A-List: Franchises
By Josh Spiegel
May 7, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
The first major franchise to come out of the 1970s was the Star Wars series, beginning in 1977. This sci-fi epic combined a common trope of literature (the common boy dreaming to be a warrior) with slick effects, mysterious names, and a menacing villain all dressed in black, from his mask to his shoes. Though Twentieth Century Fox wasn't too sure what they had on their hands beforehand, the first Star Wars film was a major cash cow, kick-starting Harrison Ford's career, and making George Lucas into one of the biggest names in filmmaking. Of course, when Lucas brought back the Star Wars franchise for three prequels...well, the less said, the better.
Though 2007 had plenty of three-quels, such as Spider-Man 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Shrek the Third, this summer and many others like it aren't lacking franchise films. Last week, we had another X-Men film; this week brings the 11th film in the Star Trek franchise; the rest of May brings another film from the creator of The Da Vinci Code and the second Night at the Museum movie. Though you could easily bemoan Hollywood's complete lack of originality (and you could; we'll save that for a separate column), it's worth noting that some franchises are so great, we could easily forgive the rest.
A little warning here: this A-List will not have a couple famous franchises appear, such as the aforementioned Star Trek franchise or the biggest of them all, James Bond. Two reasons for the absence of these two and some others: if I haven't seen all of the films in the series (I'm guilty of this with the Bond films), the franchise won't appear; if a majority of the films in the franchise aren't at least good (I'm looking at you, Captain Kirk), the franchise won't appear. This is the A-List, don't forget; so, enjoy the A-List's look at the best franchises.
Batman
Now, I know what you're thinking if you're looking to catch me in a bit of hypocrisy regarding my rules for which franchises are on the A-List and which aren't. Let's get this out of the way right now: Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are just plain awful movies. I hadn't seen these two films for a long time since they came out in the late-1990s until I caught them on TNT the same weekend that last summer's The Dark Knight came out. Not only was it shocking to see how tonally different these films were from the 2008 release, but...yeah, they're bad movies. If Christopher Nolan hadn't swooped in to make Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, this franchise wouldn't be on the list. Thanks, however, to his ingenuity, the best Batman ever (sorry, Michael Keaton, I'm a fan of Christian Bale and his Dirty Harry-esque voice), and some great villains, the Batman franchise makes it onto our list. The first two films in the series, both helmed by Tim Burton, are more cartoonishly dark than Nolan's two entries, but the production design is amazing, Keaton is a strong and stoic lead, and Jack Nicholson's performance as his first adversary is thrilling. There's no question that the Batman franchise is far from perfect, but if you just ignore or accept the flaws in the middle films, it's clear to see how influential and amazing this series has been on other superhero stories.
Die Hard
Even when he ends up battling a helicopter with an 18-wheeler, John McClane comes out on top. If anything else, this series of action films, much like the Batman franchise, were a major influence on most shoot-em-up films that came afterwards. When two completely different TV shows (Alias and Buffy The Vampire Slayer) end up paying homage to a movie, you know that it's a major cultural touchstone. In the 20-plus years since Die Hard first came out and we were introduced to a novel concept (set an action movie in a relatively confined place and put a "regular" guy at the forefront), there have been scads of movies that are basically defined as Die Hard in a mall, Die Hard in a small town, and so on and so on. In some ways, none of the three films that followed the 1988 original are as good; all fall victim to seeming more like copycats than something truly new and different. Still, there's too much good blocking out the flaws of the series. Bruce Willis has never been more charming and charismatic than when he's John McClane, the average New York cop who ends up fighting some of the biggest bad guys in film. Though his most memorable nemesis showed up in the first film, McClane is too savvy and sarcastic to be put down. Of the other three films, I have a particular love for the first hour of Die Hard With A Vengeance and the whole of Live Free or Die Hard, but even Die Hard 2: Die Harder has some classic action scenes. Easily one of the best action series of all time, the Die Hard franchise always delivers the goods.
