‘Star Wars’ Rules Global Franchises

“Star Wars” is the most bankable franchise on Hollywood’s horizon. “Batman” and “Star Trek” are in trouble. And although James Bond remains the most lucrative and longest-running franchise in cinema history, it ranks well down the list compared with its peers.

These, at least, are the views reflected in a survey of more than a dozen key international movie distributors, sales agents, buyers and studio executives, who were queried about the global financial strength of eight of Hollywood’s leading film franchises.

The executives were asked to give a point score based on a single question: How likely is it that the next film in the franchise would be a guaranteed box-office smash, regardless of the actor, script, producer or director? In other words, just how sellable is it in world markets?

A global assessment is critical in a marketplace where, according to the Motion Picture Assn. of America, more than half of film revenue is generated overseas.

Global potential is the key reason the executives surveyed expect last summer’s hit “Men in Black” to be the most likely candidate for breeding a new blockbuster franchise.

“It’s got two winning characters sharing a real chemistry coming off a hugely successful film,” notes the head of international distribution at one major studio, “and the story scope is limitless. . . . A sequel would be playing to a primed worldwide audience, which is essential for a franchise.”

Franchises are marketable precisely because of their built-in advantages. Nearly all are action-adventures, the genre that travels best worldwide. All boast a ready-made audience awareness and the ability to perform in every format and market, with extensive merchandising and licensing tie-in potential.

“Star Wars” remains the most sellable franchise, according to those surveyed, largely due to the impeccable stewardship of producer George Lucas and his “refusal to over-promote the franchise too often in too many markets,” according to a German executive. The group cited the James Bond series as the most invulnerable to a change of stars because, as one studio distribution executive noted, “there’s been a history of the lead changing from the series’ beginning.”

Several franchises remain heavily dependent upon their original stars. A “Die Hard” sequel without Bruce Willis or a “Terminator” without Arnold Schwarzenegger would be much harder to sell, according to the survey. Likewise, an “Indiana Jones” sequel minus Harrison Ford as its hero would have a much tougher time.

While the appeal of a popular, recurring star is central to the financial strength of many franchises, a few classic blockbuster series are distinguished by the audience’s identification with their creators. “Star Wars” without Lucas is a clear example.

Some of the harshest views of those surveyed targeted the “Batman” franchise, which was distinguished by the greatest discrepancy between past box-office performance and future bankability. The series ranks third in worldwide revenue among movie franchises, but in the survey it placed last of eight. In seventh place was the “Star Trek” series, which has struggled internationally and was called by one grader “a tired old warhorse.”

“The script [for last summer’s ‘Batman and Robin’] was diabolically bad,” noted Nicole Mackey, director of international sales for British-based Carton Film Distributors. “If it had been submitted in the independent marketplace, it wouldn’t have even gotten bankrolled.”

Daniel Marquet, head of worldwide distribution for the French production company Studio Canal Plus, said the “Batman” films “are story-driven as much as they are star-driven. I don’t think there should be another.”

Many of those surveyed expect the most lucrative global performer in the near future to be the next “Star Wars” movie, due out in 1999. “The way Lucas has maintained that franchise, the next one could be the biggest movie of all time,” said Gary Barber, former vice chairman of Morgan Creek Productions.

As for new studio franchises on the horizon? Patrick Wachsberger, president of Summit Entertainment, said the horror-cum-humor smash “Scream” could become a globally competitive series, harking back to such low-budget horror fests as “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Friday the 13th” and “Halloween.”

*

James Ulmer, a longtime writer and analyst of the movie industry, can be reached at julmer@primenet.com

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Top Movie Franchises Internationally

James Bond

Worldwide*: $2.4

United States*: $0.9

*

Star Wars

Worldwide*: $1.8

United States*: $1.1

*

Batman

Worldwide*: $1.2

United States*: $0.7

*

Indiana Jones

Worldwide*: $1.2

United States*: $0.6

*

Star Trek

Worldwide*: $0.9

United States*: $0.6

*

Die Hard

Worldwide*: $0.7

United States*: $0.3

*

Terminator

Worldwide*: $0.6

United States*: $0.2

*

Alien

Worldwide*: $0.4

United States*: $0.2

*In billions of dollars

The Ulmer Scale

Reporter James Ulmer ranked the eight leading film franchises, based on a survey of film distributors, sales executives and bankers familiar with the international market. Ulmer asked the graders to assign a point score, with 100 being the highest, based on the question: How likely is it that the next film in the franchise will be a guaranteed box-office smash? In other words, just how bankable is it?

Star Wars

Produced by George Lucas: 99

Without Lucas: 65

*

Indiana Jones

With Harrison Ford starring: 96

Without Ford: 62

*

Terminator

With Arnold Schwarzenegger starring or James Cameron directing: 90

Without Schwarzenegger or Cameron: 55

*

Die Hard

With Bruce Willis starring: 89

Without Willis: 54

*

James Bond

With Pierce Brosnan starring: 82

Without Brosnan: 63

*

Alien

With Sigourney Weaver starring: 73

Without Weaver: 54

*

Star Trek: 68

Batman: 58

Sources: Box-office information from Entertainment Data Inc.; scoring on the Ulmer Scale developed by James Ulmer.