>>127336339Sure, risk is unavoidable, but the odds of something new becoming a new cash cow IP are incredibly low, while odds that it will under-perform are higher than the odds of something old under-performing, because you at least know for sure that people enjoyed the old. Thus, you go with the old, because it has a higher chance of breaking even. The goal is not to create something that brings a return, but to create something that avoids a loss, because the first thing your boss will ask when they notice the loss is 'why didn't you just do what was safe and break even?'
Alienating long-time viewers and killing the franchise also doesn't matter. At that level, you can afford to just shelve the property indefinitely. The goal was never to make a profit from the franchise, it was to abuse the franchise's goodwill to avoid making a lose, via mitigating risk. You know for a fact that long-time viewers are going to watch the remake, not like it, and then you discard the property, because all that mattered was getting them to watch that one remake to avoid being the guy who tried something new and lost money.
Look at a company like Disney, Disney doesn't want or need to be creative. They make billions of dollars already just from their theme park alone; what Disney wants is to avoid rocking the boat. They want everything to stay exactly the same as it is now, because where they are now is a place that brings in the big bucks. Creative bankruptcy is rife in bigger companies, and it's almost always because someone is afraid of wasting money needlessly and needing to defend themselves.
