"The third great SF franchise"??

[Greg Cox]

Harry Potter is huge and growing. There's a massive generational rift here. To young people of a certain age, Harry Potter is bigger than Star Trek and Star Wars combined. It may not seem "iconic" to us old farts, but go talk to your nieces and nephews and teens and millennials. They all grew up on those books and movies and, trust me, they know them much better than Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica or whatever.

Heck, Harry Potter has its own theme parks these days, drawing huge crowds, and the first spin-off movie (and London stage show) are soon upon us.

And Rowling is still a relatively young woman. The Potterverse could keep going for decades.

 

[Trekkin]

Just personally, Harry Potter was a much bigger part of my childhood than Trek was. I don't think anything else (even the Star Wars stuff of the time) managed to come close to how 'everywhere and everything' it was. At least not until The Lord of the Rings films came out.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

To be a little more specific, in terms of how often I've seen references outside of fan-centered areas over the past five years, I've seen far more Captain America and Iron Man references than even Star Wars (until the new movie came out, now Star Wars is king again).

Exactly where were these references made? To be a truly great franchise with a ingrained place in the general culture, the general public has to be aware of and/or use it. Marvel is just not referred to in that way. Remember, i'm talking about the general public, not those fans who might be inclined to talk about Marvel.

They're Groot was also an absolutely huge success with the general audience

You will need to prove that, as no general person on the street, or arm of the media refers to Groot at all.

The movies also definitely do have iconic moments ("I'm always angry."/ "Puny god." / "We are groot.")

Come on. "We are groot" has not become part of the cultural awareness / landscape--the same can be said of "puny god"--everything around it was just thin in memorable plotting / characterization couched in noise.

Meanwhile, that list you rattled off was almost the entire list of things the average person would actually still remember about ST, despite it having 50 years of history.

ST's effect took root in the early 70s--only a few short years after the cancellation of TOS. The dialogue, characters and basic structure was embraced to the degree that the culture adopted and used the "Beam me up, Scotty" catchphrase--something never uttered on the series--that's how powerful the series/concept was. It took on a life of its own.

Further, there's the endless use of "Space, the final frontier" or just "final frontier" in everything from news reports on more than space topics, to direct ST reference, or something representing some last, great realm and/or purpose. There's no Marvel line created that shares that effect and influence.

Just, incidentally, I think you're also massively underestimating Harry Potter, although I agree that LotR didn't get that much overall traction outside of Sean Bean memes.

Harry Potter is huge and growing. There's a massive generational rift here. To young people of a certain age, Harry Potter is bigger than Star Trek and Star Wars combined. It may not seem "iconic" to us old farts, but go talk to your nieces and nephews and teens and millennials. They all grew up on those books and movies and, trust me, they know them much better than Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica or whatever.

Heck, Harry Potter has its own theme parks these days, drawing huge crowds, and the first spin-off movie (and London stage show) are soon upon us.

And Rowling is still a relatively young woman. The Potterverse could keep going for decades.

The significant difference is that contrary to your generational idea about Potter, ST or SW instantly captured both adult and child fans with no generational rift, hence the reason one was exposed to serious media critics & academic studies about Star Trek in recognition not only of its content, but the mass adult & teen audience. Simultaneously, toy companies were breaking merchandising records producing ST Phaser water guns, action figures, and a countryside worth of additional merchandise aimed at children.

There was no separation created in the way you're describing about Potter. that's the reason something can be successful, but that does not instantly mean its as much a part of the culture as a nation's historical figures. Kirk, Spock, Luke Skywalker, Batman, et al., are that bonded to the reality of several generations, fan or not.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Harry Potter is huge and growing. There's a massive generational rift here. To young people of a certain age, Harry Potter is bigger than Star Trek and Star Wars combined. It may not seem "iconic" to us old farts, but go talk to your nieces and nephews and teens and millennials. They all grew up on those books and movies and, trust me, they know them much better than Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica or whatever.

And it could very well become iconic because of that. But part of the definition of iconic is longevity. Captain America isn't iconic because he had a couple of cool movies in the 21st century, but because he's been a part of the culture since WWII. Twilight Zone, Doctor Who, and Star Trek are the three great Sci-Fi "franchises" because they've been a part of the public consciousness for a half century or better. Icons are like tea-- they have to steep for a good long time.

