Which is the best active scifi blockbuster franchise?

[Flint Marko]

Is a continuity that collects individual franchises.

A franchise is a series of movies featuring the same characters or concepts, Thor The Dark World features none of the same characters or concepts as The Incredible Hulk so they are separate franchises. There's also the name factor, a franchise almost always has similiar titles with the character or franchise name in them (Spider-Man, Star Wars, Terminator, Planet/Apes, X-Men ect...) but Thor The Dark World in addition to not featuring anything Hulk has it's own title-ing separate & different from that other franchise.

If a person says they like the Captain America franchise that means they are referring to the two Cap movies, not them plus seven other non-Cap movies.

There's too many movies about different characters across the board for them all to be considered one franchise instead of a collection.

If you count them all as one then the Alien movies and Predator movies should be considered one franchise and the Tarantino movies all one franchise as they share a continuity. The reason they are not is that even though they share a continuity it doesn't make them all about the same characters or concepts so therefore they are viewed as individuals. The same should happen with the various MCU movies as they each are a franchise that tells an ongoing story about one set of characters, not of all of the others too

The Tarantinto films and Alien vs Predator movies are a completeley different animal and are not comparable to the MCU, as the MCU is a film series whose shared continuity is an integral piece of the puzzle and whose scope is completely unprecedented.
Off the top of my head, here are several websites that list the MCU as a franchise:

Spoiler

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s#Highest-grossing_franchises_and_film_series

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe

Note the official wikipedia entry defines it as a "shared continuity and media franchise", saying that it is a single entity.
You say you don't define it as a franchise because they are not about the same "characters or concepts", yet I'd argue that they all share the same concept: a movie universe with a shared continuity. That is the entire concept that drives the MCU, regardless of which specific characters are featured.
I understand you are defining it in your own terms and that is all well and good, I'm not going to try and tell you how to think. I just think it's more than fair for people to regard it as a single series or franchise.
To answer the original posts question, I'd say the MCU is the best active one. All the films are consistently good to great with many more in sight.

 

[Lord]

Nah, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and X-Men should each be counted as single franchises here, i don't think there's a need to give Iron Man, Cap, Wolverine, etc their oun parts in the poll each, that would also mean we'dd have to also separate Sinister six from Spider-Man later down the road.

Either way, Hunger Games, MCU, Transformers and James Bond are the only ones here i'dd truly consider A-Blockbusters, the others are either performing very well without realy breaking many records, MCU's main films (Avengers and probably Iron Man since it was the first) are making a lot of money, standing at the top of the box office right now, while the second tier franchises there are making B-Blockbuster kind of money.

I would say that Star Trek and Planet of the Apes are C-Level blockbusters, since they're doing business but not realy all that much, and not enought to be at the top 10 earners of the year. X-Men used to be in this spot, the the next Wolverine movie may end up in this category too.

This actualy gave me the interest of ranking the Hollywood Blockbusters, it would be:

A-Blockbusters: Usualy at the top of their respective years, for those with a 3D release they need to make around 1 Billion Worldwide (MCU, Hobbit, Despicable Me) or for those that don't have that, they do around 800 million (Hunger Games, Fast & Furious barely, Twilight film series).

B-Blockbusters: The ones that are still able to top at the Box-office but aren't popular enough to be considered A-film series, with some help they may become A-franchises like what happened with the MCU, the DC cinematic Universe will probably fall into that place, but as of now, based on what Man of Steel has made, it's still B. X-Men has just reched this place recently after some years of strugling.

Men in Black started as A, but the 2 sequels have been B-Level blockbuster films, Mission Impossible used to be considered strong A, but has quickly fallen into B around the 3rd film. Spider-Man used to be strong A back in Sam Raimi's era too, but isn't there anymore since the reboot.

C-Blockbusters: The more strugling ones, they have the risk that they are high budgeted, but don't make all that impressive business, and if they're not careful, can end up bombing. Star Trek and Narnia are solidified into this spot, so was X-Men before Days of Future Past since Origins, while Planet of the Apes is close to leaving it.

 

[Donut]

All of those franchises require fictional science and technology to tell their stories. These are all (soft) science fiction.

The same can be said for Bond & one movie does not make that franchise Sci-Fi

 

[Doppelganger]

None of the above?

In my eyes only Star Trek really is Science-Fiction and the modern Films may be good action but only bear the name Star Trek and not its "heart". That means I don't like them much ^.^
If you put in the old films then it is def. Star Trek for me but I can't be sure about Apes I have not seen it.

What about the Terminator Franchise isn't there a fifth film coming?

@ CyclopsWasRight And I disagree the MCU is one Franchise, because the characters share one universe and actions in one film have cosequences in others. If you want to play semantics (like me ) pick the most appropriate sub-franchise of the MCU.

 

[nocomics]

Far as 'Active' franchises to me the best:

The Hobbit
Captain America(though first one was ehh)
Wolverine(again first one was so-so, but second was good)
X-men(goes for two newest ones)
Transformers(it's up there, as well)

*I just couldn't get into the AS2 or HG2, I felt they fell off in some aspects imo.
*I don't consider James Bond a sci-fi franchise.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Far as 'Active' franchises to me the best:

The Hobbit
Captain America(though first one was ehh)
Wolverine(again first one was so-so, but second was good)
X-men(goes for two newest ones)
Transformers(it's up there, as well)

*I just couldn't get into the AS2 or HG2, I felt they fell off in some aspects imo.
*I don't consider James Bond a sci-fi franchise.

