Why Revive A Franchise?

This thought had popped into my head as I was taking my TV History and Appreciation: 1940's-1950's and The Television Industry courses, but never could get the thoughts into proper syntax to express to my professors. So, I thought to myself: posit this question to the knowledgeable and friendly people at TV Tropes! So, I was wondering, with the enormous pressure to create a successful movie/novel/video game/television franchise, with the elements of proper audience, advertisers, and the like, why do some production companies take huge risks in reviving long-cancelled and dead-in-the-water franchises, when they know they face the difficult challenge of overcoming the three A's of death that are mangnefied when dealing with a fan-favorite, something that can be cancelled immediately due to audiences feeling as though the new visionary betrayed them when "reimagining" their favorite television show, advertisers, as well as affiliates that back off due to a lack of confidence with the new property. We'v seen this happen several times in the 21st century where a classic franchise has been attempted to be revived and failed-miserably-like Charlie's Angels in The New '10s, Knight Rider in 2008, Series/Ironside2013 in 2013, and Dragnet in 2003. So, with all the calculated risks, why revive a series that is so embedded in a society's heart?

You've just answered your own question.

edited 22nd Dec '13 8:22:59 AM by Stratofarius

The short answer is that they hope to benefit from the fact that the franchise is already embedded in people's hearts — a lot of the work of building a fanbase has already been done, and unless they muck it up horribly, they have a headstart.

The slightly longer answer is "Promoted Fanboy": the people who are rebooting franchises are often the very people who loved them during the first run, but now they're in a position to make more of it, but do the things that they thought would have made it even better. And face it, even people who loved a show beyond words always have a few things that they wish had been done differently; things that weren't done that they think would have made it even better.

edited 22nd Dec '13 8:31:21 AM by Madrugada

To be fair, there have been a lot of Franchises which have been successfully revived multiple times...Sherlock Holmes, Batman (and some other comic heroes), James Bond....the problem with something like Charlie's Angles is that those are shows which very much fit into the Zeitgeist, but are based on concept which can't work nowadays. To be honest, if I see episodes of the old show I feel embarrassed that I ever watched the stuff avidly. If they would pick shows which actually had a lot of potential which was never really used to its full extend during the first run, shows with an interesting an unusual concept, which would thrive in a more arc oriented show than the episodic series of the 1970/80/early 90s they might have more success. For example The Sentinel is perfect for a reboot, if they are smart enough just to take the concept of someone with heightened senses, but attach them to new characters instead of trying to sell a new Jim Ellison and Blair Sandburg.

Charlie's Angels and its imitators is a good example to bring up. The mentality seems to have been, "Well, Baywatch ran for a billion years, so that's money", but with the advent of internet culture, people are less likely to tune in for a PG-rated fanservice show. Yet you still see attempts to rake in type of success CA had, both in TV and movies. The first movie tried to crank up the absurdism, the sequel thew in violence, les yay, flipping cars and the kitchen sink. But ultimately, Charlie's Angels is a show dedicated to fashionable outfits and a very narrow idea of beauty.

Do any of you remember VIP? That show was interesting, because they tried to add 'substance'' to the Angel's theme. Added in socio-political debates and whatnot.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

Anyone else watching the potential counter-argument that is the current Hawaii Five 0 series?

I was hardly even aware of the original beyond the theme song prior to the revival coming along, and probably never would have cared much about it otherwise. But now, if the current version is any indication as to how entertaining the original was, I can imagine how the original version lasted as long as it did.

Since I didn't even watch the original one I can't judge, but I heard that it is basically a totally new show under an old name.

The thing with Charlie's Angels was that the show was just unbelievable sexist. The presence of Kate Jackson glossed a little bit over the fact, but the whole point of the show was to put the main characters in skimpy outfits and let them make sexy fight moves. Which worked well enough back then, but goes totally against current sensibilities. A show which will alienate half of the demographic just by the concept alone is a bad idea from the get go.

I guess it depends also on what the success was based on. You can't redo Columbo, because Peter Falk is Columbo, there will never be another one. You can't redo Hart to Hart, for very much the same reason. But a show which hinges on a concept and not on a special character? This might work, as long as the idea is not too stupid and would still work in our current society. For example Remington Steele (aside from Pierce Brosnan being the one and only) wouldn't work, because nowadays the idea that a woman would pretend to have a non-existent boss is just harder to believe.

Have you seen Doctor Who? Star Trek? Sherlock? Reviving a franchise is far less risk than creating something new.

Though I do wonder why exes don't have a good look at which fandoms are active weather the franchise is currently on air or not. I bet this would be a good factor to see if there is enough to it to warrant a reboot, instead of assuming that every show which used to be popular at one point is fit to be a franchise.

I only ever saw a few episodes of Hawaii-Five O, yet like most of my contemporaries I could reel off over a minute of the themetune now, not having heard it for over twenty years as a live thing.

