Jump to content

Talk:Lists of multimedia franchises

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multimedia franchise vs. Media franchise

[edit]

Why is the term multimedia used in this context? "A multimedia franchise is a media franchise for which installments exist in multiple forms of media, such as books, comic books, films, television series, and video games." is the intro sentence on this page (which is not referenced), while on Media franchise, we have the following: "A media franchise is a collection of media for which components exist in multiple forms of media, generally fiction, such as film, literature, television, or video games, involving a story, characters, and setting." . These seem like the same thing to me at least. Please clarify / justify usage of term "multimedia". (FleeGreenTea (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. The addition of that unsourced language to the Media franchise article was engineered by a now-indefinitely banned sockpuppet and sockpuppet master, during a dispute involving those parties on this page. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors, I have reverted those edits, and will now carefully revert all edits by the indefinitely blocked parties. Obviously, of course, a media franchise can exist where an original work is the subject of multiple prequels, sequels, or remakes all in the same media as the original; the usage of the term "multimedia" in this article is supported by multiple sources provided in the footnotes. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible additions

[edit]

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Park

[edit]

I am pretty sure it qualifies for this list. Besides the movie, and host of games, it includes the show and two early sketches. Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Park was previously on this page, but was removed for falling short of the requirements to which we have agreed. Are there at least multiple South Park books? That would do it also. bd2412 T 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does have one book that I could find. It also has multiple video games now, the obvious television show, and a movie. That should qualify, although I'm not familiar with specific guidelines. Could you point me in the direction of the previous discussion? I was unable to find it in the archive. Duh, it's written on the page itself. Here's another book. That ensures that it qualifies. ~ RobTalk 04:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A book about South Park is not the same as a South Park book. bd2412 T 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

[edit]

I am confused as to whether the criteria on this article alludes that a franchise isn't truly a "multimedia franchise" unless it fits the three forms of media criteria required by this page, which seems kinda odd. Isn't a franchise automatically a "multimedia franchise" if it branches out into more than one form of media? (Such as a TV series being spawned from a film series) Or is this just to shorten the lists?

I might also suggest to lower the criteria because some extremely popular franchises such as The Hunger Games and Twilight are not on the list because they don't meet these requirements. And ultimately, what is the difference between this article and [1]? It just seems a bit redundant and incomplete. --MrChristensen (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the category first. While it covers many of the same media, it is not very informative for the reader to merely look at the listing in the category. Here, we can collect in a single place the information about how and when each franchise began, what media falls within it, and give a sense of its scope.
As for the criteria set for the page, that is indeed to keep it reasonable in length. Technically, any book that has ever been adapted into a film could be called a "multimedia franchise", which would add thousands of entries to the list. It could be said that this is a list of multi-multimedia franchises (or that multi- here is contrasted against what could be called bimedia franchises).
Lastly, with respect to mutlimedia franchises and fictional universes, which has been a point raised in recent edits to the article, there is no reason that something can't be both. A fictional universe is defined by its fictional characteristics or history; a franchise is defined by the ownership and repurposing of intellectual property, which can include information about the fictional universe. A well-developed fictional universe can exist in only a single, unfranchised media. A fictional universe can derive from public domain media, and therefore be the subject of public domain adaptations that do not constitute a franchise. bd2412 T 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a single book and its film adaptation a media franchise would be a stretch. I don't think anyone has ever reffered to a single work + single adaptation as a media franchise. In my opinion, to be considered a franchise something has to be a distinguished brand and well, a franchise. But regardless, listing the X-Men (for example), which is a well known and widely recognized franchise under "Marvel Universe" because it shares the same fictional universe as several other franchises instead of being on the list on its own just seems odd. Especially considering this article is very clearly supposed to be listing franchises, not fictional universes. Obviously a fictional universe CAN be a franchise, but not necessarily. The Marvel Universe article exclusively discusses a fictional universe, and makes no mention of it being a franchise at all. It's just kinda off to me. --MrChristensen (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Marvel is a particularly complicated situation. Due to various licensing agreements over the years, and with limited exceptions, characters relating to the X-Men film franchise can not appear in the same live-action films as characters appearing in the Avengers film franchise. Nevertheless, they all exist together in the comic books, and pop up together in some animated TV series. Technically, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a different universe from the X-Men Cinemetic Universe, but they are all part of the same franchise in terms of the origination of these licensing arrangements. bd2412 T 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that's interesting. I did wonder why no X-Men characters ever appeared in Avengers films. Well... I guess we should just leave it as it is then to not confuse the matter any further.--MrChristensen (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Terminology

[edit]

