What do successful book-series-into-movie-franchises have in common?

[xiphias]

It's my impression that the three most financially successful movie franchises made from book series in recent years are HARRY POTTER, TWILIGHT, and HUNGER GAMES. (Okay, maybe it's premature to predict that it's going to be a successful series just based on the first movie, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that it will be.)

I was thinking about what they have in common. They're all YAs in the SF&F region of genres -- one fantasy, one paranormal romance, one science fiction. What else?

Female authors.

I don't think that's actually a cause of their success, but it does seem like it ought to feed into the arguments about whether women are under-represented in acknowledgement in the SF&F field.

I also think that, were I a Hollywood producer, I'd be phoning Tamora Pierce right now, if she hasn't already been contacted.

Comments

[ceo]

Um, Lord Of The Rings? Of course, that's really more like one huge book.

[ron_newman]

James Bond? Of course, that spans decades.

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

Oh man, a Tamora Pierce movie series would be brilliant, but I'm pretty sure the producers would go "Wait, there are HOW MANY books?" and then "Wait, she's STILL WRITING MORE?" and shuffle it down to the TV producers who did Animorphs.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but each series is independent. But builds. So you do a SONG OF THE LIONESS movie, you're in for four movies. If it does well, you're set up for four Daine movies -- you've set up an audience. If not, you're not stuck.

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

I can see it, but I don't know if Hollywood has the longevity to do that much stuff even if it is popular.