The continued segmentation of entertainment into increasingly small numbers of ever-growing franchises is a serious threat. Hollywood has always been risk-averse, but it seems like a blockbuster can't make it to the big screen without an existing IP attached. This problem has migrated to the small screen, compelling several big IP-holders to create spin-offs, prequels, and adaptations for their streaming services. The ideas aren't new, but the execution is worse than ever.
Hollywood's never-ending game of follow-the-leader selected Marvel as its target over a decade ago. The cinematic universe model that Disney is currently pushing to its breaking point is the envy of every other franchise. The draw is obvious, but tying every big-budget film together isn't enough anymore. The shared content must connect across mediums.
TV Shows based on movies aren't exactly new
One of the earliest examples of a TV tie-in to a beloved film was Casablanca. In 1955, Warner Bros. Executive producer William T. Orr attempted to create 20 prestige shows for ABC. He reached for Michael Curtiz's classic Casablanca and Sam Wood's King's Row. Orr's Casablanca imagined Rick Blaine as a Cold War-era spy in a complicated relationship with his renamed love interest. The show went over like a lead balloon. It was canceled after ten episodes. The show's director blamed its star, but anyone tasked with following Humphrey Bogart would've been fighting an uphill battle. It fared better than King's Row, which folded after seven episodes. This concept would live on beyond its first messy attempts.
From the seventies to the 2000s, a ton of successful films enjoyed spin-off series built to capitalize off their success. Some examples are more popular than others. Highlander received three tie-in TV shows, each less popular than the last. Guy Ritchie created a short-lived companion piece to his Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels that was considered incomprehensible by viewers outside of London's East End. The 80s and 90s made superhero cartoons out of everything from Rambo to Robocop. Almost every animated Disney movie got an episodic spin-off. In the modern day, studios frequently attempt to bring back hits by creating follow-up series. Damien, Willow, Minority Report, and The Exorcist tried to revive their source material with a legacy sequel, but none were successful. Better examples include Bates Motel, Fargo, and Cobra Kai. It's a very common gimmick.
Viewers weren't required to watch the shows
One of the benefits of a show like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles over Marvel's constant Disney Plus output is that fans could still enjoy the films without needing to hunt down the series. The biggest strength of the cinematic universe format has proven to be for the studio's benefit. Tons of Marvel fans have abandoned the franchise after sitting down for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 or Thor: Love and Thunder, only to discover they're missing key details of the plot. Disney's Star Wars franchise has arguably made that problem even worse. There's a massive character choice made at the end of The Mandalorian's second season. It's undone in The Book of Boba Fett, and anyone who justifiably chose to skip that show would enter season three completely lost.
Spin-off shows are often now required viewing. These massive franchises with wildly varying casts, crews, tones, genres, and storylines no longer exist to offer multiple choices. Fans who only enjoy certain aspects of the universe will feel left out when a character they've never seen is introduced with an applause break. The motivation behind these decisions is obvious. Big studios don't want viewers to be able to pick and choose which films they want to watch. They want viewers to feel obligated to sit through whatever they slap the branding onto. That's why every studio is after the cinematic universe gimmick. It guarantees success for their worst projects because fans will sit through anything that might have some impact on the films and shows they're interested in.
The old shows could stand on their own
TV spin-offs will always benefit from their source material's name recognition, but that doesn't mean they always have to be cheap cash-ins. Legacy sequels can find a new angle on a beloved idea. Prequels can delve deeper into a familiar character. Spin-offs can provide a unique perspective and give fans something they couldn't get elsewhere. Fans love many of the TV adaptations of their favorite films, from growing up with The Real Ghostbusters to returning to North Dakota in Fargo. The idea is far from cursed. The upside is that it's increasingly easy to tell which entries are worth their while.
The ugly truth of most modern TV spin-offs is that the reason they exist is to keep subscribers locked into their respective streaming services. Many have pointed out that the abysmal conditions that prompted the current WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes ensure that a streaming series saves on residuals. Studios love them. Expectations are lower, they can hire lesser-known actors, and they don't even have to pay the people who made them beyond their initial rates. There's darkness in their current obsession with streaming spin-offs in favor of traditional media. Fans will have to vote with their views and hope the situation is rectified.