Benefits of Worldbuilding for Franchises

Main question: How can worldbuilding help a megafranchise?

With the rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there's been some talk about other studios building their own superhero mega-franchises. We have 20th Century Fox retooling X-Men for a mega-franchise of its own, Sony is trying to build one around The Amazing Spider-Man Series, and Warner Bros. owns the rights to The DCU.

And there's potential for other (non-superhero) genres to build their own giant franchises:

• Star Wars, for example, has more than enough potential with the fans thanks to its (now non-canon) Expanded Universe.
• George R. R. Martin has said Game of Thrones could last a lot more seasons than HBO is planning.

But for now, let's look at the potential for worldbuilding in a (hypothetical) megafranchise.

My thoughts: A friend of mine once told me "if you build your world enough, stories will spring up naturally." And that advice is very true in the worlds I've built. Of the two settings I have, one of them (a High Fantasy world) could generate new stories for 45 years, maybe more. The other one (a post-post-apocalyptic North America with a Heroic Fantasy flavor) only has less because I'm limiting how much I want to tell.

So what do you think? Post your thoughts.

edited 10th Apr '14 2:30:32 PM by AwSamWeston

I think one of the main advantages is that it can add a sense of recognition without killing innovation.

One of the main problems with sequels is avoiding the idea of it just being 'the same but more' - that's not always a bad thing, but if the worldbuilding in a story or setting is bare-bones, it makes it harder to add new stories or characters that don't feel like they're tacked on or that the setting is just being pieced together - that it was meant to be two completely unrelated stories and worlds, but 'we wanted the audience of the first one'.

But if the worldbuilding is large, detailed, and most importantly interesting in its own right, then it allows for a wide variety of stories with new characters or places - it has the recognisability to create a feeling of 'I liked that other thing called Such and Such, maybe I'll like This or That!' without limiting you to The Same But More or a sense that it might as well be an original story, just that they were scared it might bomb if it didn't have a recognizable name to it.

A great example of this is Avatar The Last Airbender. It's basic plot was in some ways very cliche and typical - a destined great hero with extraordinary (by the standards of the setting) powers is tasked with saving the world from an evil tyrant and builds up a group of Fire-Forged Friends along the way. But it's characters were so well written and interesting that the cliche'd plot (which even then managed to throw in some clever twists and conflicts) didn't matter so much.

And what else? Well, the world they created was, while not exactly realistic, nevertheless well-designed, unique, vast and interesting as well, and it meant that when the Grand Finale finally happened, they had room for countless new stories - hence spin-off comics and a sequel series, The Legend Of Korra, which has only added to the setting in believable and exciting new ways that add even more possibilities that simultaneously don't clash with the original (though some would say the writing isn't as good this time around, which I'd personally agree with). They've been able to innovate with characters and setting ideas, without the risk of trying to kick off something brand new.

edited 10th Apr '14 2:41:24 PM by Eventua

Well, I myself have three fairly well-developed fantasy worlds, which have provided me with...oh, about ten story ideas all together, not including smaller ideas and any other stories that might develop. So yeah, I'd say that a well-developed world, with enough room still to poke about at the corners, is extremely inductive to good story ideas.

I think a significant benefit is that if you can create stories without having to go through the whole process of explaining everything again. Having a single well expanded setting allows you to take stories which could belong to their own world and set them within this greater setting. This saves the audience having to learn and remember everything about the new world the story is set in. It lets you really get into the story quickly (and with little investment of though from the reader) and you still have the option to give more information if you wish to add details about the world.

Natural curiosity shouldn't be underestimated. People may be interested in fiction they would otherwise be uninterested in if it builds on a story they previously enjoyed. Even if the story is completely separate it can easily feel like a continuation of the story of the setting. I know when it came to starwars I was drawn to the expanded universe because I felt like the story of the starwars universe didn't end with the movies. This is especially the case if the audience becomes emotionally invested in entities beyond the original characters.

