Calling movies spin-offs, sequels and prequels can get confusing

In this case, it seems the makers or marketers behind the longrunning (eight films over 16 years) thought people might not realise the spin-off, teaming Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham - both of whom starred in multiple Fast instalments - was related to the earlier films.

What this says about their attitude to their audience might not bear thinking about: if people could keep track of the multiple title changes in the franchise, surely they could work out the new film was related? It seems to be a legitimate spin-off rather than a sequel since the focus really is just on the two title characters in a new adventure.

Overlooking the absurdity that a film franchise can "present" its own spin-off (if you're going to use this wording, surely a person or studio would be the one?) it's interesting to consider how franchises or film series use the idea of spin-offs (omitting direct sequels that continue the same story, reboots, and transpositions to other media such as TV and video games (in both of which there are many)

Superhero movies are problematic: having different, usually pre-existing superheroes featured in their "own" movies in what may or may not be the same universe doesn't, in itself, seem like creating spin-offs. It's probably better not to go there.

The Fantastic Beasts films seem to be prequels to the Harry Potter behemoth but JK Rowling has called them "extensions" - which sounds like "spin-offs" to me. Still, they take place in the same world, albeit earlier, so what's wrong with the "p" word? It would take a more devoted Potterite than I to work out the relationships between the earlier and later series.

The makers of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story and Solo: A Star Wars Story also seemed reluctant to call them prequels although they obviously were. Maybe they thought numbering prequel episodes was a bad idea in case they wanted to make some "real" ones later or were they worried about spoiling the status of the "official" series.

The Creed movies are often referred to as spin-offs but, given they take place years after the Rocky films with that character dealing with the adult son of his old opponent-turned-friend, they are surely direct, albeit belated, sequels? It seems like sloppy nomenclature to call them spin-offs.

A more obvious and genuine spin-off is Penguins of Madagascar (from the Madagascar series) since the birds have their own adventure.

Minions appears to be a spin-off of Despicable Me until (spoiler!) they meet a young Gru at the end. Maybe calling the latter a prequel is being pedantic, since the main focus is on characters that weren't the focus of the other films. Puss in Boots has the same relationship to Shrek 2: it happens before the latter but in this case doesn't directly relate to it.

Likewise, while The Conjuring had direct sequels, the Annabelle movies and The Nun feature characters that were in Conjuring films, but that connection is not the main focus (and Annabel's prequel goes even further back in time).

Anyway, whatever you want to call them - prequels, sequels, spin-offs - one thing is certain: these franchise entries are here to stay.