Talk:Film series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General inclusion guidelines proposal[edit]

  1. Each series gets listed only once. Please do not spread a film series across multiple lists. For example, the Star Wars series is an ennealogy, so please only list it there.
  2. Link the film series to the film series article, and if the article is named correctly, it should be [[<film series title> (film series)|]]. If there is no article about the series, then leave it unlinked.

At least a start on getting these lists in order. - LA (T) 22:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Star Wars... what about The Clone Wars? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know about that film, so now it is a decology. - LA (T) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress so far on the clean-up[edit]

  1. Template for the film series lists was rewritten.
  2. Duplicate entries across various lists removal has begun.
    • Star Wars removed from hexologies.
    • All the Kamen Rider entries I could find have been merged into one list.
    • Pink Panther split between old series and new series.
    • Several series updated with new information.

More has been done, so please see the edit histories. - LA (T) 06:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have found all of the Godzilla, Gamera, Mothra, and Super Sentai entries and have merged them. At least I hope that I have. - LA (T) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nomenclature and numbering conventions[edit]

The necessity of having these articles aside, I have massive issues with the terms used to describe these articles. I don't hold the opinion that you can just take the Greek structure of the word "trilogy", which is a word in the English language, and apply it to numbers of other series, just to make up a word. I really think that these should all be renamed to something like "film series with X entries". Especially given that these cod-Greek words would imply some kind of narrative, artistic or creative coherence, or a have a coherent theme throughout. When you look at the list of two films, whilst i accept that Before Sunset and Before Sunrise or Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile could form a coherent "Duology" (should such a word exist), I don't accept that I Dream of Jeannie: 15 Years Later (1985) (TV) and I Still Dream of Jeannie (1991) (TV) form anything more than a series of two TV movies. For these reasons, and to avoid further controversies, what is wrong with using a simple English numbering system?

Number in series Series type
2 in a series This is the one I have the most problem with. Words bandied around for this include "Duology" and "Dilogy". "Dilogy" has the dictionary definition "An ambiguous speech; a figure in which a word is used an equivocal sense." "Duology" (not a dictionary-defined word) does not follow the naming conventions used elsewhere on this article, as it mixes te Latin "Duo-" with the Greek "-logy", not using pure Greek like everything else.
3 in a series Trilogy is clearly acceptable, but only if it is to be used then it is okay for the three Lord of the Rings films, but not for 3-film series with more spurious connections, like the SpongeBob Squarepants entry
4 in a series Tetralogy is just about acceptable. Same as above.
5 in a series Pentalogy - dubious
6 in a series Hexology - just following the same numbering conventions (although shouldn't it be Hexalogy? Hexology sounds like the studying of Witches)
7 in a series Heptalogy - just following the same numbering conventions
8 in a series Octology - just following the same numbering conventions (although shouldn't it be Octalogy?)
9 in a series Ennealogy - just following the same numbering conventions
10 in a series Decology - again just following the same numbering conventions (although shouldn't it be Decalogy?)

etc, etc!

I see now that some one has moved "decalogies and larger", to "polylogies". This making up of words is getting ridiculous now - but in any case, as "poly-", simply means many in Greek, then all of the preceding are also "polylogies"

Anyway, that's my rant. Just to summarise, if these articles MUST exist, then surely a non-controversial numbering system should be used. Robsinden (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duology, Hexology[edit]

The term "hexology" appears in no dictionary but Wiktionary, where it is unreferenced. A search on Google Books [1] reveals that "hexalogy" means a series of six novels, while "hexology" [2] means the study of hex signs. I have moved List of film hexologies to List of film hexalogies in accordance.

The term "duology" has no accepted precedent, and is an improper linguistic construction. The historical term dilogy has sometimes been avoided (because of its dual meaning of "doubtful speech" > di-, two + -logy, word) in favor of the simple "sequel". However, since all of the "List of film –logies" pages are a List of film sequels, I have hazarded the (I find improbable) confusion and moved List of film duologies to List of film dilogies. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "duology" is not a word, but would also point out there is no dual meaning of "dilogy" - there is no definition for "dilogy" to mean a series of works of art. you may as well use "biology"!! therefore have moved to "list of film series with two entries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to stay with duology as it is the term that is more used to define a series of two works. I know that Google searches don't mean much but with a company like Amazon.com using the term duology, that makes it more acceptable. The word does not appear to be a neologism, as it appears to have been used as far back as 1983, maybe even farther. It may not be in Websters yet, however, the term has existed for around 25 years to describe a series of two works. LA (T) @ 20:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you wouldn't use quadrilogy to describe a tetralogy, and quadrilogy has the same kind of roots as duology. fact remains that it isn't a word. in fact quadrilogy probably has more clout as it has been used on promotional materials. just because amazon use it, doesn't make it a word. would like to see a verified source of the use. prove me wrong! Robsinden (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually the more i look at this, the less i think that anything in the nomenclature is an actual word.Robsinden (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say duology (and all the other words) is clearly a neologism, no matter how old the term is; it's a word or phrase that is used that hasn't been entered into the dictionary. In fact, if it has been around so long, then maybe the question shoud be why the editors of the dictionaries have decided not to include it? Also, interesting to note, that Amazon and other web searches for duology only seem to come up mostly for science fiction novels, and hardly any for any other genre media. perhaps the word is acceptable in science fiction circles, but i would say that it isn't for the English Language at large. Robsinden (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming[edit]