Its success paved the way for Magnum P.I. Folks in the grimdark past of the Eighties needed their fix of Hawaiian sunshine because we all thought we were going to die by buckets of instant sunshine and Thomas Magnum's adventures filled an escapist hole.

PS reboot Magnum P.I., do a good job of it and you will clean up.

edited 23rd Dec '13 12:31:16 AM by TamH70

If you wanted an unorthodox private investigator in a sun-drenched locale, you had Burn Notice... in a way.

Also, the new Human Target. When I watched the pilot, I was honestly disgusted! It looked cheap and the lead had no charisma, even Jackie Earle Haley didn't save it!

And now what I like to call the first of my Useless Notes:

Let's use a fictional example: There was an old show way back in the 60's / 70's / 80's / 90's where Alica Fox, Bryony “Birdie” Byrd and Eddie “Fast Eddie” Rabbit fight crime in Beacon Ohio as “FoxGirl and her Fantastic Friends”. Their Rogues Gallery consists of Dr. Vulpine, Weeping Willow, “Sigmondo” the Feathered Snakeman.

Why revive a franchise? As MovieBob points out, sometimes people don't just want the old shows, they want more of the franchise.

Seinfeld Is Unfunny and Deader Than Disco have dented the franchise, but not killed it outright. Sure the No Budget, Special Effect Failure, and Off-the-Shelf FX means that even a George Lucas Altered Version won't sell well on Itunes. Some Once Acceptable Targets stand out since Time Marches On, even if it was Fair for Its Day. Fans Keep Circulating the Tapes but only die-hard Basement-Dweller fans want to keep the franchise “as is”. Others want the Camp Gay aspects of the villains and the Unfortunate Implications of Weeping Willow and “Sigmondo” toned down.

Now if the right to the franchise are tied up in a legal knot or you have to journey to Durka-Durkastan for lost episodes things can get tricky. And that leads to Development Hell. The cynic might point out that since most large media MegaCorps now own a lot of the older studios and now have movie, TV, web and cable companies their interest in old franchises has a lot to do with the “nostalgia dollar”. An optimist would point out that many people who grew up with the franchise became directors and studio execs. And now they are in a position to give FoxGirl some new adventures.

FoxGirl And Friends: The Next Generation

For a while there was the “next generation” adaptation. FoxGirl passes on her powers to a new character. The adventures continue, but the franchise admits that Time Marches On. Old characters can come back, new ones are introduces And the Adventure Continues. However, some actors might age out of the physical demands for stunts. Continuity Snarl sets in as updated villains and plots clash with the older “un-pc” and No Budget show. Continuity Lockout can turn off some casual viewers and of course the die-hard fans will say They Changed It, Now It Sucks!. Waring: it may become a Franchise Zombie.

The Remake:

A Remake can work with HistoricalInJokes: FoxGirl stops Dr. Vulpine from stealing some tapes from the Whitehouse, afterwords the trio can dance at the prom to Nothing but Hits (from the studio's back catalog of course). But again people may want more of the franchise, not dated jokes and tropes.

So the franchise gets a reboot:

This version I call the Tim Burton Hot Topic treatment.

The camp elements are acknowledged, but the plots and characters are taken seriously. It's a Perky Goth / Camp / Black Comedy take on the franchise. Sure Dr. Vulpine is Camp Gay and WeepingWillow cries a river of mascara but the characters are given a depth and the plot is fun to watch. Like the "spooky versions of characters at a "Hot Topic" mall-goth shop, it's scary yet fun. FoxGirl, Birdie and Rabbit find that the Not-So-Harmless Villain means business. Things happen that reference the old show, but the series is fun to watch. Bases will be broken as some fans expect something else.

And now the Uwe-Macker version:

This attempt misses the point and seems to go out of the way to insult the audience. Camp Gay? The villain is a fire-hazard. “Sigmundo” and “Weeping Willow” go out of their way to offend the audience with Unfortunate Implications Played for Laughs. The Les Yay between the heroes is at the point of parody and the scene where the giant serpent lunges for Rabbit has critics paging Dr. Freud. The plots are badly done in many cases, seeming to exist to cash-in. Or the characters are twisted even if the plot is good. The “Foxy-Charge Card” will have even casual fans screaming at how lame it is. It may kill off the franchise.

So now we tone shift to Win Back the Crowd:

Movie Bob points out that the Darker and Edgier Tone Shift seems to be popular so that the Basement-Dweller fan base can say “look it grew up with me!” Studio execs can use this as an excuse to Avoid the Dreaded G Rating and use Sex Sells and Interplay of Sex and Violence to get people to watch.

Thus we have the “Michael Kelley Miller” treatment.

