I mean, you take an idea that's already been executed and worked successfully, then you go on to redo it, but different, yet it ends up utterly stupid.
Examples: Jurassic World, Alien Covenant, The Mummy, Amazing Spiderman, Ghostbusters so on and on.
Why is it so difficult to reinvigorate an already successful franchise?
Because the original is usually a lightning-in-a-bottle classic, so they're just setting themselves up for failure.
shareStudios want to make the most money possible the safest way possible once they realize what an original hit they have on their hands.
shareI stated along time ago on my review(On IMDB) that 'one' go around with characters the first time is more than enough.
Spin-off's, sequels, 'revamps' m reunion 'moies of the week' andnow reboots 'rarely' if ever work.
"Roseanne' (#2) seemed to be working but we know what happened there.
When I heard about 'Fuller House, I rolled my eyes. I'll never watch it, I like the Tanners in the original,
I don't want to see an aging Danny, Jesse and Joey and others.These kind of shows ruin those memories.
This by the way is nothing new. When comedian/actor Danny Thomas's show "Make Room For Daddy ended after a run from 1953 to 1964. He returned in the early 1970s with "Make Room For 'Grand-Daddy' . His young kids now grown and (already) with kids o their own. Only lasted on season. Not surprising given how TV was changing then with All In The Family and Mary Tyler Moore Show.
If I owned Hollywood and all their studios (etc.) I'd forbid doing
this kind of unoriginal nonsense. Be original as possible or don't bother.
I appreciate the trivia. You come off very knowledgeable. Never got into 'Full House'. By the time I saw it, much of the dialogue and joke gags were dated, don't mean to knock the show though.
A lot of shows and movies seem to only end up being a fly-on-the-wall, throw the darts and see what sticks. One factor that pushes unnecessary sequels besides popularity is huge budgets studios invest, making their projects too big to fail, forcing creative teams to adhere to strict protocols pushed by the executives funding their work and sending the paychecks.
Seem like it's because they take everything they think was successful about the original and throw everything else out. But successful movies aren't like bananas, where you can peel off what you don't like and get all the good in one bit. What makes a good movie, good, is much more complex and fragmented. Plus, they're often wrong about what they think was good.
share