TL;DR
Esquire published an opinion essay arguing that Hollywood should make fewer franchise films and put less emphasis on shared universes, sequels and studio intellectual property. The article is a cultural critique, not an announcement of a studio decision or a change to film-release plans.
Esquire has published an opinion essay titled “No More Franchises”, arguing that Hollywood should make fewer films built around sequels, shared universes and existing intellectual property. The piece criticizes not only franchise storytelling but also the studio planning, fan marketing and promotional routines attached to it; it does not announce a change by any film company.
Get your wardrobe favorites delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The essay’s central argument is that studios have made franchise planning and continuation too dominant in mainstream film. It objects to prequels, reboots, crossovers, multiverses and post-credits scenes, as well as films that appear designed chiefly to set up later installments. It also criticizes streaming spin-offs and the use of release “slates” and “phases” to organize connected projects.
The author extends that criticism to the business and publicity surrounding major releases. The essay takes aim at studios focused on adapting in-house intellectual property, long-range plans, promotional presentations and fan events, as well as marketing formats that turn interviews into games. It argues that this approach can place brand continuity and release schedules ahead of a film’s craft and the conditions for people working on it.
The piece also raises concerns about how franchise production affects creators, performers and audiences. It objects to locking young actors into lengthy commitments, treating filmmakers as interchangeable, and overlooking comic-book creators whose work supplies source material. These are the essay’s criticisms and judgments; the source text does not provide industry data establishing how widespread each practice is.
The Cost of Franchise-First Planning
The essay matters as a public critique of a business model that shapes what many viewers see in theaters and on streaming services. When a film is planned as one part of a longer series, its story can also serve as a setup for future releases. Esquire’s argument is that this can make continuation and brand management more prominent than telling a self-contained story.
Its scope also points beyond what appears onscreen. The author links franchise planning to decisions about release timing, filmmaker autonomy, performers’ contracts, creator compensation and marketing. Those concerns are presented as connected consequences of a system organized around recognizable properties, though the essay does not quantify their effects or show that all studios operate in the same way.
For readers, the distinction between an industry development and an opinion piece is key: the article signals dissatisfaction with franchise culture, but it does not mean audiences will see fewer sequels, that a studio has canceled a slate, or that a new policy has been adopted. Its immediate significance is the argument itself, rather than a confirmed change in production.
Popular right now
Roborock Q7 M5+ Robot Vacuum and Mop
Hisense 55-Inch E6SR Series Hi-QLED 4K UHD Smart Roku TV (55E6SR, 2026 Model)
Vitamix Touch & Go Advance 32-Ounce Bar Blender, White
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
A Critique Beyond the Screen
“No More Franchises” uses a repeated list of demands to widen its target from familiar film formats to the machinery around them. Alongside sequels and spin-offs, it objects to watch guides, explanations of canon, Comic-Con presentations, embargoes on press screenings, influencer appearances and promotional interviews. The article’s point is that franchise culture includes how films are sold and discussed, not just how their stories are constructed.
The author also criticizes fandom behavior and studio responses to online pressure, including toxic commentary and campaigns around remakes or sequels. The piece pairs those complaints with calls for more accountability and better treatment of creators and workers. The source does not identify a specific studio response, production cancellation or policy shift as the occasion for publication; it is framed as a broad argument about Hollywood’s franchise model.
““No more movie franchises. No more shared universes. No more post-credits scenes.””
— Esquire essay
No Studio Change Is Confirmed
The source is an opinion essay, not a report of a new studio decision. It does not confirm that a company is ending a franchise, changing its production strategy, reducing sequels or altering a streaming plan. It also does not supply data comparing franchise films with standalone releases or assessing the financial and creative effects it describes.
The article’s publication date is not stated in the supplied source material. It is also unclear whether any studio, filmmaker or trade group has responded to the essay. Its criticisms should therefore be read as the author’s position, not as evidence that the industry has agreed to change course.
Debate, Not a Release Shift
No specific next step is announced. The essay does not name a planned industry meeting, policy proposal or upcoming studio decision, so there is no confirmed milestone tied to its call for fewer franchises.
The debate it raises may continue through responses from studios, filmmakers, creators and moviegoers, but the source gives no indication of what those responses will be. For now, readers should distinguish the article’s call for a different approach from actual changes to film production: no such changes are confirmed here.
Key Questions
Did a studio announce that it is ending its movie franchises?
No. The source is an Esquire opinion essay calling for fewer franchises; it does not report a studio decision or cancellation.
What does the essay mean by “No More Franchises”?
It argues against franchise-centered filmmaking, including sequels, reboots, shared universes, spin-offs and films designed to set up later installments. It also criticizes related marketing and studio planning practices.
Does the article provide evidence that franchise films are harming filmmaking?
The essay presents criticisms about creative control, working conditions, creator compensation and storytelling. The supplied material does not include industry-wide data establishing the scale of those effects.
What happens next?
No follow-up action or industry milestone is specified. The piece makes an argument, but no production or policy changes are confirmed in the source.
Source: esquire.com
