(Guest Post by B.J. Bethel)
The Atlantic Monthly recently ranked its top 50 movie franchises of all time. The ranking was a response to the rather absurd list done by Yahoo.
What made Yahoo’s list absurd? It took non-adjusted box office totals as the sole factor in determining the best franchise. Harry Potter walked away easily because 1.) All of the Potter movies have been released recently and took advantage of inflation and 2.) The Potter series has released 250 movies, or so it feels like. According to that rationale, “Gigli” would be considered more successful than most anything released over 30 years ago.
The Atlantic list took into consideration inflation-adjusted box office totals as well as critical reception. It factored in the latter by averaging scores from Rotten Tomatoes. Not all together the most accurate form of determining the top franchise, but better than the Yahoo formula, or non-formula.
Here’s what The Atlantic list concluded:
- Taking into account combined box office totals and critical reception; Indiana Jones is the top movie franchise of all time.
- Harrison Ford, unsurprisingly, is the top franchise actor, scoring with “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones” and the Jack Ryan movies.
- Some studios may rue some of the decisions they have made. “Spider-Man” clocks impressively in at third, behind “Indiana Jones” and “Toy Story.” This is important because the franchise is being “re-imagined” in a quasi-”Twilight” manner. How did “Twilight” do? It was 33rd.
Basing critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes averages is problematic. For one, Rotten Tomatoes averages are purely black and white and don’t take medium (think two to two-and-a-half star) reviews, only rotten or fresh. Revisiting some of these reviews is laughable. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” had a 77-percent rating – take away the fedora-encrusted goggles of squirming fanboy-nerds scurrying to the showing for the first “Indiana Jones” movie in 20 years, it would be lucky to collect half that in retrospect.
The same can be said for the “Star Wars” prequels, where goodwill helped immensely.
Yes, lists are “dumb” and are inventions to drive discussion and website hits. To that extent, they always work. But given the importance of franchises in contemporary film, considering their role in movies and culture is a must and deserves to be examined.
How do we examine? I would judge franchises based on several key factors The Atlantic doesn’t consider.
Influence: How did the franchise influence movie making? What impression did it make on the cinema of its time? In this regard it’s much easier to judge past franchises like “The Godfather” and early “Star Wars,” but clearly more contemporary work like “The Matrix,” Christopher Nolan’s Batman and other movies can be judged, both positively and negatively, on this account.
The Zeitgeist: How did the culture react to the franchise? Was the franchise a passing fad or was there something deeper and longer lasting at work. This would be the difference between something fly-by-night (“Twilight,” perhaps?) or something that became embedded in the culture (“Star Wars”).
The Genre: Clearly, “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones,” “Spider-Man,” “Toy Story” and “Die Hard” had special roles as high-points of their particular genre (fantasy, adventure, comic book, animation, action). Most of these movies re-invented their genres to a certain extent.
Box office can be a tool to judge several of these factors, and that is one aspect The Atlantic did well at, comparing box office receipts of other films of the same year.
Taking those factors into consideration, you can see the history of cinema the last several decades. Everyone’s vantage point is different, but given my favorite genres, my list would go:
- “Star Wars”
- “Die Hard”
- “Indiana Jones”
- “Spider-Man”
- “Back to the Future”
Agree? Disagree? In the words of one franchise character, “Let the hate flow.”
(Photo: The “Harry Potter” franchise, no matter how you crunch the numbers, is one of the biggest film franchises in modern history. But does it rank first?/Warner Bros.)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Maybe Indiana Jones And the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull has a 77% rating at Rotten Tomatoes because – wait for it – people actually like the movie.
I know that’s hard to believe, because the Lucas bashers of the interweb (who are still pissing and moaning after 11 years about how Phantom Manace destroyed thier lives) have made it unpopular to actually like anything Mr. Lucas has a hand in in the new millenium.
Where’s the love for Lord of the Rings?
Where’s the love for The Godfather?
(The Godfather is the first film to spawn it’s following films with the #2, or #3).
Indiana Jones (trilogy)
Star Wars (1977-1983)
Lord of the Rings
Back to the Future
Die Hard
Would include Lethal Weapons if 4 would have never reared its ugly, ugly head.
Scratch Die Hard from my list and I just kicked my own ass for failing to mention the Rocky franchise before. Thanks to the damn Ewoks, I’ll even make it my number 2.
I would tend to agree. It seemed like Yahoo was jumping on the Harry Potter bandwagon because “that was the cool thing to do” with no reguard for facts or figures. But again, like you said, who cares? It means nothing.
I would the Bond films in there although they may not be franchise’s per say. What makes the Bond films good, and how they differ from others is that each film can be viewed independently. You don’t need a whole backstory or other film to get what’s happening. That’s nice.