Which Movie or TV franchise has been destroyed the worst?

2»

Comments

  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,706
    So, in conclusion, I will say it is a three-way tie:
    1. Indiana Jones - For wasting most potential. Could have been a James Bond competitor, had they recast the title character in the 90s. Imagine if EON had been so obsessed with Connery that they refused to make any more films without him, yeah that would also have killed that franchise. Harrison Ford is not Indiana Jones, by pretending that he is, we get movies with 80-year old men pretending to be action heroes. Was never a huge fan of this franchise in the first place, but Raiders and Crusade are good enough.

    2. Star Wars - For destroying its own legacy the most. Was never a huge fan in the first place, but used to like the first two. Now with the amount of crap they have released, I can't even enjoy the first two. The mythology and fandom makes me sick.

    3. Marvel Cinematic Universe - For damaging film culture the most, and by dragging other promising franchises into a generic connected universe. The MCU itself was never any good in the first place though.

    For Indiana Jones, it wasn’t recasting that killed it. It was George Lucas and not giving up on aliens being in the 4th movie. I agree, Indy could have been Lucasfilm’s answer to James Bond. But they didn’t strike while the iron was hot. Now, don’t expect many Indy products for the foreseeable future.

    Star Wars fans killed it. When someone tried something different, they complain. When it’s similar, they complain. There’s no middle ground. It’s simple: if people complain, it’ll be about anything. No franchise was ever going to be more controversial and polarizing than Star Wars. And it’s all thanks to the “fans” who flip-flop on their opinions about their version of Star Wars.

    The MCU never gave its general audience a chance to breathe. When you have to be forced to watch a certain episode of a tv show to understand a character/plot point, that’s sad. There's WAY too many Marvel products out there, that I can't even read a Marvel comic book, because I'm tired of the brand (and it's cringe-worthy humor). If they had stuck to two movies a year, maybe a TV show once a year, people wouldn't be burned out. Now, the fans are in denial about people saying it's not cinema, or the fact that not everything is a hit from them. The MCU WAS cinema, at one time. Now, I think the general audience is tired of being scammed, like an abuse victim. The actors are spoiled brats, who are often too opinionated (Scarlett Johansson, Brie Larson, Simu Liu, Anthony Mackie, even Robert Downey Jr at times (Oscar night)). So we'll see what happens with it.

    So, this is just my viewpoints, I'm not right or wrong.
  • edited July 25 Posts: 1,471
    I don't think Indiana Jones could work like James Bond.

    1. There are no novels to adapt.

    2. They are period films. You can't make modern versions of the character
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited July 25 Posts: 4,706
    I don't think Indiana Jones could work like James Bond.

    1. There are no novels to adapt.

    2. They are period films. You can't make modern versions of the character

    1. There’s always an original screenplay option. There ARE also multiple novels of Indy.
    2. You don’t know until someone tries!
  • edited July 25 Posts: 1,471
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I don't think Indiana Jones could work like James Bond.

    1. There are no novels to adapt.

    2. They are period films. You can't make modern versions of the character

    1. There’s always an original screenplay option. There ARE also multiple novels of Indy.
    2. You don’t know until someone tries!

    1. But these novels came from the movies. Indiana Jones is a movie character after all. The original source is... well, Harrison Ford.

    2. No, you can't. ;) You can't do an update. It becomes Uncharted or the male version of Lara Croft.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,498
    What is interesting to me @Vinther1991 is the Marvel has had the most success with their films and yet they have weaker characters. DC has stronger and more iconic characters and has overall not fared well at the Box Office.

    It is interesting how some characters get associated with an actor and while that can be a good thing, it can harm future installments. Look at Inspector Clouseau, so tightly associated with Sellers. When he died Edwards didn't bother re-casting Clouseau, instead he tried to get different actors to play roles associated with the character. Inspector Sleigh and then son of Clouseau, none worked.

    Marvel, decided that Black Panther was too closely associated with Chadwick Boseman that they didn't recast him and decided to hand the Black Panther mantle to another character. Audiences didn't respond like they did with the first film. Was this because audiences only wanted Chadwick in the role? Or was the script inferior to the first film?

    Marvel jettisoned Chris Evans as Captain America, and Robert Downey as Iron Man. We will soon see if audiences accept Chris Mackie as Captain America in February of 2025. What will they do with Iron Man? There was chatter recently that Downey might be enticed back. If not, does the character never return to the films? They attempted to introduce Iron Heart in Black Panther 2 but I believe shelved a Disney plus series about her.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,276
    @MaxCasino's assessment of STAR WARS makes most sense to me. The prequels got fans to shout that George Lucas had messed up "their STAR WARS". When TFA gave them more of "their STAR WARS" they complained again because now it was too much of the same thing. But then TLJ once again didn't give them "their STAR WARS"... Meanwhile, Kathleen Kennedy was turning the series "too woke" and SOLO was "crap" and ... What a fickle bunch! Holy Maker.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,646
    thedove wrote: »
    It is interesting how some characters get associated with an actor and while that can be a good thing, it can harm future installments. Look at Inspector Clouseau, so tightly associated with Sellers. When he died Edwards didn't bother re-casting Clouseau

    Well, apart from getting a certain megastar named Roger Moore to play him of course! :)

    Don't forget Alan Arkin too, although that was bizarre and nothing to do with Edwards.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,276
    mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    It is interesting how some characters get associated with an actor and while that can be a good thing, it can harm future installments. Look at Inspector Clouseau, so tightly associated with Sellers. When he died Edwards didn't bother re-casting Clouseau

    Well, apart from getting a certain megastar named Roger Moore to play him of course! :)

    Don't forget Alan Arkin too, although that was bizarre and nothing to do with Edwards.

