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?