 

[Trekkin]

The significant difference is that contrary to your generational idea about Potter, ST or SW instantly captured both adult and child fans with no generational rift, hence the reason one was exposed to serious media critics & academic studies about Star Trek in recognition not only of its content, but the mass adult & teen audience. Simultaneously, toy companies were breaking merchandising records producing ST Phaser water guns, action figures, and a countryside worth of additional merchandise aimed at children.

There was no separation created in the way you're describing about Potter. that's the reason something can be successful, but that does not instantly mean its as much a part of the culture as a nation's historical figures. Kirk, Spock, Luke Skywalker, Batman, et al., are that bonded to the reality of several generations, fan or not.

I don't think Greg meant that there was a 'rift' between generations liking Potter. He's speaking of the same generational rift that leads to my 90-year-old grandfather thinking Star Wars, Trek and Who are all the same 'ray guns show.' They weren't part of his generations landscape, they were just popular shows that his kids watched.

As for whether Potter managed to resonate with multiple generations...everyone here knows exactly what we're speaking about when we say 'JK Rowling', don't they? Pretty certain you'd get a much smaller level of recognition of if you asked any non-Trekkie who Roddenberry was.

As for evidence of its 'impact'- Potter nearly 20 years old, and is still a giant with a steady stream of sequels. It has been studied and analysed to death, 'legitimised' YA as a serious genre, (along with LOTR) kick-started the genre craze of the last decade or so, and probably has produced more merch than Trek managed in fifty years. All Trek really has on it is longevity, which we can only wait and see about.

 

[WiredPlanet]

I don't consider Harry Potter scifi at all it should be ranked as fiction fantasy
Some Japanese I don't consider scifi either but other Japanese have enough 'science fiction' in their movies/shows to rank them as scifi

I reject that. Guardians does not have a single character, dialogue or situation that was iconic--memorable to the average person on the street. At best, one might ask, "isn't the film with a talking raccoon?"--and that's not the result of a firm hold on the culture.

I remember the Wrestler guys lines pretty well...its was Drax right?
Quill what is the percentage of a plan you have?

Nothing can go over my head! My reflexes are too fast, I would catch it

Why would I put my finger across his neck? ....Finger on throat means death!?

 

[Greg Cox]

It's also possible for a catchphrase to hang around and enter common parlance even after its source has faded into the background to some degree.

For example: Headline writers still instinctively link "incredible" to "shrinking" as in "The Incredible Shrinking Candidate, "The Incredible Shrinking Economy," etc. But one has to wonder how familiar they are with the old 1956 movie or original novel by Richard Matheson?

And how many people remember these days that "Be afraid. Be very afraid." comes from the remake of THE FLY?

 

[Magellan]

Good points. I didn't even know where the "Be afraid. Be very afraid" came from.

I also agree with you on Harry Potter. It is going to become apart of the cultural landscape even if, to me, it'll always be "some wizard-y book for kids". I don't see how it counts as scifi though. I guess at this point, I'd have trouble calling Star Trek, Star Wars or Doctor Who anything other than straight up fantasy so what the heck why not throw Harry Potter in there.

 

[bigdaddy]

If we are going to say Harry Potter than why not Minecraft? I see more children wearing that stuff and many people of all playing it. It's bigger than Harry Potter now.

 

[HIjol]

Never having seen an episode of Dr. Who, I could not say if it were Number 3.

If we are not going to be so US-centric, and recognized the Worldwide extent of merch, multi-cultural influence, catchphrase and music reproduction/recognition/use, revenue and future possibilities, I would vote "Bond" Number 3

Some others,

LotR
Transformers
Alien collection
Harry Potter collection (acknowledging the generational and genre argument)

United States Politics
...no, that's wrong...more like Nightmare Fiction/Fantasy

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't consider Harry Potter scifi at all it should be ranked as fiction fantasy

Well, that's true. I wouldn't include him on this list in any case, even if we do consider him iconic-- for the same reason I wouldn't include Superman, whose iconic status beats everyone.

And how many people remember these days that "Be afraid. Be very afraid." comes from the remake of THE FLY?

I came home yesterday and turned on TCM just in time to see somebody in an old Western-- I think it was Jack Elam, but I just caught a glimpse-- say, "Your lack of faith disturbs me."

 

[CorporalClegg]

SW and ST basically corner the markets of Space Sci-Fi universes. One is Space Fantasy set in what amounts to a far away magical kingdom. The other is Star Wars.

FTFY

 

[MacLeod]

Sorry but I've got to go with DW as third.

And it has had two big screen films, albeit not tied directly to the TV show.

