It is a common enough occurrence to hear in fan discourse that one media franchise or another has been ruined. Some argue, for example, that the addition of Episodes VII–IX to the Star Wars Saga undermined the previous six episodes, with the Sequel Trilogy’s political conflicts lessening the impact and significance of prior events, and with the Sequel Trilogy’s depiction of certain pre-existing characters, especially Luke Skywalker, derailing previous character development. Others belonging to a different fandom assert that revelations in the so-called Timeless Child arc in the recent twelfth series of the relaunched Doctor Who series diminishes some of the legacy of the classic series of Doctor Who. Still others in yet another context assert that the vision of the future seen in Star Trek: Picard contradicts, narratively and spiritually, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s vision for his creation. While each of these topics could receive (and have elsewhere received) detailed analyses, cursory descriptions of these topics sometimes use the word ruin: The Sequel Trilogy ruined Star Wars; “The Timeless Children” ruined Doctor Who; Picard ruined Star Trek; et al.
In writing this article, I do not aim to affirm or refute any of these previous assertions. (But if you must know, I would agree that the Sequel Trilogy undermines the first six episodes of the Star Wars Saga; I dislike the episode “The Timeless Children,” but it is too early to say what long-term effects it will have on Doctor Who, for the Timeless Child revelation may be dismissed or forgotten by future stories, much like the 1996 television movie’s revelation that the Doctor is half human; and I have not seen Star Trek: Picard and so am not in a position to judge its quality, and I do not know enough about Star Trek to fully appreciate how Picard‘s place in Star Trek canon.) Instead, what interests me here is the use of the word ruin. Simply put, what does it mean to ruin a media franchise?
First, I will refer to a dictionary, if you’ll pardon the cliché. Merriam-Webster provides the following definitions for the transitive verb ruin: “to damage irreparably,” “bankrupt, impoverish,” “to subject to frustration, failure, or disaster,” “to reduce to ruins: devastate.” None of these sound positive.
That first definition, “to damage irreparably,” seems to be the one most have in mind when using the word in reference to a particular franchise. And “irreparably” is the key here. I do not believe that the mere existence of a single substandard installment of an ongoing franchise is enough to ruin said franchise.
One of my favorite television series is the classic series of Doctor Who, which ran for twenty-six seasons from 1963 to 1989. Not every episode of the series is good. For instance, “Timelash” is a bad story, to choose just one (I chose it because I watched it recently). I do not enjoy “Timelash,” but its existence does not ruin the classic series of Doctor Who for me, for its existence does not detract from other, better episodes. Indeed, considering how long Doctor Who ran, one would expect some peaks and valleys in terms of quality.
But disgruntled Doctor Who fans who assert that the recent episode “The Timeless Children” ruined Doctor Who are saying more than that the episode was low quality. After all, there are many other bad episodes of Doctor Who, even in Series 12, with “Orphan 55” being arguably worse than “The Timeless Children.” Yet the latter receives accusations of show-ruination more often than the former. Why? Because the plot of “Orphan 55” is easier to ignore than that of “The Timeless Children.” Despite its narrative and dramatic failings, “Orphan 55” will not be an albatross around the neck of anyone who will create future Doctor Who stories, but “The Timeless Children” might be. For “The Timeless Children” modifies Doctor Who mythology in a way that may greatly impact subsequent stories.
So here’s a potential view on franchise ruination: You won’t ruin a franchise merely by adding a substandard installment to it. But you can ruin a franchise by adding an installment that prohibits other, better stories from being told in the future. Your installment’s badness is regrettable but not fatal for the franchise if other installments can ignore yours easily enough. But if your installment is bad in ways that bring down others’ works, as well, then you may have ruined the franchise.
But even this view is incomplete. For on this view, one might fruitfully ask whether Star Wars: Episode VI—Return of the Jedi ruined the Star Wars Saga. After all, one reason for the Sequel Trilogy’s lackluster storylines is that Return of the Jedi resolved the saga’s plot so effectively that the writers of the Sequel Trilogy had difficulty extending that plot to accommodate three more episodes. Does this attest to a flaw on the part of Return of the Jedi? Should Return of the Jedi have been more open-ended to allow the Sequel Trilogy more room to maneuver? No and no. The Star Wars Saga was not meant to go on forever; it was meant to have a definitive beginning, middle, and end. That the creative teams behind the Sequel Trilogy had difficulty constructing new plots set after the saga had effectively ended in Episode VI is a testament to Return of the Jedi’s efficacy as an ending. So let’s modify the position of franchise ruination offered above: an installment in a franchise ruins that franchise when it diminishes the ability of the franchise’s subsequent installments to be effective in a context where further installments are expected and warranted.
I do not recommend accusing others of ruining franchises willy-nilly. Often, as I believe is the case with “The Timeless Children” and Doctor Who, it is easier to see whether a development was good or bad in hindsight than when that development is ongoing. And provocative statements, such as the assertion that a long-running franchise has been ruined, should be used only cautiously if one wishes to avoid hyperbole. But sometimes provocative statements are true, and a shared understanding of what it means to ruin a franchise will increase audience members’ ability to discuss among themselves what they like or dislike about a franchise and why they feel the way they do.
