BoD: Orphaned franchises

The votes have been tallied and the list is almost out. No one can dispute that this decade has seen a lot of top-notch movies and a lot of really terrible ones, and in my opinion, both made it to the best movies of the decade list.

But my biggest beef isn’t what made it to the list, it’s what didn’t – four major players, some of the biggest movies of the decade, got left off. Here’s a list of what they are and why they should have been included:

"Star Wars": "Episodes II" and "III" were released in 2002 and 2005, respectively. They kinda sucked, there’s no getting around it, especially compared to the brilliant original trilogy. However, they still drew a big crowd – who wouldn’t go see "Star Wars?" – but more importantly, it’s "Star Wars."

Not everything belonging to the franchise gets a pass (yes, animated "Clone Wars" TV series, I’m looking at you) but the main movies deserve a nod for both drawing millions to see them and well, drawing millions to see them after they’d seen "Episode I" seems like enough, forget box office records. But even without the money that was made or the technology that Lucas used, the beginnings of the story of Anakin Skywalker and the rise of Darth Vader are culturally important enough to score at least some place on the list.

"Star Trek": Unlike "Star Wars," this deserves to be on the list not just for franchise value, but because it was actually pretty good. Not only that, but it is relaunching the "Star Trek" franchise and creating a new base of fans in a way the franchise hasn’t done in decades. It went from being a nothing movie that no one had heard about until a month prior to the release to a huge money-maker, and unarguably one of the best movies of 2009.

Original star Trek fans might be confused and possibly annoyed by the alternate timeline, but the movie has a whole cast of great characters who can, if not completely fill the shoes of the original actors, create a fanbase of a younger generation. Quality and franchise – how did this get missed?

"Harry Potter": This decade, just those two words should say it all. Did some of the movies suck? Yes. Did they all fail as adaptations? Yes. Does that matter? Apparently not, based on the fact that everyone sees them anyway. J. K. Rowling’s best-selling series is equally as money-making as the movies based off of them. No one can argue that they’ve garnered a lot of attention and launched the actors to stardom.

The movies have actually been getting better, too, as "Half Blood Prince" was actually enjoyable. But, as with "Star Wars," quality isn’t the only barometer – the box office and popular culture speak, and both have spoken for these movies. This is the Harry Potter decade. Where are the Harry Potter movies?

"Pirates of the Caribbean": Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate’s life for Johnny Depp and his co-stars – and everyone who went to see the movies. The trilogy launched Keira Knightly’s career (what there is of it) and solidified Depp and Orlando Bloom’s places as megastars. Pirate mania swept popular culture and evidence of the movies’ influence was everywhere. Not only that, but they were damn good movies (well, the first one was; I personally think the other two were not as good, but I’m probably in the minority, especially about the third).

Regardless of their diminishing quality, they were huge draws. Who knew that a movie based off a freaking ride would get that much attention? And would stay in the minds of the general public.

Is box office draw the only reason a movie should be chosen? Not alone, but franchise value and influence on popular culture certainly are, and these movies had all three. Regardless of individual quality – some were good and some were most definitely not – they were all influential and relevant, very major forces in the decade. All four deserve nods, and places somewhere on the list.