Please see and respond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Regarding_the_word_.22duology.22

Would propose a move of these articles to "list of films with X entries", also see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Film_series

Robsinden (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move all pages. @harej 02:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of film duologies → List of film series with two entries — Does not refer to what could be described as a coherent "duology", more just a series of films. "Duology" and the mooted "Dilogy" not dictionary defined words, subject to some controversy, and do not really follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films) Robsinden (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just now skimmed over some of the debate above, and on a couple of the linked to talk and article pages. My "first impression" of this issue (I haven't seen this prior to just now) is that "duology" should re replaced with "series", and the use of "trilogy" should be retained (regardless of current lexographer acceptance, it's obvious that the use of "trilogy" to describe a series of three creative works is widespread in recent English). All of the other creations seem very much like someone's (or a group of "someone's") original creations, so I think a case could be made to delete all of them. less drastic solution would be to merge them into a single "List of Series longer then trilogies", or something like that... I don't really know how well developed the tetralogies, etc... lists are though, so keep that in mind when you read this.
    — V = I * R (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that "trilogy" is widespread, but specifically in this case think the list should be renamed, as it is not always used to describe what would be perceived as true coherent "trilogies" - Robsinden (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a content issue, which should be addressed separately on Talk:List of film trilogies.
    — V = I * R (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was proposing multiple movements, thought that the above was correct procedure as per Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves.
    - Robsinden (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per past discussions to avoid such convoluted wording for film series. "List of film series with three entries" is better than "List of film trilogies" because many of the so-called trilogies are just one film after another, not a predetermined set like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. So "List of film series with three entries" should encompass predetermined trilogies and film series that just happen to have three entries. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess what I'm failing to understand here is the distinction that is being drawn between "just one film after another" and "a predetermined set"... As I said above, this seems to me to be a separate content issue, for which discussion should occur separately on the Talk:List of film trilogies page. I don't see how this point relates to this "multiple move" discussion, basically.
    — V = I * R (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If "List of film trilogies" is moved to "..series with three entries" along with everything else, then this isn't an issue. Only reason it's getting special mention is that it is an accepted word unlike most of the others. If you were to accept "octalogy" as a word, then few of the entries in that category would count as an actual "octalogy", merely a series. ie - "List of film trilogies" would be a very different list to "List of film series with three entries". The list in question is better described by the latter title than the former. Think what I'm trying to say is that all the above moves should be treated the same, even "trilogy", which may prove a sticking point for some. Robsinden (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The point relates to this discussion because if we don't name it, it's inconsistent. Yes, "trilogy" is the most acceptable word for a specific grouping of films, but in some cases, three films with the same subject matter don't make a trilogy, like the Ace Ventura films. Also, there were three Final Destination films which could be said to be a trilogy, but with the new one coming out, it makes four. So I think for consistency and to avoid limitations of the definition of "trilogy", "List of film series with three entries". —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems apparent to me that "consistency" is being taken to an unsupportable extreme in this case. This issue seems to obviously have come about due to the odd and unsourced use of "octalogy" and "duology", so my recommendation is to stick to dealing with those issues. "Trilogy" is obviously different, and there deserves some "special treatment". Attempting to override what you yourselves seem to admit the rest of the world uses "trilogy" in order to describe a "series of three films" is a fools erred. Even if consensus were managed to be established to change "trilogy", any such consensus seems extremely unlikely to "stick".
    As an exercise, if I had unfettered control over this issue then my decision would be to merge all except "list of trilogies" into an overall "list of film series" article. "List of trilogies" could then serve as a subpage off of the main "list of film series" article. The added benefit to this sort of solution is that, based on discussion which should subsequently occur on Talk:List of film trilogies, some items on the List of film trilogies page could be moved to the "series with three entries" section (which would include a {{Main}} link to List of film trilogies) on the main List of film series article. Everyone wind, eventually.
    — V = I * R (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I don't disagree with the arguments for a single list, I think there's a danger of the list being too long. And I think if "trilogies" was allowed to stay or co-exist, then there maybe too many arguments between editors as to what constitutes a trilogy or merely a series of three, so the non-controversial "series" should be used. --Robsinden (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, 6 months from now you're much more likely to be continuing to deal with this then I am, so really it's up to you. If I, as a completely uninvolved third party editor prior to this movereq, can give you some pause to consider alternatives though, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that the original proposal may need to be modified in some fashion? The core of my suggestion above is to consolidate to a hub and spoke style; the actual details of the implementation for such a resolution should of course be discussed before hand. The main point is that there's nothing to really inhibit your choices of resolutions. The main rational for the hub and spoke style is to prevent "trilogy" becoming an issue latter on, as well.
    — V = I * R (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of whether using the Greek is correct or incorrect, understandable or pedantic, we should say "series with [number] entries" rather than "[Greek number]ology" because this is closer to our actual meaning. If the studio had stopped making/lost interest in the Harry Potter movies after Prisoner of Azkaban, then they would have a film series with three entries. This series would not, however, be a trilogy, because it would not have the rise and fall of a film series meant to be completed in three entries. Right now, the Narnia films are not a duology/dilogy, even though there are two of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would like to take this opportunity to make a comment. I think articles with lists like these help Wikipedia cross the line from being a worthwhile educational reference source to a collection of fluff and trivia. Only the most fanatic of film buffs is going to have any interest in List of film polylogies, which includes a list of sixteen Marx Brothers movies. If the common bond that allows these sixteen films to qualify as a series is the Marx Brothers, then doesn't it stand to reason one could create lists of Katharine Hepburn/Spencer Tracy, Myrna Loy/William Powell, and Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney films and label them a series? (Thin Man and Andy Hardy titles could constitute a series, but I don't think the complete Loy/Powell and Garland/Rooney filmographies would qualify based solely on their appearances in them.) I realize the discussion here is to support or oppose, not delete, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing some of these articles disappear completely. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree more. I can't think (off the top of my head anyway) of a single Marx Brothers movie that forms any kind of "series" with another one. However, this is an issue for the individual page: the point here being is that we shouldn't allow such a "series" to be called a "hexadecalogy" or somesuch. The validity of the entries can be dealt with separately. ---Robsinden (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    btw, I've tried nominating for deletion but consensus is that they should stay. therefore, I think that rationalisation is in order. --- Robsinden (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support more idiomatic titles; in addition, they allow a much wider inclusion criteria for the articles, as—for example—not all films series with three films are narrative trilogies. Steve T • C 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What should be included in a series of films?[edit]