The Hobbit is fantasy.

 

[TalismanRing]

There was that Washington post article I posted a few months back. It explains why the politics of TWS are shallow.

I read it and disagreed not only with it's conclusions but thought it missed or misread several actual plot points in order to support it's conclusions. There were also quite a few articles, some written by political commentators on why it wasn't shallow and had current poli8tical meaning. To each their own.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

For clarification Arrow and Flash are in the same continuity, so that must make them one franchise, right?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

For clarification Arrow and Flash are in the same continuity, so that must make them one franchise, right?

Well if they were both part of a Justic League tv show, then yes.

Then again, I'm not sure tv shows are even considered franchises.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The Hobbit is fantasy.

Yeah, that's not Sci-Fi at all.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have a feeling if X-men didn't come from a comic book people would have no problem considering it sci-fi.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

That's the case with many superhero movies. Most Superhero movies and stories are either inherently Sci-Fi.

 

[Goopy Snake]

Well this thread turned horribly pedantic right quickly, didn't it?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Not at all. I think this discussion is interesting and the only thing that's pretty much not considered Sci-Fi is Bond, and I think most of us are in agreement with that.

 

[Goopy Snake]

I wrote an article years ago about the relationship between sci-fi and fantasy. My conclusion was that sci-fi is a subgenre of fantasy, which I call the Genre of What-Ifs.

I also asserted that having science in it was not enough. The science involved had to drive the plot (even if it's a soft science like sociology). Star Wars is fantasy, for instance, because it's a classic mythic tale with lightsabers substituted for swords and spaceships for boats. There are a lot of movies under that definition, though, that are clearly sci-fi even if not recognized as such. Examples include Clockwork Orange and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

But on a thread like this when we're just talking about a good line of movies? Pedantic.

 

[Tanin]

You wrote an entire article to point out the obvious about science fiction and you are calling this thread pedantic?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

There's nothing pedantic about this discussion now. There is a wide discussion on what's sci-fi and what isn't.

What's pedantic is your use of the aforementioned word, not to mention it's derailing the thread so you can brag about how you wrote an article a few years ago.

 

[Rocketman]

X-Men for me. The continuity errors (and yes, they are errors) actually have me fascinated because of the concept of alternate timelines/realities. It's probably the one franchise where bloopers/plot-holes/inconsistent writing make the whole thing cooler for me. In a weird way, the writers of the films were geniuses by accident. Plus, two of the seven films are below average, which is pretty impressive overall - not to mention that the seventh film in the series has been its best film. That's almost unheard of.

Out of all the poll choices, it's really no contest for me.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I would consider Star Wars sci-fi with elements of the paranormal (ghost, telekinesis) like Ghostbusters.

There is too much technology and futuristic components involved for it to be considered fantasy.

I'd say fantasy outright ignores grounding anything in science or technology (LOTR, Harry Potter).

 

[Lord]

What X-Men has been able through all these inconsistencies was indeed impressive, though Harry Potter actualy had a more impressive record of 8 consecutive above average movies, there are some weaker than others, i wasn't a big fan of the 5th film for example, but they were all realy good overall, though Harry Potter is not Science Fiction.

James Bond's the closest i can think of having had a similar situation, having 6 great films in a row when it started before Diamonds are Forever, which was a little disapointing with the exception of the Pre-credits bit and the killing duo, though Thunderball's aquatic scenes haven't aged very well, i remember being kinda bored by those.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

My ratios (no order):

X-Men - 5/7
Planet of The Apes - 5/7 (haven't seen Dawn of The Planet of The Apes yet)
Transformers - 1/3 (haven't seen the latest)
Star Trek - Only seen two but liked them both.
Amazing Spider-Man - 1.5/2
MCU - 4.5/9
Hunger Games - haven't seen any
James Bond - 19/23

 

[psylockolussus]

I think Alien deserves mention. Prometheus is a profoundly misunderstood and underappreciated movie, dismissed by an audience that is used to having every question the story raises answered in two hours.

I liked Prometheus!

I can understand Bond and maybe Spider-man but why not X-men or Hunger Games?

I always view The Hunger Games as an adventure series. Before I didn't really see X-Men as sci-fi like when there were only 2 films.

 

[Lord]

Prometheus had it's problems, but it was still a good movie, a definite step above Alien Resurrection and the AVP films

 

[:eek:]

I would consider Star Wars sci-fi with elements of the paranormal (ghost, telekinesis) like Ghostbusters.

There is too much technology and futuristic components involved for it to be considered fantasy.

I'd say fantasy outright ignores grounding anything in science or technology (LOTR, Harry Potter).

What makes Star Wars pure fantasy for me is that it isn't set in the future, but "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away" (and doesn't that have a "once upon a time"-vibe to it?). And in this galaxy we have aliens that look like humans and talk perfect english

 

[Lord]

Nah, it makes it a fairy tale inside the science fiction genre.