Self-serving question, re: "don't have to re-explain everything" — Say the different stories in the setting are from different time periods (between, say, Medieval European Fantasy vs Urban Fantasy). The setting itself doesn't change, but some of the details are very different. Would that benefit still apply?

The OP question still stands.

Yes and no. Yes you wouldn't have to re-explain everything at least in terms of generalities like geography, place names and a few other tidbits. No you do not get the overall benefit because the shift in time appears to create so much change that you'd have to explain that things have changed.

You can't for example expect an audience to believe that Medieval Fantasy!London has remained the same city as Urban Fantasy!London. Time will have passed, the city will have changed in at least one way. And in order to avoid the dreaded Retcon you would have to explain what has happened in the interim since the narrative last brought you there even if vaguely or skimping on exact details. (Which is as easy as saying "The city changed a lot over the past X years since Y Event.")

Worldbuilding within a megafranchise is self-defeating, I think. I don't disagree with any of the points above, and they're all quite good, but there's an inherent difference between 'official' and 'expanded universe' worldbuilding - namely, it's uncommon for a megafranchise to give more than a small group of artist/creators 'admin privileges' (let's call them). The result is typically a limited world that gives only an illusion of choice to anyone who wishes to add to it 'officially'... but is a wide open sandbox the size of Australia to the fans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall hearing that Star Wars was initially made as a stand-alone with an unusually extensive backstory, and that Executive Meddling from the studio was kept to a minimum. The franchise grew because A New Hope was a surprisingly apt name - it was a new and hopeful start to sci-fi blockbusters.

Then there's Game Of Thrones. Let's be honest - it's a megafranchise because it started small and then gradually gained traction until it became 'mega' with time (besides being brilliantly written and with space to grow). I wonder if you've heard 'Rage Of Thrones' by Axis Of Awesome; the song wouldn't work nearly as well with any other franchise, except maybe Marvel Cinematic and even then the rise wasn't as massive (you could talk about Spider-Man to a layman before the movies came out, but not the Game Of Thrones characters).

I think worldbuilding, in the modern social media-driven world, is like privacy - it gets more difficult with the more fans you have, and the more expectations you have to live up to or disappoint. Stir up too much controversy, and you risk killing off your megafranchise through producers and executives who pull the plug when your world's popularity dips.

So I advocate the (quite accidental) Star Wars approach to worldbuilding - as massive a backstory as you can manage (far, far more than you depict or even reveal) to as narrowly-focused a story as you dare to tell. If the fans come up with especially good ideas, Fandom Nod. Stay as under the radar as long as possible before bursting onto the scene with as much fanfare as is reasonable.

Done poorly and with too much management, megafranchises kill innovation and worldbuilding in their own story, so the order absolutely has to be worldbuilding driving the franchise rather than the other way around.

...I hope that made sense outside of my own head.

Yeah, I think it did. "Build the world for the sake of the setting/story, not for the franchise itself." Am I getting it right?

Also, a little quibble: Star Wars Episode IV wasn't called "A New Hope" until the re-release. It started out as just "Star Wars."

On the box cover, yeah, but I thought it was 'IV - A New Hope' in the opening crawl?

Conveniently enough, my dad actually saw the original run of Star Wars. According to him, there was no episode number. People were confused when The Empire Strikes Back was dubbed "Episode V".

But let's stay on-topic, here, please. This thread isn't about Star Wars; it's about mega-franchises.

edited 11th Apr '14 2:14:38 PM by AwSamWeston

@aw sam

I guess it would depend on how unique your setting is compared to how much has changed. A world similar to earth wouldn't need much explaining compared to how much would change over a ~500 year period. In this case world building would be pointless (in terms of saving time) because the basic info you would need to explain to a new viewer would be about the same as the changes you would need to explain to an audience who had already encountered the setting. On the other hand a setting with completely different history, geography and species would still benefit from world building even if the stories are hundreds of years apart (assuming nothing world changing occurs)because the specific information you have included would still be relevant.

edited 12th Apr '14 8:46:28 AM by aoide12