I think more thought needs to be given as to what actually counts as part of a series in these lists. One thing that keeps happening is that remakes or reboots are added to lists of films, also films that use the same characters but are not part of the same film series are included in the same lists. Examples include the 1940s Dick Tracy film series, which this morning had the 1990 film added to the list, and the two Batman series (the Burton / Schumacher series and the Nolan series) had been moved to series of 6 films, despite their being two separate series.

Another thing that seems to be a bit muddy seems to be films attached to television shows, or spin-offs. I think that TV movies that are continuations of TV shows should not be included, as they do not form a film series in their own right, as they effectively are continuations of the TV show. Dukes of Hazard being one example, I Dream of Jeannie another. There are many more on the lists.

We should come up with some clear guidelines as to what should be considered parts of series, and what should not.

Any input anyone?

Robsinden (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following my !vote at the CfD for categories of lists of film series, I believe that the issue is too muddy to have adequate lists of film series that have x entries. We should consider merging to one list; while it will be long, we can discuss how to compress titles of film series to better use existing white space. Maybe what we can do for some film series is to create list articles that are a little more detailed. For example, looking at List of film series with nine entries, we could create List of Air Bud films in a table with the titles, release years, directors, stars, and related notes. Repeat process with the rest of them and sidestep the "x entries" issue altogether. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that remakes/reboots/reimaginings/re-whateverelsetheywanttocallit need to be pruned from the lists. From above, you should see that I have valiantly tried to have each series have only 1 entry on these lists.
Batman does need to be split, with the more modern series added to duologies and the older series added to tetralogies.
Television film series are relevant and should be included on this list, no matter what. The Babylon 5 films, Cagney & Lacey films, and even the In the Heat of the Night films (both series, the original series lead to a television series which lead to another series of films based on the television series) all deserve a spot on these lists.
There was a direct Dukes of Hazard film based on the television series, then there was the spoof film. Those are not a series.
I would have to look into I Dream of Jeanie.
To merge these into one list is absolutely insane. Sorry, I tried to find a way to be nice, but I failed.
If you want to create articles for each film series, I see no problem. However, if all you do is make hundreds of little lists then we have a problem. Every duology's list would be in AFD, some even speedied, so fast that one's neck would break from the whiplash. The trilogies and tetralogies lists would suffer the same fate. Even pentalogies would have a hard time being kept. So, you had all of these lists that are now deleted, meaning that a significant number of your links on the main list become red. Then the main list would get deleted due to those red links.
Do not create List of Air Bud films, create Air Bud (film series) and make it an article instead. If you go the article route, have fun writing the hundreds of articles needed so you can merge these lists. Who will write Sister Act (film series) for that duology?
You already got your simple titles? Can't you leave the rest as not simple? I was too late to show a precedent for keeping the titles as they were.
One last thought, when you are writing the big list in your sandboxes, remember to plug a phone line into your computer and load it over dial-up. Why do you think I burst them in the first place? LA (T) @ 07:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're suggesting a film series article instead of a list article for Air Bud films? I highly doubt there will be much to write about such a series, same for the series that have an overall topic but mostly red links. We do not have to create lists for all film series, just the very long ones. Some lists can also exist in sections of broader articles, like Batman franchise media. My problem with the current lists of film series is that the criteria will vary. I mean, why should remakes be excluded? In some cases, the rights for the story were reacquired, and it's the overall same subject matter. There should be a way to move away from the nebulous "counter" of films in film series, though I agree that a single list is too overwhelming. I suppose what I had in mind was a "List of lists of film series" kind of thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Air Bud (film series) should be more than a straight list. There would be a section for the films with a blurb about each, common characters (Bud and whoever else), common cast and crew (more than two films), a section about the dogs used in the films, the film series overall performance in the box office, etc etc etc. I don't know since I have never watched any of them.
The criteria has always been the same: A series of films which share the same reality or are marketed as a series. So, Batman (1989 film series), Batman (1993 film series), and Batman (2005 film series) are three different series of films because they have been marketed as such. The same applies to Halloween (1978 film series) and Halloween (2007 film series). All of the Star Wars films share the same reality, so they all get listed together, though users keep tearing that series apart for some reason I can not understand. I had problems keeping Alien vs. Predator together and A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th together. Both groups of films crossed over creating one large series. I compromised and created List of film crossovers, which is also part of this project.
A straight list of films from one series would be more than likely deleted in AFD. So, articles are warranted. Even a straight list of Star Trek films would be deleted rather quickly, and there are 10 or 11 films in that one (the last film is in an alternate reality which is still tied to the original reality, I think).