    I don't think Arkin was a bad choice necessarily but they put him in an odd film for sure. Incidentally, I don't really find much to appreciate in the entire series other than the first two films. I think the Clouseau films lost most of their charm after A Shot In The Dark.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 556
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair, I don't think spin offs in visual media like the Fantastic Beasts films would benefit Bond. There's a case to be made it'd weaken the main Bond films (ever so slightly anyway) due to viewers being exposed to too much Bond related stuff, especially if they're of lesser quality than the main films (that's seemingly what's happened with Star Wars anyway, and the Fantastic Beasts films have had diminishing returns).

    To be fair to EON as well, they've taken an active role in the recent reality show (not that I've heard stellar reviews of it, but oh well) and the new video game (which could potentially be successful and a nice way of engaging fans and new audiences before a film). But otherwise I'm glad we don't have spins offs of supporting Bond characters (I don't think anyone is crying out for a trilogy of prequel films about Judy Dench's M/her origin story).

    I don't think we have to worry about over-exposure with EON.
  • Posts: 1,471
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    It is interesting how some characters get associated with an actor and while that can be a good thing, it can harm future installments. Look at Inspector Clouseau, so tightly associated with Sellers. When he died Edwards didn't bother re-casting Clouseau

    Well, apart from getting a certain megastar named Roger Moore to play him of course! :)

    Don't forget Alan Arkin too, although that was bizarre and nothing to do with Edwards.

    I don't think Arkin was a bad choice necessarily but they put him in an odd film for sure. Incidentally, I don't really find much to appreciate in the entire series other than the first two films. I think the Clouseau films lost most of their charm after A Shot In The Dark.

    Arkin was The Pink Panther's Lazenby. It's funny because the same thing probably would have happened with Bond if Connery hadn't refused to continue making movies after DAF.

  • Posts: 6,025
    In France, that would be OSS117. It started as a series of straight, serious spy novels featuring an american agent for the CIA (formerly for the OSS, hence his codename). The movies were rather serious (although in the Bond style). Then came the Jean Dujardin movies which were straight out parodies, featuring him as a moron, and French to boot. They were successful, I grant them that, but they were not the OSS 117 of my youth.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited July 28 Posts: 5,498
    @MaxCasino you make an interesting point about fans. They want the same, but slightly different. Star Wars found itself in the cross hairs a bit because Force Awakens was seen as having the same story beats of New Hope. Then Rian goes and does something very different, was it in relation to the fans saying they didn't like Force OR was he always planning on doing this? Then JJ has to come back in and somehow make the whole thing coherent.

    I had heard that Lucas had some story ideas for a final three films. Not sure why they didn't use them or even if they existed. I recall an interview in the 80's where Hamill saying they might get asked back in 20-30 years to make the next set of films.

    Fans can really hog tie a series. I recall Temple of Doom getting slammed because it was too dark. So the producers revert to a Raiders style movie for Crusade and fans are happy. They add in the Father to give it a different focus but the beats are very similar to Raiders.

    With Clouseau Sellers did wish to do the character again, which Edwards then said he wasn't doing one with Sellers. The film flopped and soon both Sellers and Edwards were enticed to return. In that instance, they almost followed the James Bond format. Gone were the small plots about murder now we had villains wanted to destroy the world. All semblance of logic was gone as Dreyfus was evaporated at the end of one film, only to return in the next installment. Crazy how outlandish it all got.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    thedove wrote: »
    @MaxCasino you make an interesting point about fans. They want the same, but slightly different. Star Wars found itself in the cross hairs a bit because Force Awakens was seen as having the same story beats of New Hope. Then Rian goes and does something very different, was it in relation to the fans saying they didn't like Force OR was he always planning on doing this? Then JJ has to come back in and somehow make the whole thing coherent.

    I had heard that Lucas had some story ideas for a final three films. Not sure why they didn't use them or even if they existed. I recall an interview in the 80's where Hamill saying they might get asked back in 20-30 years to make the next set of films.

    Fans can really hog tie a series. I recall Temple of Doom getting slammed because it was too dark. So the producers revert to a Raiders style movie for Crusade and fans are happy. They add in the Father to give it a different focus but the beats are very similar to Raiders.

    With Clouseau Sellers did wish to do the character again, which Edwards then said he wasn't doing one with Sellers. The film flopped and soon both Sellers and Edwards were enticed to return. In that instance, they almost followed the James Bond format. Gone were the small plots about murder now we had villains wanted to destroy the world. All semblance of logic was gone as Dreyfus was evaporated at the end of one film, only to return in the next installment. Crazy how outlandish it all got.