I see it was already discussed above but the use of the "media" and "multimedia" terminology is still confusing. "Media" isn't a singular word, it's plural of the word "medium", and the usage of multimedia in this context is entirely incorrect as "multimedia" means that multiple medium forms are being used simultaneously, which doesn't really apply to these franchises in which installments exist in various media separately. So really "A multimedia franchise is a media franchise for which installments exist in multiple forms of media" doesn't make much sense. Also, saying "one media" is incorrect, it's "one medium". So either this article should be retitled "List of media franchises" or the main should be retitled "Medium franchise", and the latter doesn't seem like a good idea to me, BD2412. I think both articles should be fixed. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular use of the term "multimedia" is thoroughly attested in the sources in the article. bd2412 T 19:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain anything. The sources and notes list examples of authors using the term "multimedia franchise", clearly interchangeably with "media franchise". Read what I wrote again, "media" and "multimedia" mean esentially the same thing, as defined in the English language. You previously justified the use of media/multimedia by saying how "a media franchise can exist where an original work is the subject of multiple prequels, sequels, or remakes all in the same media as the original", so films in the same multiple mediums (media, by definition) as the orignal? That's an oxymoron. Can't you see how that doesn't make sense at all?--FollowTheSigns (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Film is a medium; a film franchise is a set of installments in that medium. It doesn't become multimedia until it is extended into mutliple media. That's all multimedia really means. Otherwise, why does the word even exist? bd2412 T 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that you can't say "multiple media" to define "multimedia", since "media" already means multiple mediums. That's the issue. The meaning of multimedia is somewhat unrelated to all of this. media - "plural form of medium" ; multimedia - "using more than one medium of expression or communication" this means concurrent usage, for example a Web page using pictures, videos, writing or music simultaneously. Do you see what I'm getting at? This usage is wrong. Another example a film and its novelization are collectively not multimedia works, a film is a multimedia work since it uses multiple artistic mediums such as film, music and so on, but a film and its novel or video game adaptation are collectively media works. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you are saying. This should be something like List of franchises in multiple media. bd2412 T 21:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you do, but I think this should definitely be List of media franchises. "Multiple media" again, is not really correct, that is multiple of an already plural word. And this article's title should make it explicitly clear that it's media franchises that are being listed, and not retail or fast food chains, as there is a significant difference we should keep in mind and that proposed new title would probably make people confuse that. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would still be confusing. There are TV stations, for example, that are franchisees of a network, and could be described as media franchises. bd2412 T 21:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think those would be more appropriately called television franchises or just franchises? Although calling a string of related programs or international TV adaptations would also be called a television franchise... Regardless, again, keep in mind that "media franchise" is pretty much a figurative term, there is no actual franchising involved in these media works or their licensing. It's a term coined because there was no other word for it (look up the Media Francising book by Derek Johnson, it's very informative. unless you knew that already seeing as you're an IP lawyer), so having this specific term relating to these specific media relations in the title wouldn't be nearly as confusing and it would make sense. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are, however, groups like Fox and MSN that have franchisees in television, radio, and online venues. Those could be called media franchises. It is, however, very common to call a film series a "franchise", even if there is no "franchising" going on in the legal sense. I do not see the plural issue as an issue. If we had a "List of sports teams that play in multiple states", for example, we would not use "state" in the singular just because it was preceded by "multiple". bd2412 T 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said yes those could be called media franchises as well but "media franchise" is a specific term relating to these specific media relations in fiction (that do not feature any actual franchising in the legal sense, it's figurative, that's why the distinguishing is important). And the "media" before the franchise is important to distinguish it from the other franchise types, even though some of them could also technically be described as such (but rarely are). And are we back at the beginning with the plural issue? You couldn't say "multiple state" because that's not gramatically correct. You could say multiple mediums, or you could just say media. That's just how the language works. Saying multiple mediums would probably make it sound like you're referring to psychic people, so I'm not sure about that. Moving the article to List of media franchises seems like the obvious solution, I don't know why we're beating around the bush. Sure that's not the perfect foolproof solution but it's better than what it is currently, I guess maybe noting that a franchise could also exist in a single medium and by expanding to others it becomes a media franchise in the Media franchise article would be a good idea to fill in all the gaps? --FollowTheSigns (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think we are liable to end up talking in circles. For the reasons I have stated, I do not think that List of media franchises is a better title. bd2412 T 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I feel like List of media franchises is the only sensible title. Obviously this one is incorrect, and all the reasons you stated on why my proposed title would not be better could also be applied to List of franchises in multiple media. I just think it'd be more than obvious to go from media franchise -> list of media franchises. It's clean, direct and above all the terminology is right.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So have we settled on not doing anything? Another suggestion would be to just use transmedia instead of multimedia.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I'll put in the request now. bd2412 T 22:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of multimedia franchises → List of transmedia franchises – As User:FollowTheSigns points out above "multimedia" can be confusing because it may refer to a single medium with different outputs (for example, a game with both video and audio action). This list addresses actually media franchises with a transmedia storytelling presentation. bd2412 T 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that would validate the use of "transmedia", and of course multimedia is used more often than transmedia is, it's a better known term, however the word does not represent what this article is supposed to be about, and as stated in above discussions, its usage in this context is incorrect whereas transmedia is a term coined to specifically describe this type of media relationship. But I digress....--FollowTheSigns (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least until there is stronger evidence that transmedia is common usage. It strikes me as a neologism. The arguments given by FollowTheSigns seem to be OR rather than based on actual usage. Many times English usage is not strictly logical. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of multimedia franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes

[edit]

Is Sherlock Holmes a multimedia franchise? It has novels, films, comics, radio, games etc.--1.62.202.25 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks?