If you are looking for a list of film lists, see Lists of films. You could create a spin-off list of film series with articles, though I am not sure how long that would last in AFD either. Any series with an article about the series should already be linked in the lists as they are now. Any red links should be unlinked. Another list that is part of this is List of film remakes. LA (T) @ 09:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there precedent for such lists going to AFD? It seems that lists covering notable subject matter would be easily kept. Not all film series will necessitate an article covering them in general, like I believe is the case with the Air Bud films. Maybe there can be an evolutionary process where if the article grows enough in prose, it can move from "List of..." to "...(film series)". In addition, regarding the Star Wars examples, there are more minor films that don't belong with the two big-name trilogies. I don't find it realistic to classify them under a "film series" per se... a list would suffice in identifying all of them without worrying about whether or not they are successors/predecessors in a film series. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother, when are people going to get it right, Star Wars is ONE SERIES. There are no little sub-series in it. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever read anywhere. So what if the bloody first three episodes were made after the last three? They are numerated 1-6, the other films are also part of the exact same series! The cartoon films were cut-ups of the television series, so don't count as individual films. The Clone Wars is supposedly in the same shared reality, so counts towards the singular series. Stop the insanity and list them all together including the Ewok films and Holiday Special. Listing then separately is the epidamy of cruft.
Short lists of films like for series like Air Bud would probably get deleted rather quickly. I think there are only like four of them, but I don't know the series, so I may be wrong. I haven't looked at the lists in quite a while, ever since my last great clean up. And you still haven't covered your plan for duologies, trilogies, tetralogies, and pentalogies. They would die quick deaths if they were all given seperate lists for each series. LA (T) @ 08:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always interesting to see how people's opinions of Star Wars differ. Back when these lists were called "trilogies", etc, it was quite clear to me that Star Wars should have been in the "Trilogy" list twice, and not in the "Hexalogy" list. However, now these are lists of film series, my personal view is the Star Wars belongs in the 6-list. I would not count the Spin-off Ewok series as part of the main film series, just like "Supergirl" would not be counted as part of the "Superman" film series, despite existing in the same universe. In my view, the "Star Wars Holiday Special", should on no account be included in the film series, a novelty spin-off TV Christmas variety special that has been disowned by George Lucas, and "The Clone Wars" should be seen as a separate series with the cartoon TV series with the same name. So 'Star Wars' = SIX films. But this is just my opinion, and the above is my reasoning. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion too, and this is probably why things like the Batman movies keep being moved around. Merging to one long list would avoid this problem, as explanations could be given - ie spinoff, etc, but completely impractical. I don't know what the answer is. Did I miss any Star Wars films by the way?  :) Robsinden (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aleena, please be more civil when responding to other editors. All of us are trying to build a better encyclopedia here, and it's not conducive to write another editor's opinion off as an "idiotic thing". Let me try to explain what I mean. The word "series" does not have any criteria established, and I am trying to avoid the terminology altogether. For example, you dismiss the cartoon films as not part of the series. Are you saying that the Christmas Special counts as part of it? It seems to me to be too nebulous to define what "series" means since there are so many different approaches in franchises -- remakes, reboots, pad-on films, etc. So for the Star Wars example, it seems to me that it is better to list all the films and not imply a series for them. We can identify the parts of the two unequivocal trilogies in a "Notes" column of a table listing all the films. Such lists do not have to be stand-alone; they can be in sections in broader articles. It's a proposal to deprecate the application of "series" (not in its entirety, but where it does not work). I'm still not sure what to do about the groups of films that do not have many entries... any ideas? I'm less and less for the lists of film series with x entries because with the criteria being so nebulous, nobody will know what to expect in each list and a portion will tend to agree, like with the examples we've discussed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be becoming more and more likely that the only way to keep the information from being moved from one page to another is to merge, but how do we deal with the unmanageable size of the page. I tried looking at the 2-film series on my mobile phone and that took an awfully long time to load (via wireless internet too, not dialup). However, this would then allow editors to list spin-off movies, without the need to clarify the number of films that form the series. It also allows for (for example) the Batman films to be listed together, so whether you think this is one series or two doesn't matter. "Supergirl" can be listed alongside the "Superman" movies, but doesn't need to give a definitive answer as to whether this is part of the film or not. Hang on though, we're just repeating information that can be found on the pages for the film series themselves - this brings us back to the question as to whether this list needs to even exist. If it's going to be so troublesome, or too big, does it not outlive its usefulness? Just a thought... Robsinden (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and while I'm here - there seems to be quite a few 2010-2011 films that are really only in the pre-production stages being added to these lists, thus moving them from the numbered page you'd expect to find them on. I removed a Superman film for 2011 this morning! Robsinden (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking about the undecologies and above. Most of them already have pages for those lists. There are only three that don't. I am not happy with this, but that list can be shortened to just the lists of the series without the individual films listed. I was planning on doing that with the unicosologies on up anyway. Gamera, Pokémon, and Hesokuri shacho would need lists made. It would be better if duologies to decologies stay seperate. I just looked at List of film crossovers and cringed. That list is a mess of non-crossovers. As far as I know neither Batman series has crossed with the Superman series on film.
I apologize for my previous tone, but I felt and still feel very strongly about the issue. LA (T) @ 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that "Disney Live Action Reimaginings" fits the criteria of this article/list. Those movies are a collection of live-action adaptations with no form of series and/or no inclusive story arc. Mespinola (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future Speculation[edit]