Rabbit gives a Film Noir narration. FoxGirl is Hell-Bent for Leather, Birdie now works at Hooters when she's not fighting crime. Villains scream and beat up people, the heroes scream and beat up people. The F/X guys go through a lot of fake blood and leather couches to create the effects. Things explode, sometimes for no reason than to have the heroes walk away from them. Beacon, Ohio is now a Wretched Hive and Vice City. Even the shots are dark and half lit. The villains are scary but the heroes can be even scarier. Watching FoxGirl use Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique on Weeping Willow might get ratings, as does Bridie's new Stripperiffic costume. But the violence in a “kids/family/superhero” show will turn off a lot of people. Made of Explodium, All Women Are Lustful, Creator's Pet characters, Ethnic Scrappy characters and lots of violence and cursing come off as shameless Author Appeal rather than a new or “ironic” take on the franchise.

The JJ Nolan treament:

This gets into two ways to do it, one: a darker deconstruction of the tropes, plots and characters but the franchise is taken seriously. Weeping Willow has a reason of being sad (depression is anger turned inward) instead of being a steroype (the director tones down the eyeliner). FoxGirl and friends may be brooding EmoTeens but they are given character development and a Training Montage to show why and how They Fight Crime!. On the Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane scale, it's more mundane: Sigmundo is now a guy in a snake-themed Power Armor and Dr. Vulpine wears gas mask. However, the Tone Shift can still backfire, WTH, Casting Agency? if Fox Girl now has a Guttural Growler voice that provokes less awe and more laughs. If done well it can Win Back the Crowd.

The other way is a Lighter and Softer take on the above:

Beacon Ohio is a nice city with a dark underside. Fox Girl and friends meet up in high school/college in a Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane universe. Instead of a radiophone and a taira with hairpins, Fox Girl and Bridie use Leatherman (tm) and Iphones (tm). No Alleged Car for Rabbit, he has a Dodge Viper. Doctor Vulpine now is their professor by day, fox headed mafia-don by night. Weeping Willow and “Sigmudo” are now played by actors who toy with viewer's expications.

Now if the plot still has the Generic Doomsday Villain / Chris Carter Effect it can turn people off. Don't reference classic franchises and their plots if you're not going to do it right. Author Appeal to conspiracies, Fanservice, Totally Radical dialoge or “mystery” gimmics can hamstring a plot as well. This can get bitten by the It's Popular, Now It Sucks! bug. But if done right this could appeal to both fanboys and the general audience.

edited 8th Jan '14 6:36:10 AM by TairaMai

Now I want to watch Fox Girl and pals.

Hey if we get enough input we can do a "just for fun" version. I'm game.

I second nightwyrm. Can Fox Girl and Pals be a thing?

The title is the only noteworthy thing about it. Everything's very pretty. That's about all.

One other thing: The 5-0 division is treated as the only competent police on the islands. I mean, it's standard for the Feds or Internal Affairs to play the villains on these shows. Blue Bloods, which also airs on CBS, ups the ante by having non-NYPD detectives act dickish. But now the regular beat cops are obstructive and lazy?

I could go on, but it'll just get mean.

Well, were would I put the bare bones so that the troper hivemind and do it's thing?

edited 7th Jan '14 7:35:00 PM by TairaMai

People will revive a franchise as long as they is perceived interest. I'm not sure why this is it really a question to be honest.

Not jut interest, like I said, the studio has to be able to exploit the IP.

They need to own the rights, have some IP that is "hot" not something that people kinda sorts talk about. Galaxy Rangers (the cartoon) is a fond memory for some people but it's obscure. Star Trek is common enough that people will tune in or go see it because most people will recognize it.

Sorry I don't really see your point. A few people on the Internet might vaguely remember Galaxy Rangers but it's not interested in any really profitable scale.

edited 20th Feb '14 5:30:32 AM by joeyjojo

Eh, my carpel tunnel strikes again:

An IP needs to have enough recognition to be marketable. Star Trek is a household name, Galaxy Rangers not so much.

Hollywood goes with what's "bankable": what they think people will go out and see.

An old IP may be fondly remembered, but if the buzz isn't there (or the rights are tied up), no dice.

An IP may get lucky and some studio might snatch it up because it's cheap. Being obscure enough that the price is low but enough people remember it so investors will pay. See Battlestar Galactica.

What about public domain stuff like the recent remakes of Sherlock Holmes? West Hollywood's attitude towards that?

Again it's the buzz and the interpretation. Sherlock Holmes in the 1880's? If that's what the trends indicate, they'll go all in. Or a director may take a risk. Why follow a trend if you're a big shot and you can make one? It's public domain and if a studio, actor or director has the clout they'll do it. See Robert Downey Jr. as a good example.

This can lead to dueling movies and has the risk that if one goes bad it could be a Genre-Killer. Even if it's Mis-blamed. M. Night Shamalyan does a Holmes movie and it puts people off it.

There is less risk for "public domain" IP because it's cheap so even if a Shamalayn-stinker comes out, the studio can just wait and see if it's safe latter. No rights issues and all that.

edited 20th Feb '14 3:07:54 PM by TairaMai