Zarm wrote:And yet during the Connery years, where it arguably enjoyed its peak popularity, they were putting out one per year. They only slowed down as the films became larger and more elaborate productions. The production requirements necessitated a lengthening schedule.
However, a staggered schedule- easily possible, as you don't have the same star working on every film in the way the Connery films did- could alleviate even that necessity. And the argument that the subject matter itself would grow tiring would seem to be negated by the popularity of numerous annual franchises, from those Connery films to the popularity currently enjoyed by the Star Wars series. And yes, I do recognize and that those are staggered with Anthology stories. But nonetheless, a fan base does not tend to yire of getting its films more often- if anything, they clamor for that. And as long as the films are well-made, there's no evidence that I can see from any franchise of fatigue occurring simply because the audiences are tired of seeing a character.
It occurs if the quality drops- but that has nothing to do with the frequency, as it can happen both in quick turnaround productions and long turnaround productions... evidenced by so many failed franchises and rebooted series of recent years that took several years between each entry, and still didn't craft a satisfying story.
Exactly, I wish I could throw this post at everyone who goes on about franchise fatigue. Obviously much smaller scale, but you know how many animated Scooby Doo or Batman movies they release annually? The fan base don't care.
Hell, forget franchise fatigue, look at the argument for genre fatigue. People were talking about eventual superhero fatigue at least as far back as the Daredevil movie long before the Marvel universe was even a dream, and now superheroes are more popular than ever and it's been what, over 15 years since I heard that argument come up with Daredevil. Yet people still try and argue that genre fatigue is a near term thing.