There have been a lot of edits in the lists overnight for films that have not yet been released - Beverley Hills Cop has been moved from three to four, as has Pirates of the Caribbean. National Treasure has been moved from two to three. I gave up looking after that. Someone is obviously going to a lot of trouble to move all of these, and it needs to be stopped, but unfortunately the user isn't registered, so I can't write on their talk page. This kind of thing makes merging into one big list seem my preferred option (save of deleting all of these pages!) now. This way the films wouldn't keep moving from page to page, and there wouldn't necessarily be the need to remove the future speculation if it was mentioned as such. Is it worth locking these pages so that only registered users can edit? Robsinden (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of the "fours" back to the "threes" and requested semi-protection for the pages. Should the criteria be that only films that have been released should be included? Or an advertised release date? pre-production? post-production? filming? Robsinden (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I have allowed for films that are in production to be included on the lists. To me in production means that they have a cast and are filming or will be filming soon. If the films fall into development hell, then they get downsized yet again. Beverly Hills Cop, National Treasure, and Pirates of the Caribbean all need to be downgraded until at least the cast lists are out. BHC4 is iffy because there is a director named, but Eddie Murphy being cast would not have been enough. I wish that Wikipedians had access to IMDbPro for free since it appears that they are stuffing more and more into that area. LA (T) @ 21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that in production is sufficient for films to be included. I think that ideally, a film should have been released, but maybe it needs to be complete, or at least to have finished filming, before it can be considered as actually existing, and therefore worthy of inclusion of these lists. Maybe the criteria should be that it has a Wikipedia page, rather than point to a "sequels" section on the previous film, or something. Robsinden (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for future films at WP:NFF, and that is the criteria I judge the inclusion on. If the film being added does not have a page (and not a redirect) then remove it. BHC4 was posited around three years ago, until the cameras roll (or in the case of films like Toy Story 3, they have a fixed US release date) then they shouldn't be on this list. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess what you're saying is that if a film has its own wikipedia page, then it has passed notability guidelines, and therefore can be included, otherwise remove? Seems to make sense. Robsinden (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages for the list entries[edit]

Can these be merged at all, with redirects to a single page, so that any discussion for where each film series belongs can be centralised? Robsinden (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I just tested this for Talk:List of film series with ten entries (which had no discussions) to Talk:List of film series. I'd propose that the talk pages for all the lists are merged here in order to centralise the discussions. Maybe archive or delete some of the older discussions. Anyone any thoughts? Robsinden (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should leave existing discussions alone and instead use the {{Notice}} template (see Template talk:Infobox film as an example) to tell editors to start discussion at Talk:List of film series. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think people would pay attention? Something like:
Robsinden (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all discussions will be focused on moving... do you think these should remain at the respective talk pages if we for some reason keep the status quo? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. Anything related to these lists should be centralised. Got a good wording? Redirecting of course would ensure that editors make their discussions in a central point in case nobody sees the infobox thingy. But I don't want to rock the boat - what's more acceptable? Robsinden (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I do not want to redirect talk pages of articles in the mainspace since such a practice is unorthodox and may throw off editors. (Sometimes I've gone to a talk page, and it's redirected somewhere without my realizing it.) The pages should have {{Film}} templates at them, anyway. With that being the case, the {{Notice}} template can be at the top of each one. Suggested sentence: "It is preferred to centralize discussions about film series in general or about criteria for specific film series at Talk:List of film series for more involvement." Erik (talk | contribs) 12:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I know what you're saying. No reason not to proceed with the notice template I guess... Robsinden (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - just started adding these (7-10+), but then thought that should something link here too? Or should all discussion take place here? Robsinden (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed to define the concept of "Film series"[edit]