Terminator
It's a bit early to tell, but some of the previews for the forthcoming fourth film in the Terminator franchise, Terminator: Salvation, look incredible. Christian Bale makes the jump from one successful series to another, now starring as the man leading the human resistance against evil robots, John Connor. Still, we'll have to wait a couple weeks to see if this new film matches up to its predecessors, specifically the two helmed by James Cameron. The third film, Terminator: Rise of the Machines, was a solidly made action film, but after more than a decade, it paled a bit to the previous movies. The first film, released in 1984, helped launch James Cameron's career; the story was simple yet incredibly complicated: an average woman is targeted by a menacing man (who is, of course, not human) because she will one day give birth to the man who destroys all sentient robots. She's helped by a man named Kyle Reese, who's traveled from the future to protect her and also help her out a bit with the whole "giving birth to the head of the resistance" bit. The timelines in the series do get confusing, I know. The second film, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, didn't focus as much on timelines as it did on wall-to-wall action. The best of the series, and one of the best sci-fi films of all time, T2 focuses on the relationship between one of the Terminator robots (a good one, this time, played by future governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) and the young John Connor. Schwarzenegger and Edward Furlong, as Connor, sell some really sappy emotional moments very well, and Cameron brings some major heat to the action. Looking ahead to the new film, I'm excited but wary. This franchise is still great, and I wouldn't want it to be tampered with. For now, at least, the Terminator franchise is one of the best.
Indiana Jones
Now bear with me. As much as I grew to strongly dislike last summer's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I can't ignore the fact that the Indiana Jones series was classic before that film was released, and is still a classic to this day. We can go over what the fourth film in the series did wrong on another day (and we could start with Indy inside a refrigerator, if you like), but today, we look at the positive. The Indiana Jones series was originally a 1980s trilogy, films about the adventures of a daring archaeologist always looking to get his hands on treasured relics so they could be properly kept in museums as opposed to held by greedy thieves. Played by Harrison Ford (who had a nice string of movies starting with the Star Wars trilogy and this series), Jones is not only a breathtaking adventurer, but a great romantic lead, and witty to boot. Steven Spielberg, who directed the entire series, brought a love for old-style serials to this franchise, imbuing everything with a winking sense of fun. The first film, 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, is one of the great films of the past 30 years, filled with memorable action scenes, weaselly villains ("Nazis...I hate those guys"), and great chemistry between Ford and female lead Karen Allen; unfortunately, that chemistry was not revitalized last summer, but that's another story. Despite the many flaws of the fourth film, the Indiana Jones franchise lives on in its original three films, all of which are good or great; admit it, the mine train scene in Temple of Doom rules. Just pretend that Indy never stepped into that refrigerator.
Harry Potter
I'm making a fervent wish here that I'm proven right by this choice. Though the wildly popular Harry Potter franchise hasn't yet finished its run (with the sixth film coming out this July, and two final films to follow in 2010 and 2011), each of the films have a rare and unique quality: they're not only all good films, but they're all better than their predecessors. Though people do give a lot of hate to the series' first director, Chris Columbus, for making the films too faithful and rigid to the source material, his second and final time behind the camera, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, was a vast improvement in every way from the first film. The major leap into greatness, though, was made by Alfonso Cuaron, who helmed the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Though it kept some plotlines out and was shorter than the other films, Prisoner of Azkaban was strongly acted, colorful, and the direction was more fluid and open than anyone could have imagined. The following films improved even further, giving the lead characters a dose of realism that the fantastical story (about a boy wizard, but you knew that, didn't you?) couldn't automatically lend. David Yates, who took the reins for the fifth film and is behind the camera for the remaining installments, made Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix menacing, dark, and creepy while also having enough lightness so as to not damper everyone's mood. He also made the longest book in the Harry Potter series into the shortest, yet freshest film, which is no small feat. As a big fan, I can only hope that Yates and company will make the rest of the films as memorable and awesome as those that followed it. If the trend stays the same, I and the many other Harry Potter fans have nothing to worry about.