[Gary Baldy]

It's an interesting question that I've been pondering recently- what constitutes a revival? I recently watched the last series of BGT and I was thinking it was better before its 2021 hiatus.

And it got me thinking BGT was on in 2020, then didn't return until 2022. It was still close enough time-wise, personnel wise, format wise etc to the previous series to simply be a new series rather than a revival.

Saturday Night Takeaway was on in 2018, then didn't return until 2020. Again, this was still close enough time-wise to be considered a new series rather than a second revival. Even though there was a personnel change, with adding Fleur East, Andi Peters, and Jordan North instead of Scarlett Moffatt.

But then Millionaire and DOI were both on in 2014, and returned in 2018. Is it considered a revival after 4 years in a way that it isn't after 2? DOI changed judges bar Jason, but retained Phil and Holly, and Millionaire switched hosts to Clarkson but reverted to the original format. Maybe the personnel changes rather than the gap was what made it be considered a revival? In Millionaire's case, maybe you could say the return to the 15Q format with no time limit made it a revival, but in that case, why was the 12Q clock format not considered a revival?

If significant personnel change makes something a revival, then why wasn't Bake Off 2017 considered a revival, despite changing channel, hosts, and judge? 

Is there a certain amount of time something has to be away for to be a revival? What about the 2022 series of Ninja Warrior, it was away for 3 years, changed its format to a race format but was still considered just a new series- was that due to the original personnel returning? But then DOI had its original hosts return after 4 years (Christine was really just maternity cover really since Holly was pregnant/not long given birth for 2 of the 3 series Christine hosted) and was considered a revival, when Ninja Warrior wasn't after 3? Is there much difference between 3 and 4 years?

Then there's Happy Valley, which was simply a new series even after not being on for 7 years... Deal or No Deal which is coming back this year has also been off the air for 7 years but it's a revival rather than simply a new series- it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know if my wording makes sense but I'm just wondering what differentiates a new series after a few years away, and a revival after a few years away, especially since sometimes those revivals are on the same channel with the same host.

[AaronLancs]

The only honest reason I can think of is marketing and behind the scene shenanigans.

Taking one of your examples for instance.

Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
I'd say the shift to the 12 question format in the original run wouldn't have been considered a revival as it was still on air with Chris Tarrant at the helm and still being made with - in the main, giver or take normal personnel moving to other projects and leaving all together - the same production team or a derivative thereof of what was launched in 1998 when David Briggs, Mike Whitehill & Steven Knight were head honchos. Yes, in its lifetime the format may have moved from CPL (Celador) to Sony Pictures Television but the team that made is was still inherently the same regardless.

Coming back in 2018 you had the first notable visible presence in Jeremy Clarkson coming in as host. Behind the scenes, the priciple team is now Stellify Media. A newer indie based in Belfast set up as a joint venture with Sony Pictures in 2014. So kind of going with the 'back to ones roots' format of what made the show made the show can be considered a true revival. Plus with the addition of the Ask The Host lifeline it truly does feel like a newer show.

That is my two penny worth.

[Jon]

I don’t think it’s that complicated really. When we talk about ‘revivals’ in context of television programmes it’s the return of programmes that have previously officially stopped production.

Slight changes to programmes, who’s appearing in them even producing them wouldn’t be classed as revivals, unless those programmes had previously stopped production.

[Gary Baldy]

I don’t think it’s that complicated really. When we talk about ‘revivals’ in context of television programmes it’s the return of programmes that have previously officially stopped production.

Slight changes to programmes, who’s appearing in them even producing them wouldn’t be classed as revivals, unless those programmes had previously stopped production.

But BGT and SNT stopped production in 2021, and 2019 respectively, and weren't considered revivals upon their returns.

[Jon]

But BGT and SNT stopped production in 2021, and 2019 respectively, and weren't considered revivals upon their returns.

Well if we’re going to be pedantic about it they stop production every year, that’s how series work there is no rule that says the next series of something has to be the following year. I don’t think there was any suggestion they weren’t planning for either to return.