At present the description given in the first paragraph seems more like a description of a media franchise. Is that the intent or is a "series" intended to only be those instances where the films are directly connected in some sort of order. Either way, sources needed to be provided for how the term "film series" is defined and used. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY done. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make worldwide grosses at box office[edit]

a good option: make a rank of worldwide grosses at the box office for each saga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.75.83 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add Worldwide Gross Instead of North American Gross Only[edit]

Could someone fix the rankings, positions, and total gross amounts by worldwide statistics instead of North American? I get that this is ideal for a lot of people but considering that people viewing this article are not only North Americans, we need to consider everyone around the world and include worldwide statistics of all films and therefore fix all of the rankings.Kaito Nakamura (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-franchises[edit]

I think we need to insert something explaining 1) what we mean by sub-franchise, 2) what larger franchise each of the indicated sub-franchises is included within, and 3) why some franchises aren't considered sub-franchises. My understanding is that a "sub-franchise" is a coherent group of movies all of which are also part of a larger group. For example, the Harry Potter movies form a set which, along with the Fantastic Beasts movies, make up the Wizarding World franchise. So, Harry Potter can be considered a sub-franchise of Wizarding World. On the other hand, while we can look at all movies focused on Spider-Man as a unit, not all of those movies fall within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so it cannot be tagged as a sub-franchise of the MCU. Is my understanding right? Why do we consider all Spider-Man movies as part of a single franchise instead of there being 3 franchises (ignoring the 1970s and '80s ones that are basically theatrical releases of TV shows) starring Spider-Man? --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible, better footnotes would certainly be an improvement. The note about the Batman films is currently a stray note at the end of the table instead of a footnote or reference included beside the Batman entry in the list.
The subfranchises seem to have been decided not by Wikipedia editors but in conflicting ways by the two big sources the list is based on, Box Office Mojo and The Numbers:
  • The Numbers lists Spider-Man as 7, and BOM lists 8 films (* Spider-Verse)
    • MCU includes the 2 MCU Spider-Man films, they are in both franchises according to both sources.
  • The Numbers lists Harry Potter containing 12 films, whereas BOM lists both WW=11 and HP=9
  • The Numbers lists Batman as containing 17 films, whereas BOM lists Batman as 11 films.
Without digging even further into it -- this is getting confusing fast -- I bet Wikipedia editors have used BOM as the primary source and only used The Numbers to fill in gaps (or maybe to make not at all and only included it as a reference to make it look like the article isn't based only on copying a single source), but readers shouldn't have to guess and if this list is to be meaningful the methodology does need to be made much clearer. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Average[edit]

How is an Average gross helpful or informative to readers? The total gross for the series and the highest grossing episode of a franchise makes sense to me, but it is unclear what exactly an average is supposed to tell readers. Where are these averages coming from? How are they calculated and what films or spin-offs do or do not get included when they are being calculated?

It looks a lot like Box Office Mojo takes the total declared gross and divides it by whatever they have decided is the number of films in the franchise and that is it. How is that helpful or informative though? -- 109.79.69.130 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple entries need to be deleted, changed etc[edit]

Multiple entries need to be deleted or edited. The definition of a film series, according to the lede is, "a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series." For example:

  • None of these disney movies share the same universe or are marketed as a series.
  • The spider-man movies and the batman movies cannot all be counted as one series. They are multiple separate series...e.g Christopher Nolan batman is one series. Raimi spiderman is another series. etc. And if you disagree with this, then why shouldn't Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale (1967 film) be counted as part of the Bond franchise? (it shouldn't be, but i'm just saying, the article is clearly inconsistent.)
  • The dark knight trilogy is not a sub-series, it's a complete series.
  • Superman series only has 5 movies. There isnt any other superman "series" because DCEU hasnt made a sequel to man of steel (though superman appears in other dceu properties, that just counts as DCEU movies not superman movies...You may aswell count animated superman movies too if youre working by that logic.
  • Same with Batman, if Lego Batman counts as Batman movie, why exclude all the animated Batman movies? (Obviously, The Lego Batman movie counts in the Lego franchise though)