[edit]

Two TV shows, one film, several books.--1.62.202.21 (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Universe/ DC Universe

[edit]

Fantastic Four, Batman, X-men etc. are franchises on their own right, is lumping them together as one franchise because they share a fictional universe really necessary? It’s different with the Marvel Cinematic Universe which is actually a franchise and is being marketed as one etc.. “X-men” has more identity as a franchise than the fictional universe (not the same as a media franchise btw) of Marvel comics. --FollowTheSigns (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of a franchise

[edit]

I was thinking about adding an owner of a franchise (i.e Disney for Marvel, DHX Media and Sony Japan for Peanuts etc) in a separate column in each table. Let me know if its fine. thanks --Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Panther

[edit]

Can Pink Panther franchise be added in this article? I've seen it adapted in multiple platforms. Suggestions? --Shoxee1214 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

[edit]

Due to length concerns raised in the article, I propose to split this article into the following:

Anything else will be worked into the most relevant of these lists. BD2412 T 19:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IF we do that then I suggest creators be removed from these sub-articles, they don't add anything to the article especially when in some cases its a company and in some cases, it is the person. DoctorHver (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed split was already done two and a half years ago. The creators, whether individual or corporate, take up no extra space when nested below the franchise names. Some readers may find that information useful or informative. BD2412 T 15:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of bad recent entries

[edit]

I have reverted the addition of a large number of recent entries, many of which are clearly bad. For example:

Dracula, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, and The Time Machine are all public domain properties, and therefore not franchises for any owner of the property.

Avengers (comics), Captain America, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Spider-Man, and Thor (Marvel Comics) are all elements of a single franchise, as are Batman, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Flash (DC Comics character), Superman, and Wonder Woman

Buster Keaton, Charlie Chan, Charlie Chaplin, and Shirley Temple are people who performed in a variety of roles, and are not "franchises" owned by a creator.

I Love Lucy was a single TV show, not adapted into multimedia permutations.

Evolution and Friday are common nouns, and it is not clear what "franchises" are suggested by them. BD2412 T 03:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, Trademarks might still apply to public domain works, but it doesn't change the fact that the original author/creator/publisher has lost control of some or all aspects of their work's continuation in publication n al media. Sherlock Holmes is a good example as there was a lawsuit from Coyle's este regarding the 2015 film Mr. Holmes. With that said works that have one foot in the public domain and the other in the world of copyright and trademarks are the worst to deal with. Do you treat them as franchies? or not? It could depend on the original author/creator/publisher we know that L. Frank Baum the original author of Wizard of Oz wanted the books to be made into films while we have no idea if Carlo Collodi who wrote Pinocchio wanted Pinocchio to be made into films since Collodi had died before the film was even invented as a medium. I would probably treat Oz as a franchise considering what we know about Baum and his wishes even if the earliest work is now public domain, the Baum estate might still hold some trademarks, but since we don't know anything about what Collodi would have wanted I wouldn't treat Pinocchio was franchise. while I wouldn't treat Pinocchio as a franchise we have no idea how Collodi would have reacted to the idea of putting Pinocchio into another medium. In the same light, I expect everyone to continue to treat Mickey Mouse as a Disney Franchise even if the earliest films entering the public domain next year.

Marvel and DC Stuff should all be grouped under a franchise originating in print media as a large majority of these characters appeared in comics with few exceptions. Splitting them up is silly considering how interconnected these are. MCU or DCEU shouldn't be included eather as this not how these characters were originally published.

I must point out that Charlie Chan is a fictional detective created Earl Derr Biggers in novels and since then the character has appeared in live-action films, animation, comics and video games, etc... In the case of Charlie Chaplin, there was the Tramp character but I don't think Chaplin ever gave formal approval for the Tramp character to be adapted into animation.

TV shows like I Love Lucy or films like American Pop aren't franchises just because they had animated opening titles or sequence If that was the case almost everything would then be a franchise.

Evolution and Friday In the case of the latter I think they meant Friday (franchise) in the case of the former I have no idea. DoctorHver (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should go on this page unless it has been vetted for inclusion on one of the subpages. We set standards early on - a property can be "multimedia" but not a "multimedia franchise" if the appearance in a second media is a one-off. There must be multiple installments in multiple media; likewise, it is not a "franchise" if it is public domain, since the franchise itself is a function of central ownership of the property. Thanks for the correction on Charlie Chan. That raises good questions. BD2412 T 17:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Love Lucy (1951-1957) had the sequel series The Lucy–Desi Comedy Hour (1957-1960), which featured the same characters in a different setting. It received adaptations into one comic book series by Dell Comics (1954-1962) and one comic strip by the King Features Syndicate (1952-1955). Dimadick (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five more to look at:

I removed these. I don't think having web content attached to a TV series makes it a "multimedia franchise", and some of these generally do not have multiple media at all, even if they have multiple seasons or series in a single media. BD2412 T 03:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back Gilligan's Island, as it checks out. BD2412 T 04:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_multimedia_franchises&oldid=1231590059"