But there is no official Ofcom rule on what constitutes a revival if you or a journalist want to call the 2022 BGT series a revival then feel free every new series is in some sense.

I guess the real question here is what do people mean when they talk about revivals of TV shows? I imagine it’s usually the answer I’ve given, but they could mean anything. The particular context of the conversation is the important thing.

[Brekkie]

I don’t think it’s that complicated really. When we talk about ‘revivals’ in context of television programmes it’s the return of programmes that have previously officially stopped production.

Slight changes to programmes, who’s appearing in them even producing them wouldn’t be classed as revivals, unless those programmes had previously stopped production.

Exactly.   Taking a planned or even unplanned year off then returning with exactly the same format, look and talent line up is not a revival - it's just taking more than a year before series.   Under your logic any show which paused production due to covid was subsequently revived.

Jon has pretty much nailed - usually a revival comes after the axe and shows like Dancing on Ice and Millionaire were axed then subsequently recommissioned a few years later (with changes to the talent line up).    There will always be some that blur the lines - American Idol for example was axed by FOX and then revived by ABC less than two years later with just the host returning.    I think had it continued the next season on ABC it would be a continuation, if it had been a few more years before returning it would be a revival - but this one is a rather close call.


And then you have shows like Ninja Warrior which were never officially axed even though it appeared they were, and arguably covid did play a part in it not airing in 2020 and 2021.   The change in format here though were more about streamlining production (with 10 contestants a show rather than 30) and the talent and look of the show remained the same, just with a new subtitle.     That's probably more of a revamp than revival.

[tellyblues]

It depends on the circumstances.

If a show is axed and seen as dead but then brought back, it's a revival. A way that could change though is if the axing was believed to be a mistake and overturned quickly and the show continues like a new series would, it's a new series.

If a show is "on hiatus" like SNT was 2010-12 and comes back then it's not a revival as it's assumed that the show returns at some point. Millionaire changing format is no big deal but the manner in which the show ended originally means it's a revival. Ninja Warrior isn't the same format as before so can't be a revival but it's not a spin-off either, so a reboot?

[PJamo]

I think it's a question of semantics and what constitutes a 'revival' differs depending on circumstances.

There's also terms like 'reboot' and 'rest' which complicate the mix. I think it ultimately comes down to the 'feel' of the show, coupled with some of the decisions made around the time the 'original' version ended. Certainly if when a show airs what is, at that point, it's last series and terms like 'axed', 'the final series', 'cancelled' etc. then a subsequent series could be considered a 'revival'; if a show, however, if off air for a while without any such terminology used then it could be said to be 'rested'.

I think the question of 'if the show hadn't been off air would it quite possibly be as it is now?' is relevant. Taking the SNT example it's highly possible that the changes made between 2018 and 2020 would have happened irrespective of the year off so I don't think it could be classed as a revival. The same could be said for BGT. If anything those shows were 'rested'.

As for Bake Off - personnell and channel changes aside it's the exact same show - it could have easily swapped out Mel, Sue and Mary and continued on BBC1 with the line-up it had on Channel 4. I'm not sure it even had a significant enough time gap to say it was rested - it merely continued elsewhere. Big Brother as well - if, hypothetically, Channel 4 had kept Big Brother but Davina still left in 2010 might we have had the exact same series in 2011 as the one that we got? Quite possibly.

Something like Gladiators is an interesting example - the Sky version was very different to the ITV version; probably enough to be considered a reboot. The concept was the same but, referee aside, everything else looked and felt significantly different to the ITV version. Whereas the upcoming series on BBC1, by all reports, is very much inkeeping with the 'spirit' of the ITV series to the extent that it could be a considered a 'revival' of the ITV version whilst simultaneously 'rebooting' the Sky version.

[Brekkie]

I do feel we've had this conversation before so is this thread a revival?

[JAS84]

But BGT and SNT stopped production in 2021, and 2019 respectively, and weren't considered revivals upon their returns.

Neither of those were cancelled, didn't they just skip a year due to COVID?