Making matters more complicated, the definition provided in the lede is quite different to the definition provided in the footnote/citation of the lede...In short, this article is totally screwed, and will take an editor hours to fix and make consistent and we need consensus on how the article should actually look. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: It's a franchise list based on intellectual property. All official Superman films are part of the Superman franchise. The formulation of the definition can be discussed (I would say they are marketed as a series when they all use the Superman name or an alias), but do not start splitting films from the same franchise. The table is an alternative version of List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada#Franchises and film series not adjusted for inflation. It should probably be removed here. Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale (1967 film) do belong in the James Bond franchise. The other article has a subseries system which shows they have a different status. It also includes animated and live action films in the same franchise but not the same subseries. I'm not sure why this article says 25 Bond films. There are 24 in the Eon series and 2 others. The table was added in 2018 [3] by Kasper2006. The other table is from 2014.[4] List of Disney live-action remakes of animated films is more problematic. It varies how sources describe them and which films are included. I would not include them in a franchise list. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course many things have changed since 2018. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying the unofficial Bond movies should be included, just to clarify. The problem is it that this list is about film in a series and not films in a franchise. Batman 1989 and Batman Begins may be under same intellectual property, but they are not part of the same series [even the definition provided in the source would attest to this fact]. Making matters more complicated is that the lists aren't following the definition provided in the citation, nor does the lede of the article really follow the definition provided in the citation, and in fact...nor does the citation really clarify things to begin with. And regardless, the list of films being included as part of a "series" is very self-contradictory or incoherent 'regardless' of which definition is being followed. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution in mind, I'm not proposing any particular change right now. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we honestly going to debate whether the Daniel Craig Bond films are part of the James Bond series on the basis of a reboot? Continuity is essentially WP:INUNIVERSE detail which is of little relevance to Wikipedia. The definition provided in the source states the following: "A film series is a collection of related movies released in succession over a period of time, for instance, the Tarzan movies. Usually, films in a series include common elements, such as characters...". That definition does not require films to exist in the same "universe"; it does not preclude the Daniel Craig and Sean Connery Bond films from being considered part of the same series and neither does it preclude Batman Begins and the 1989 Batman from being considered as part of the same series either. A franchise is generally distinguished from a series by including other types of media, but if you are just considering one aspect such as films they are generally interchangeable terminology. When readers come to Wikipedia to find out information about the James Bond films, or the Batman films we are not serving their needs by excluding chunks of information, so Wikipedia needs to adopt the broadest view consistent with the sources. The franchise tables such as the one at List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_States_and_Canada#Franchises_and_film_series_not_adjusted_for_inflation are a good compromise because they allow readers to refine to the level of detail they require. IMO it is not necessary to maintain two separate tables. Betty Logan (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response part 1: No, i would consider daniel craig to be part of the same series as pierce brosnan. It's officially marketed that way begin with. I struggle to see Spider-Man (2002 film) and The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) as being part of the same series by any stretch of the imagination. I don't understand the need for your rude and dismissive tone...The very lede of the article says that a series of movies is "a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series". It's obvious that many of the entries do not meet the very definition provided in the lede. If you don't agree with the lede, well then at least we agree the article has a problem. If you like the lede, then you must agree that the list provided fails to match this lede. Clearly this article is in need of change, what that change should look like is another matter, but the lede of the article and content in the article are in mutually exclusive conflict as it currently stands. And besides, even if you want to define 'series' simply to mean 'having one of the same characters'...then the article clearly fails on that front too: because as i pointed out, why would the animated superman/batman movies be excluded from the article? Why exclude wonder woman animated movies etc? Regardless of what definition of a series is followed, the article is incoherent and contradictory. And in any case, I really struggle to believe that anyone considers Batman (1966 film) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and The Lego Batman Movie to be part of the same series. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response part 2: UPDATE - secondary source found. I think it's a pity you'd brush off my concerns when this secondary source in fact discusses how incredibly difficult it is define a film series, and ironically, he even pointed to this wikipedia article as an example of it being poorly defined. LOL. The source doesn't offer much clarity, but it clearly points to why this discussion here is important and not something to be brushed off and why proper criteria are needed. Moreover the article says that the new star trek movies and the old star trek movies are only part of the same series because they are soft reboot and not a hard reboot -- explicitly implying that hard reboots should not be counted as part of the same series. At other points in the article, the writer contradicts his own stance. The article doesnt help us much, but it should hopefully demonstrate to you that Im not discussing an imaginary problem here. The fact that there is a published secondary source saying that this very wikipedia article has done a bad job of defining a film series has to be of note. Your comment about what readers of wikipedia "expect", well i think they'd expect a clear definition of a series, and a list that matches that definition. Clearly whoever wrote that article states that wikipedia failed on that front, leaving him to have more questions than answers -- much alike myself. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the source.[5] Filmsite.org is owned by AMC Networks and is not some random blog. Your link [6] is from 2012 and quotes an old definition "A film series is a collection of related films in succession."[7] The current defintion is more detailed: "A film series or movie series (also referred to as a film franchise or movie franchise) is a collection of related films in succession that share the same fictional universe, or are marketed as a series". When you quoted it in the original post you omitted the part where we equate it to a film franchise which has a specific meaning (but still borderline cases). "Film series" is used differently by different sources, usually without a definition but just referring to a specifc set of films the authour calls a series. This can both be a whole franchise, films sharing continuity, or something inbetween like live action Batman films, maybe excluding Batman (1966 film) because it's old, low-budget and low-grossing, tv-based, mostly forgotten, or whatever. Maybe we should mention that the term is sometimes used about a closely connected part of a franchise. There is no consistent way to define which parts qualify in that case. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it currently stands doesnt actually answer any of the questions that the writer of indiewire had...the new definition hasnt actually defined anything more than the old one. And you kind of ignored everything else i said. As mentioned, the definition in the lede doesnt even match the citation. It's simply impossible to maintain that this article has applied any sort of consistent standard whatsoever...I can't believe i even need to argue that. Deciding 'which standard' to apply is a different thing, but right now we're debating whether the world is actually round. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A series of anything is a set of related items that follow some kind of ordering. So regardless of whether that relationship is a common intellectual property (such as Tarzan), or a common continuity then it is a series. That seems very clear from the source used in the lead, so I don't see the problem. You are trying to impose a restrictive definition on something that is flexible and can have many interpretations. But when we compile a list on Wikipedia we must decide what to include and what not to include, and since Wikipedia's main function is to provide information then it is logical to apply the concept in the broadest possible terms. To most people a Batman film is a Batman film. Also, I didn't dismiss your concerns, I disagreed with them and provided you with an explanation. For the record, I think the two non-Eon produced James Bond films should be added to the chart if it is going to be retained, otherwise it is not a comprehensive entry. The Numbers has no problem with including these films in the James Bond entry. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the second time, you have ignored nearly every point I made. No point me responding at this point if you'll just ignore the substance of what I've said. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually fully addressed the point of the discussion i.e. I disagree that entries should be removed from the list. I don't think that is a positive direction for the article and have given my reasons. As for some publication criticising aspects of the article I really don't care: it is a "Start" class article which means it is in the very early stages of development. "Start" class articles by definition have fundamental problems. Hopefully the article will improve over time and the lead will evolve as part of that process. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time you've failed the address the majority of points I've made. Congratulations. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Live-Action[edit]