    Some series are a product of the time they are made. Derek Flint and Clouseau in the '60s. Star Wars and Indiana Jones should have stayed in the '70s and '80s.

    We are fortunate that Bond films transcended their original time period. But not every franchise should.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Things were looking bleak for Game of Thrones, but luckily House of the Dragon was able to stabilise the reputation and we've got more spin offs on the way, at least one currently in production.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited July 29 Posts: 25,460
    I will likely never forgive GOT S8 though having just watched House of the Dragon S2 Ep7 which was phenomenal, one of the greatest things I have seen in the genre the GOT universe is not on the list of Which Movie or TV franchise has been destroyed the worst? for me.

    This episode of HOTD had me thinking of LOTR, Excalibur and 2001 it was that good, the acting is brilliant Emma D'Arcy as Queen Rhaenyra has really impressed me.

    House of the Dragon is peak level story telling and acting, Wow! My eyes welled up several times because I knew I was watching greatness. Going to have to watch the last few minutes of this episode again, absolutely amazing.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 490
    Gerard wrote: »
    In France, that would be OSS117. It started as a series of straight, serious spy novels featuring an american agent for the CIA (formerly for the OSS, hence his codename). The movies were rather serious (although in the Bond style). Then came the Jean Dujardin movies which were straight out parodies, featuring him as a moron, and French to boot. They were successful, I grant them that, but they were not the OSS 117 of my youth.

    OSS became boring quite fast and is mostly (and not so fondly) remembered as a cheap and wooden French answer to Bond, even if OSS 117 actually predated Bond. There wasn't much for Hazanavicius and Dujardin to destroy, as the franchise had never been great in the first place. It's like saying that Alphaville killed Lemmy Caution (while these movies didn't take seriously at least). However, the third film in the "reboot", the one directed by Nicolas Bedos (Hazanavicius didn't bother to return as he felt that the script offered to him was weak and that everything had been told about the character) definitely killed the franchise.

    To me, the epitome of a franchise destroyed is Sherlock. The fourth season wasn't just bad, due to gratuitous fan service and poor plots, it had a few retcons that were disastrous and made me lose any interest in rewatching the early episodes. It was even worse to me than the fifth season of Arrested Development.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,276
    Gerard wrote: »
    In France, that would be OSS117. It started as a series of straight, serious spy novels featuring an american agent for the CIA (formerly for the OSS, hence his codename). The movies were rather serious (although in the Bond style). Then came the Jean Dujardin movies which were straight out parodies, featuring him as a moron, and French to boot. They were successful, I grant them that, but they were not the OSS 117 of my youth.

    OSS became boring quite fast and is mostly (and not so fondly) remembered as a cheap and wooden French answer to Bond, even if OSS 117 actually predated Bond. There wasn't much for Hazanavicius and Dujardin to destroy, as the franchise had never been great in the first place. It's like saying that Alphaville killed Lemmy Caution (while these movies didn't take seriously at least). However, the third film in the "reboot", the one directed by Nicolas Bedos (Hazanavicius didn't bother to return as he felt that the script offered to him was weak and that everything had been told about the character) definitely killed the franchise.

    To me, the epitome of a franchise destroyed is Sherlock. The fourth season wasn't just bad, due to gratuitous fan service and poor plots, it had a few retcons that were disastrous and made me lose any interest in rewatching the early episodes. It was even worse to me than the fifth season of Arrested Development.

    Season 5 of Arrested Development wasn't that bad, now was it? 😉
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 490
    Season 5 of AD was awful, and I say this as someone who loved the original run and enjoyed the ambition of season 4.
    The pacing was way off. Original AD would cram a lot of jokes into one episode, with some foreshadowing that easily went with the flow. Season 4 would have a lot of delayed reveals, harmed by but also taking advantage of the unusual structure. Season 5 would heavily tease us with a single joke over a couple of episodes about, for instance, the "Guilty Guys" team, but the payoff was abyssal. Then, learning how miserable the cast had been and how Jessica Walter ended up being abused, it necessarily leaves a sour aftertaste. It's as if Mitchell Hurwitz didn't know how to write comedy anymore.

    Seeing Star Trek among the examples here make me raise my (not Vulcan) eyebrows. Star Trek is the very example of a franchise which has its ups and downs. It has been destroyed and rebuilt repeatedly. Season 3 of the original series was terrible, ST The Motion Picture was boring as hell, the first two seasons of TNG were a misfire, ST V The Final Frontier was poorly executed, etc. Yet, the franchise still managed to achieve a lot of stuff in between and after. Even current Star Trek, where Discovery was plagued by a lot of issues and Picard sucked for something like two seasons and a third, there's Strange New Worlds or Lower Decks being extremely enjoyable.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,403
    There was an alchemy to the initial casting of TNG that worked instantly even if they weren't/aren't the best actors. It felt like a theater company, anchored of course by Stewart, who is strangely underrated to this day.
Sign In or Register to comment.