquels/prequels/shoe-horned sequels are made that don't blend as well. Games work in the same principle; Assassins Creed was pre-planned to be a trilogy, but then it got super popular and things were changed to allow it to be milked, so why limit onesself in the beginning to be only a trilogy? Prince of Persia, too, the Sands of Time was originally limited to only a trilogy and then a (crappy) interquel was made in a desperate attempt to have more playtime in that universe. Why not have had it as open and episodic in the beginning? This is what is good about Uncharted, you don't need to have played any particular game to be able to understand the other and yet it's hugely popular so it works.

Thoughts?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

Every sequel should stand alone and be accesible to newcomers, no matter how serial the story is. If it isn't, the screnwriters aren't doing it right.

Yep yep.

I even prefer TV this way, honestly.

[LegacyCosts]

The best tv shows are the ones that reward long term viewing and probably wouldn't be great for jumping in the middle of but the bond format in film works wonderfully.

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

Every sequel should stand alone and be accesible to newcomers, no matter how serial the story is. If it isn't, the screnwriters aren't doing it right.

Why? So you are saying that, for example, Deathly Hallows Part 2, the eighth movie in a series should be accessible to newcomers? That is crazy. If you go see the 8th movie in a series, and it is the first one you have seen in said series, you should not expect to be able to follow it.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Why? So you are saying that, for example, Deathly Hallows Part 2, the eighth movie in a series should be accessible to newcomers? That is crazy. If you go see the 8th movie in a series, and it is the first one you have seen in said series, you should not expect to be able to follow it.

I can see both sides but if a person can't be bothered to check out the original film, why would they be interested in the sequels anyway?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

I'm more forgiving of TV, now in this age of binge-watching and having full seasons available almost immediately; though I do think that at least each season should be self-contained and accessible, if not every episode. But then that's what recaps are for, and I like how some shows on Blu-ray let you choose whether to watch the episodes with or without them.

I just find more often that not it means a story you could tell in two hours takes 12, because they have to fill time. I find most serialized TV today extremely drawn-out and boring. I know I am in a minority though... or a very silent majority. I much prefer each episode feeling like a mini-movie, usually.

Usually means there are exceptions, before anyone goes looking at my collection and screaming "BUT YOU OWN DA SOPRANOZ!" or whatever.

[levcore]

It really depends on the series and the franchise, different things work for different franchises.

I'm starting to wish Marvel's more recent stuff worked better as standalone movies.

[L.J.]

Do think with good writing it dose'nt matter if you've seen the first or not. Would be nice if more tv shows would go back to the one episode story line. Saying that tho Lost is still my favorite show.

[Moe Szyslak]

I love my horror franchises and their hilariously complex continuity.

[dallywhitty]

Depends entirely on the franchise. I think some would suffer big time if they were overly concerned with accommodating newcomers. Like Doctor Jack said, can you imagine newcomers trying to watch Deathly Hallows Part 2? That film thrives off its continuity. There's a reason that many people - myself not included - consider it to be the best in the series. Had it just been another entry in the series, a standalone film that didn't wrap everything up in explosive fashion, would it have been so adored? Obviously not.

I recently watched all seven Saw films (I'd seen the trilogy years ago but the rest were totally new to me) and I was impressed by the sense of continuity and the way in which they overlap. It was refreshing and considering how many horror franchises are formulaic and tell the same story over and over but with a different cast in each film, I'd like to see more done like this one. Although the seventh film is shit.

[tigertron]

I definitely prefer standalone films, unless a story is too big to be told in a single film i.e. The Lord of the Rings. Back to back sequels for standalone films like Pirates of the Caribbean just doesn't really work very well.

As Levcore said, it ultimately depends on the franchise, as different things work for different franchises.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by levcore

It really depends on the series and the franchise, different things work for different franchises.

I'm starting to wish Marvel's more recent stuff worked better as standalone movies.

Marvel is annoying because I like about half their output but feel like I need to see all their output, which I am sure is part of the design. If I could only care about Iron Man, Guardians and Captain America that would be great.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Phlip

So I had previously wondered "How is it that James Bond as a franchise has lasted so long?" and I figured out a literal answer. A huge part of that IMO is down to the format being episodic. The franchise has a great base concept to work with - a hard edged MI6 agent with a license to kill, which is a simplistically great concept which allows for so much creative room for different stories and interpretations.

Good luck with that. SPECTRE will turn all four of Craig's movies into one big story.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by tigertron

I definitely prefer standalone films, unless a story is too big to be told in a single film i.e. The Lord of the Rings. Back to back sequels for standalone films like Pirates of the Caribbean just doesn't really work very well.

As Levcore said, it ultimately depends on the franchise, as different things work for different franchises.

LotR isn't a franchise, and doesn't consist of sequels though. It's really one movie -- a very long movie.

As to the original question, I agree with those that are saying that it depends on the particular franchise. Obviously with something like the Scream franchise, one film is dependent on the previous ones. Or, at least, anything approaching full appreciation of the sequels is dependent on knowledge of the earlier films. Likewise, Wes Craven's New Nightmare would be a completely different film to someone who hadn't seen the originals that included Nancy.

OTOH, I agree that there isn't really a need to tie together movies in a franchise like Star Trek.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

OTOH, I agree that there isn't really a need to tie together movies in a franchise like Star Trek.

Star Trek 2, 3, and 4 disagree with you.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

II, III, and IV stand alone beautifully, despite being a trilogy. They're perfect examples of movies standing alone while being a part of something bigger.

3 doesn't really.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by LuckyDragon

Forgetting the recap of II at the beginning?

Nope.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

3 doesn't really.

Even granting you that, it's so awful does it really matter?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Even granting you that, it's so awful does it really matter?

We're not discussing quality, but yes, it sucks.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Phlip

So I had previously wondered "How is it that James Bond as a franchise has lasted so long?" and I figured out a literal answer. A huge part of that IMO is down to the format being episodic. The franchise has a great base concept to work with - a hard edged MI6 agent with a license to kill, which is a simplistically great concept which allows for so much creative room for different stories and interpretations. The same with Indiana Jones, it's episodic and will continue because it can also re-invent itself without, necessarily the need of rebooting.

Then there are franchises that are so well loved such as Star Wars, which is one continuous story. With this, there is an end, and so sometimes in these situations to allow for the universe to have another film/story, interquels/prequels/shoe-horned sequels are made that don't blend as well. Games work in the same principle; Assassins Creed was pre-planned to be a trilogy, but then it got super popular and things were changed to allow it to be milked, so why limit onesself in the beginning to be only a trilogy? Prince of Persia, too, the Sands of Time was originally limited to only a trilogy and then a (crappy) interquel was made in a desperate attempt to have more playtime in that universe. Why not have had it as open and episodic in the beginning? This is what is good about Uncharted, you don't need to have played any particular game to be able to understand the other and yet it's hugely popular so it works.

Thoughts?

Btw, they're now turning "stand-alone" movies into continuous stories.

MI3, MI4, and MI5 are obviously linked, but there are small shout-outs to previous movies as well. For instance, in MI4, they brought back one of the European henchmen from the first movie, and he even gives Ethan Hunt a shroud like he did in the first movie.

In the trailers for MI5, Rebecca Ferguson shows Ethan Hunt a rabbit's foot, and the McGuffin in MI3 was called the Rabbit's Foot.