Talk:Film series

message: #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.
#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)
replies: text: Regarding Star Wars... what about  The Clone Wars? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't know about that film, so now it is a decology. - LA (T) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General inclusion guidelines proposal

message: # Template for the film series lists was rewritten.
# 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)
thread_title:  Progress so far on the clean-up 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nomenclature and numbering conventions

message: The term "hexology" appears in no dictionary but Wiktionary, where it is unreferenced. A search on Google Books  reveals that "hexalogy" means a series of six novels, while "hexology"  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Duology, Hexology 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed renaming

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Future Speculation 

message: 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)
replies: text: done. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed to define the concept of "Film series" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Make worldwide grosses at box office 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add Worldwide Gross Instead of North American Gross Only 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Average 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  by Kasper2006. The other table is from 2014. 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)
replies: text: Of course many things have changed since 2018.  --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I restored the source. Filmsite.org is owned by AMC Networks and is not some random blog. Your link  is from 2012 and quotes an old definition "A film series is a collection of related films in succession." 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Multiple entries need to be deleted, changed etc 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disney Live-Action 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarify Currency & Multiplier 

message: 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)
replies: text: Those weren’t movies. 64.107.163.147 (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inhumans IMAX screening to MCU box office? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal for page improvement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Lethal Weapons:"Mission Impossible". 2607:FB91:1BE0:8ABE:AC39:C338:9AB7:CC45 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Globe & Universe LLC.2023 series. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History