Let's settle this once and for all. This is a reach, and many have expressed this. It's like saying 20th Century Fox literary-adaptations is a series, or Universal Studios remakes. There is no end to that. I think before any more discussions are made about what qualifies a franchise, we should at least agree to eliminate this one entry. Who's with me? SweetTaylorJames (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your summarization is on-point, and I completely agree. The Disney Live-Action Reimaginings (DLAR) do not fit the criteria of this article nor remotely correspond with the other "series" listed. DLAR is a loose association strictly because it's the same production company. Your literary-adaptations comparison should be seen as a settling argument. --76.91.157.203 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify Currency & Multiplier[edit]

Suggestion: Please clarify currency used:

  • It's not immediately obvious that totals in the table are in (a) US-dollar; (b) multiples of millions of dollars.
  • Are these values actual aggregate totals, or normalized for comparison to "today's" dollar value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.110.8 (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inhumans IMAX screening to MCU box office?[edit]

Inhumans got a brief two week theatrical run of the first two episodes. Shouldn't this be included. 47.233.19.106 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren’t movies. 64.107.163.147 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for page improvement[edit]

I have a proposal, but I’d like to gauge your opinion before going through what may be a laborious task.

My basic idea is this. Convert the tables to include inflation-adjusted figures as well as a ratio column to show how many dollars were grossed for every dollar spent creating the movie. I have a demonstration page on the Wiki page for James Bond movies:


On this page, specifically, I’m also wondering why the table of films only have the first few movies italicized; is this just something no editor has thought to fix (or bothered to)? I'm referring to the section titled "Longest-running film series and franchises".


Electricmaster (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Accuracy[edit]

Falling down the wiki-hole I arrived here. After a brief look at some of the items at the top of the film series; Lupin as an example, looking at the franchises page, there are 13 films, this list says 43?Halbared (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe & Universe LLC.2023 series.[edit]

Lethal Weapons:"Mission Impossible". 2607:FB91:1BE0:8ABE:AC39:C338:9AB7:CC45 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

What's entirely lacking is an article on the history of feature-film serials (based on the same studios, same writers/directors/actors, or the same rights deals bought by one studio from another). This article has no years at all, neither does Lists of feature film series, and media franchise starts with franchises from the 2000s. I've ended up here wondering what contemporary film franchises were around to watch in (Western) Europe by the 1960s or first half of the 1970s (James Bond, Asterix, Louis de Funes (both Fantomas and Saint Tropez flic), Pink Panther, Planet of the Apes...). If there would be an actual history article, or even just a way to sort these tables by release year, one could find out. Did it start with the Sherlock Holmes and Thin Man serieses in the 1930s and 1940s? Not sure whether Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse films are really earlier, as the first two parts were released within weeks and told one story arc in two films (so those two parts basically just count as one film), no sequel was even just planned until a decade later, and that first sequel came about within just a few months, where nobody had actually expected a sequel. --2003:DA:CF39:B812:D176:60C2:1CAB:9141 (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Film_series&oldid=1207223136"