The series finale of Better Call Saul aired this week, and it got me thinking about what makes a good spin-off, sequel or prequel. It is a delicate balancing act of evoking nostalgia while creating something new. The past has to be acknowledged, but it should also make way for the future.

What would a bad spin-off look like?

If the show creators had been believers of the Disney/Marvel doctrine, Walter White would have come back to life as an insane cyborg, going around repeating “Say my name”, who finally calms down when Jesse Pinkman helpfully provides the correct answer. The duo then somehow start up their meth business again. Meanwhile, Jimmy would have seen the error of his ways and, after a heartfelt apology to Kim, started up a law firm with her to provide legal aid to underprivileged people.

Jokes aside, I believe that the reality wouldn’t be too far from this cartoonish nonsense. If the effort is driven by anything other than the impulse for creation (or “sub-creation”, as JRR Tolkien called it), there is no upper limit to how bad it can get.

Nostalgia-baiting is a trap

A good long nostalgia trip is always a tempting proposition for any maker of spin-offs. It’s not without its merits. Top Gun: Maverick, compared to the original, tries to be more of the same, and is brilliant at it. In this case, what made the original great was correctly identified, and it still works on a modern audience.

However, repeating the same things over and over again may not always work, especially if the audience is acutely aware of it. The reason for that, aside from changing tastes, is that the new thing will always be compared to the old one and will inevitably lose out. Because with anything delicious, the first taste is always the best. Fans won’t necessarily reward pale imitations of the original.

There is an exception to this, however. The so-called “toxic fan” is opposed to this sentiment.

Toxic fans think they know better

There is a quote from the great Alan Moore that I like:

“It is not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they needed, then they would not be the audience. They would be the artists. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.”

Every show has its toxic fanbase. They are part of what makes the show successful. These are the people who are so devoted to a piece of pop culture that they take it personally whenever things don’t go their way. Despite their role in enabling mainstream success, they can also be the undoing if given undue influence.

Toxic fans are the audience members who think that they know what they need. Their loud confidence tricks some artists into believing that a winning formula for popular art has been found. Only later do they realize their mistake.

Success should lead to more independence

We are fortunate that Vince Gilligan & Co. could ride the astronomical success of Breaking Bad and did not feel compelled to make a spin-off that was actually a knock-off. Successful creators should be rewarded for continuing to do what they do, instead of having publishers and studios breathing down their neck. This may put artists at odds with traditional MBA-style thinking, which rewards “products” that potentially have “market demand” which must be satisfied in a timely manner.

Some artists are able to buck this trend. Highly successful creators have enough leverage to ignore the demands of overbearing executives. Creatores with no credentials (that is to say, financial success and critical praise) are also free of any such constraints. However, those with moderate success may be feel trapped by their obligations due to lack of confidence and bargaining power.

Ideally, any level of success should allow the artist to be more independent, not less. No more demands from the audience and the financiers. Get that in writing if possible, like the creators of The Simpsons did.