From: your.name@isp.com   
      
   "Ian B"  wrote in message   
   news:4b1f0280$0$2488$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...   
   > 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.   
      
   It usually gets complicated. "Battlestar Galactica" TV rights are owned by   
   the studio, which is why they started on the revival show that eventally   
   became Ron Moore's silly "reimagined" version ... but Glen Larsen apparently   
   still owns the cinema movie rights, which is why he's trying to make a movie   
   (at last report based on the original show).   
      
   BUT, a "franchise" doesn't really have anything to do with the rights and   
   who owns them, although rights are licensed out to novel publishers fro   
   example.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Not a TV show as such. "Franchise" (in this sense) is used to denote an   
   established a mostly-consistent "universe" of material - it can include   
   movies, TV shows, novels, comic books, toys, etc., etc.   
      
   For example, all the Star Trek movies, shows, novels, etc. make up the Star   
   Trek franchise(although the show "Enterprise" had to be retro-fitted at the   
   end to fit thanks to Beavis & Butthead's total incompetence) ... EXCEPT the   
   new JJ abrams movie, which being a silly "reboot" simply ignores what has   
   already been  establised and, at best, begins its own "sub-franchise".   
      
      
      
   > It seems "franchise" in this context now means simply, "TV show". It's   
   > bizarre how our language gradually changes over time.   
      
   Partly because Americans continually change the spelling and meaning of   
   words to suit themselves ... as we all know, America *is* the world, nothing   
   else exists, and Americans always know best.   :-\   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)