The Ultimate TV Strategy Revival: Studios Take it to New Heights
Studios adopt an old TV strategy but fail to enhance it, leaving viewers unengaged The new shows lack the standalone appeal of their predecessors
The growing trend of dividing entertainment into smaller and fewer franchises poses a significant threat. Hollywood has always been hesitant to take risks, but now it seems that a blockbuster film cannot be made without an existing intellectual property being involved. This issue has now extended to television, leading major IP owners to create spin-offs, prequels, and adaptations for their streaming services. While the concepts are not new, the execution is currently worse than ever.
Hollywood's never-ending game of imitating successful models began targeting Marvel over ten years ago. Disney's cinematic universe approach, which is now being pushed to its limits, has become the envy of every other franchise. The appeal is clear, but it is no longer enough to simply connect every high-budget film together. The shared content must also seamlessly extend across different mediums.
TV Shows based on movies aren't exactly new
One of the earliest instances of a TV adaptation of a beloved movie was seen with Casablanca. In 1955, executive producer William T. Orr from Warner Bros. embarked on a mission to create 20 high-quality shows for ABC. Among his choices were Michael Curtiz's renowned Casablanca and Sam Wood's King's Row. Orr's version of Casablanca presented Rick Blaine as a spy in the Cold War era, navigating a complex relationship with his newly named love interest. Unfortunately, the show failed to capture audiences and was cancelled after just ten episodes. The blame was placed on the show's star, although it would have been a challenging task for anyone following in the footsteps of Humphrey Bogart. King's Row didn't fare any better and was cancelled after only seven episodes. Despite these initial setbacks, the concept of TV tie-ins would endure and evolve.
Throughout the seventies to the 2000s, numerous successful films saw the development of spin-off series aimed at capitalizing on their popularity. Some of these spin-offs gained greater success than others. Highlander, for example, had three tie-in TV shows, each less successful than the previous. Guy Ritchie's companion piece to his film Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels was short-lived and considered incomprehensible by viewers outside of London's East End. Superhero cartoons became popular in the 80s and 90s, with franchises like Rambo and Robocop joining the trend. Most of Disney's animated movies also received episodic spin-offs. In present times, studios often attempt to revive successful films by creating follow-up series. Titles such as Damien, Willow, Minority Report, and The Exorcist attempted this approach with a legacy sequel, but unfortunately, none found success. However, there have been better examples, such as Bates Motel, Fargo, and Cobra Kai. This gimmick of creating a follow-up series has become a common practice.
Viewers weren't required to watch the shows
Rewritten content:
One advantage of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles compared to Marvel's constant Disney Plus content is that fans can still enjoy the films without having to search for the series. The strength of the cinematic universe format has primarily benefitted the studio. Many Marvel fans have lost interest in the franchise after watching Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 or Thor: Love and Thunder and realizing they have missed important plot details. Disney's Star Wars franchise may have exacerbated this problem. The Mandalorian's second season concludes with a significant plot twist, which is later reversed in The Book of Boba Fett. Those who chose to skip the latter show would be completely lost when entering season three.
Spin-off shows have become essential viewing. These vast franchises, with their diverse casts, crews, tones, genres, and storylines, no longer provide multiple options. Fans who only enjoy certain aspects of the universe will feel excluded when a character they are unfamiliar with is introduced with fanfare. The motive behind these decisions is clear. Major studios do not want viewers to selectively choose which films they want to watch. They want viewers to feel compelled to watch everything that falls under the brand. That is why every studio is pursuing the cinematic universe formula. It ensures the success of even their weakest projects because fans will endure anything that might have an impact on the films and shows they are interested in.
The old shows could stand on their own
TV spin-offs can benefit from the recognition of their source material, but that doesn't mean they have to be cheap attempts to make money. Legacy sequels can offer a fresh perspective on a beloved concept, while prequels can provide deeper insights into familiar characters. Spin-offs can offer a unique viewpoint and give fans something they couldn't find elsewhere. Many fans enjoy TV adaptations of their favorite movies, such as growing up with The Real Ghostbusters or returning to North Dakota in Fargo. The idea of TV spin-offs is not necessarily a bad one. However, it's important to note that many modern spin-offs exist primarily to keep subscribers locked into streaming services. This is often due to financial considerations, such as avoiding residuals. Studios love these spin-offs because they have lower expectations, can cast lesser-known actors, and don't have to pay the original creators beyond initial rates. There is a concerning focus on streaming spin-offs over traditional media, which puts fans in a position where they must support the content they believe in and hope for change.