But lets see shows in which DW has been referrenced

Leverage
NCIS
Family Guy
CSI: NY
House M.D.
Futurma
Castle
Criminal Minds
A Town Called Eureka
The Big Bang Theory
The Simpsons

And that's just a handful of shows I could list more from the US alone never mind shows from the UK or places like Australia. So it's fair to say that DW get's its fair share of references and perhaps because it is currently on air it's replaced ST as the shorthand for geek character in TV shows.

And of course yet to mention Dalek's appearing in at least one Looney Tunes film.

And of course the word Tardis has entered the dictionary.

 

[RAMA]

Not sure why anyone would think Doctor Who is more massive than ST.. Consider:

Dr Who: 35 seasons
ST: 30 seasons
Dr Who: 261 stories
ST: 739 stories
Dr Who: longest continuous run: 26 years
ST: longest continuous run: 18 years
Dr Who: movies: 2
ST: movies: 13

 

[MacLeod]

I think people are more making the argument that it's amongest the top 3 biggest Sci-Fi franchises after SW and ST.

Avatar is what 1 movie and perhaps a few other tie in mdeia, sure it has a few sequels planned but does 1 movie make a franchise?

Halo I must have missed those 4 movies mentioned in the orignal post

B5 one moderatly succesful series and two failed spinoffs

War of the Worlds, 7 movies unrealtred to each other and a TV show based of the 1960's movie which last two series and I doubt many people on the street even remember there was a TV series.

Lost in Space sure people might remember it for the Robot and Dr. Smith but it hasn't really stood the test of time like ST or DW. The movie didn't exactly set the box office alight and didn't it have a failed attempt at a TV series a few years back

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's also possible for a catchphrase to hang around and enter common parlance even after its source has faded into the background to some degree.

For example: Headline writers still instinctively link "incredible" to "shrinking" as in "The Incredible Shrinking Candidate, "The Incredible Shrinking Economy," etc. But one has to wonder how familiar they are with the old 1956 movie or original novel by Richard Matheson?

And how many people remember these days that "Be afraid. Be very afraid." comes from the remake of THE FLY?

The Fly did not have a long lasting cultural effect, so that line losing its connection to the source in the memory of the population is not too surprising. I would say The Incredible Shrinking Man is well remembered--perhaps still seen as THE entertainment example of "great and small" fantasy, so much so that it influenced everything from serious productions (Irwin Allen's Land of the Giants) to parody (episodes of sitcoms such as I Dream of Jeannie to films like The Incredible Shrinking Woman, or Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, etc.), and as you point out, "Incredible Shrinking" references of all kinds. Before the film, the general culture never thought to apply an overt or subconscious fantastic implication to a situation; that film--in addition to its noted media influence--gave its larger than life (no pun intended) sci-fi spectacle to aid in the description of anything of a drastic nature, but I do not think it is completely divorced from the source in cultural memory.

As for whether Potter managed to resonate with multiple generations...everyone here knows exactly what we're speaking about when we say 'JK Rowling', don't they? Pretty certain you'd get a much smaller level of recognition of if you asked any non-Trekkie who Roddenberry was.

"Here"--if you mean this board--it is misleading, as this is TREKBBS, where fantasy productions are the focus. That's not a mirror of the average numbers / members of the general population who are not all fans of HP, or were even aware that it was a book series. Moreover, you mention Rowling, but she is not the measure of a franchise's position in the culture--the creation is. If her name recognition held that value, then I could easily argue that Mario Puzo's name was synonymous with The Godfather as much as any character in his books, or the adapted versions from Coppola's films. Then again, The Godfather films could be said to be as significant a franchise--if not more, if one considers the flood of memorable characters, plot situations, numerous quotes that became instant catchphrases. That, and its general recognition / association with real world culture and almost singlehandedly pushed the global popularization (right or wrong) of Italian-based organized crime, to the point where real life criminals complained about "misrepresentation" by the films, and an entire film sub genre's new boost as a result of the Godfather films.

So there's no misunderstanding, gangster films existed since the dawn of cinema, but they were long out of vogue by 1972 (largely too "Hollywood" fake as in 1967's The St Valentine's Day Massacre), and it cannot be denied that without The Godfather, you do not get many of Scorsese's defining films, and in turn, you do not get Tarantino--and other filmmakers' endless fictional or adaptations of real gangster events. I challenge anyone to say Potter had that kind of decades-long industry influence, as that brand of fantasy falls into the same category as LOTR (no matter the realm or time each are set in), and Jackson's films already redefined the fantasy genre in the 21st century.

, and probably has produced more merch than Trek managed in fifty years.

