Do successful franchises always have humans? [closed]

This probably depends on what you consider science-fiction or fantasy.

The Lion King is a very successful franchise, with no humans in sight. There's even mystical elements in the first movie, where Simba sees speaks to his dead father.

The reason movies tend to have humans in them is because it makes them relatable to us. In the first Ice Age film, there's a human baby and a human family, which introduced us to the franchise. In later films, where we've been sold on the characters, the humans have gone again and it's just animals.

Animal movies tend to do well, because they appeal to children and families, but that's not necessarily true. The Owls of Ga'hoole, adapted from a successful fantasy book series, wasn't very successful at the box office. (Despite being a visually beautiful film that's great for families!)

Science fiction and fantasy, on a whole, are about putting us in fantastical places or situations. Including a human character that we can relate to, or empathize with, allows us to connect with the story. Without a way to build an emotional connection with a piece, it's hard to keep an audience engaged.

Films such as Ice Age or Monster's Inc use a human child to help us relate to the non-human characters. How they treat a vulnerable member of our species marks them clearly as good or bad.

However, whether or not a human character is present isn't likely to be a good indicator of whether it'll be "successful". If it were that easy, we wouldn't have so many flops.

Not always; example of a (successful) scifi movie that doesn't have a human as the (main) protagonist :

Watership Down (film) –Wiki

The film was an immediate success at the UK box office and has received a mostly positive critical reception, with an 82% 'Fresh' rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The film was nominated for Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation in 1979. In 2004, the magazine Total Film named Watership Down the 47th greatest British film of all time and it was also ranked 15th in the "100 Greatest Tearjerkers".

Investors in the film reportedly received a return of 5,000% on their investment.

Despite its success at the UK box office, the film underperformed at the US box office, earning only US$3 million against a budget of $4 million.

With a budget of $4m, a 5,000% return would mean it grossed $200m, which I find hard to swallow, however I could not find WD's worldwide gross; "reportedly".

In the UK, the film opened at the Empire, Leicester Square cinema on the 19th October 1978 and expanded to the rest of the UK the following year. It became 6th highest grossing film of 1979 at the British box office. –IMDB Trivia

There are a few humans in the movie but none of them are protagonists. They might be considered roundabout antagonists, but the real antagonist was General Woundwort of the Efrafa warren.

Now, if anthropomorphized cartoon rabbits are too "human-like" for you, I don't know what to say. I'm at a complete loss trying to think of a live-action movie that would qualify... Homeward Bound? Grossing $41,833,324 says: YES, yes it does (production budget unknown). I haven't seen it in ages, but I'm pretty sure all three protagonists are pictured on the cover :