From: no@spamthank.s
RT wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>> "RT" wrote in message
>>> Your Name wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ian B" wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> As it goes, a far greater problem that this planet has is
>>>>> busybodies who confuse caring about other people with a duty to
>>>>> interfere with them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why the talentless scum in Hollyweird should NOT be
>>>> interferring in other people's work by destroying established
>>>> franchises. Yet again: if they want to make a new show, then make
>>>> a NEW show.
>>>
>>> Established franchise? How many Galactica franchise entries were
>>> there after the first series ended?
>>
>> If dsoesn't matter if there was only a single episode ... it's still
>> it's own entity and still it's own franchise.
>
> Wow. One episode is a franchise.
I have no idea what is supposed to be meant by "franchise" in this context
anyway. A franchise is when one person creates a brand and business model,
and sells others the right to run businesses bearing that brand, on that
business model.
So, if I create "Battlestar Galactica", then sell other people the rights to
make "Battlestar Galactica" series, movies, etc, then that would be
franchising. But even in the case of BSG, with more than one series having
been made, only one entity had the rights to use the brand at one time-
there weren't many operators running simultaneous BSGs, so at most it's
licensing, not franchising.
Star Trek isn't a franchise, even thouigh that seems to be where the term
started- "The Franchise". Star Trek is owned and made by Paramount (or
Desilu, or whoever owns it). If they sold James "New Voyages" Cawley a
license to make commercial Star Trek, under the brand, to a set formula,
then it'd be a franchise. But they specifically refuse to do that.
It seems "franchise" in this context now means simply, "TV show". It's
bizarre how our language gradually changes over time.
Ian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