That sounds silly. TOS was already well merchandised while first run on NBC, but in its early 70s syndication boom, the "Star Trek Phenomenon" in merchandising took off, and was (like Planet of the Apes) the model for every global franchise success to follow. Further, according to a 2002 TIME magazine article, Paramount stated ST merchandise earned over 4 billion up to that time. With 14 additional years of earnings and innumerable items produced, ST's merchandise profile is not paralleled or surpassed by many.

 

[Trekkin]

Over Trek's lifetime, it's estimated that Trek's merch has pulled in around 4 billion US dollars.

The merch for Harry Potter movies alone (not counting any merch that's tied directly to the books, nor the video games) is estimated to have made WB an est. 7 billion US dollars.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-wizard-created-a-21-billion-business/241948/

As for the rest, I chose us (this group) as an example because we are less likely to know about Potter than the general population. We skew older, and are here because our particular brand of poison admittedly lies in other areas. Yet here we are, discussing Harry Potter with a reasonable amount of knowledge. Meanwhile, the 'General Public' has well and truly spoken in regards to Potter's impact.

Total Profit for a dozen Trek Movies over 40 Years - $1,919,548,708
Total Profit for 8 Potter Movies over about a decade - $7,216,000,000

Your Mario Puzo example kind of proved my point. The Godfather novel itself isn't a pop culture phenomenon (though from what I can gather, it was reasonably popular), but it inspired a movie that was. That's part of the reason why your average person on the street will recognize the names 'Francis Ford Coppola' and 'JK Rowling', but not 'Mario Puzo.' That sort of general knowledge about typically niche-y details doesn't solely determine 'bigness', but it can be used as an example of how something is atypical - especially when you use it comparatively.

 

[MacLeod]

How do we define greatness in this case for the third great Sci-Fi franchise

Longevity
Public Awareness
Revenues
Number of different media it has expanded into i.e Film/print/comics/other

Number of episodes/films
Cultural Impact
etc..

 

[RoJoHen]

How do we define greatness in this case for the third great Sci-Fi franchise

Longevity
Public Awareness

I feel like it has to be a combination of these things. Yes, Harry Potter is huge, but I don't know if it's been around long enough to fit in with the likes of Star Trek and Star Wars. Doctor Who has been around just as long as either of those and it still being made. Granted, I can't speak to its worldwide popularity, and certainly it's only because popular in the US within the last 10 years or so, so who knows?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As for the rest, I chose us (this group) as an example because we are less likely to know about Potter than the general population. We skew older, and are here because our particular brand of poison admittedly lies in other areas. Yet here we are, discussing Harry Potter with a reasonable amount of knowledge. Meanwhile, the 'General Public' has well and truly spoken in regards to Potter's impact.

Total Profit for a dozen Trek Movies over 40 Years - $1,919,548,708
Total Profit for 8 Potter Movies over about a decade - $7,216,000,000

Your original point was a comparison of merchadise produced:

and probably has produced more merch than Trek managed in fifty years.

The link does not offer any details about that, so I would say it is not at all rational to conclude a property heavily merchandised for 50 years is somehow behind a property that is not as long lived or prolific in the ancillary market.

I do see one curious similarity in numbers: the Potter link claims a theme park attraction earned $364 million.
The TIME ST piece says the cable network TNN (now Spike) paid exactly $364 million to rerun various ST episodes in 2001.

As mentioned earlier, with 14 additional years of earnings and innumerable items produced since that 2002 article, who can honestly doubt ST's merchandise profile is not paralleled or surpassed by many properties.

Next, you still have not proven that Potter is so ingrained in the popular culture in the way ST is. You posted box office earnings. That alone does not demonstrate cultural impact, otherwise, characters and dialogue from Avatar would be on the lips and minds of the average person. It is not.

To this day, i've not seen random people or the media use any character references or catchphrases from Potter on a common basis, but ST is everywhere. In more recent history, the term "redshirts" (a direct reference to you know who) has taken a reverential life in media culture, standing alongside the rest of the ST terms, catchphrases or dialogue so inseparable from the world. Where is the potter parallel?

Your Mario Puzo example kind of proved my point. The Godfather novel itself isn't a pop culture phenomenon (though from what I can gather, it was reasonably popular)

What? The novel was a runaway bestseller (and inspired the aforementioned outrage from certain parts of society)--the very reason Paramount moved to adapt it not long after its publication. The novel was praised when first published and is considered one of the great works of fiction of the 20th century. What Potter book is considered one of the great works of a century?