One of the movies I watched last weekend was The Fall Guy, a movie that says a lot about Hollywood today — not necessarily within the movie itself, but in the concept behind it.

I really enjoyed the movie. It’s essentially an action romantic comedy. It hits all the rom-com beats, but in the context of some pretty ridiculous action sequences, like the declaration of love during a chase with things blowing up in the background, or the big “misunderstanding” happening because of an attempted kidnapping that turns into a chase and fight scene. The cast is clearly having fun and well aware of what movie they’re in while still managing to play it perfectly straight. It’s pretty much the perfect popcorn movie or date movie. I laughed out loud several times.

But it’s also a sign of how utterly terrified Hollywood seems to be of anything original right now. Every movie has to be tied to or based on something else. It has to be a sequel, a remake, based on a book/movie/comic book/videogame, etc. In this case, the movie is supposedly based on the 1980s TV series The Fall Guy. I watched that series. I don’t remember much about it because it’s not all that memorable. It was the kind of thing that was fun to watch, but as soon it was over you forgot that you watched it.

But the movie actually has almost nothing to do with the series. There’s the title, the name of the main character and the fact that he’s a stunt man, and two of the stars of the series show up in cameos that have nothing to do with their series roles. The TV series was about a stunt man who worked as a bounty hunter in between movies. He usually used his stunt skills to bring in the fugitives, like fancy driving or fighting, but sometimes rigging something like a stunt as a trap. As I recall, a lot of episodes began with what looked like an action sequence with our hero in grave danger, and then we’d find out he was filming a movie stunt. Later in the episode, that same stunt would be key to bringing in the fugitive.

The movie is about a stunt man who got scared away from the industry (and everything else) when he was badly injured in a stunt that failed. Now he’s being encouraged to come back to double once more for a toxic action star who likes to pretend he does all his own stunts, and the director of the film turns out to be the woman he ghosted after his accident. Things get complicated when the star disappears, and the stunt man needs to find him to save the movie for the woman he loves.

The premise and the stories are so different that if they’d changed the name of the movie and the main character, they could have made this movie with no credit to the TV series without getting sued. The fact that the character is a stunt man isn’t enough similarity. The creators of the original series could have watched this movie without having a moment of “hey, this looks like our series.” The series was a hit at its time, but it’s hardly a classic. I’d totally forgotten about it until I heard about the movie. I don’t think I ever saw it in reruns on cable. I think it may be on one of the free streaming services, but it didn’t get any kind of big revival from streaming. In all my time on TV forums, I’ve never seen anyone bring it up. I don’t see what the benefit was to tying this movie to the TV show. It may actually have turned off more potential viewers than it attracted. It doesn’t have a huge fan base that would be lured to the movie, but there are a lot of people who are turned off by the remake fever and who won’t go see something that’s a remake of an old TV show.

I’d be curious to know the story behind this — was there ever an original idea for a movie about a stunt man that couldn’t get made until they linked it to an old TV show? Are they so afraid of not being linked to something else that they wouldn’t make a high-concept movie about a stunt man restarting his career without it being a remake of something, even if that was a nearly forgotten TV show?

I’m not against all adaptations. I often enjoy movie adaptations of favorite books. I’ve been pleasantly surprised by some — I remember sneering at the idea of basing a movie on a theme park ride, but the Pirates of the Caribbean series was really fun (I’ve never been on the ride, so I don’t know how much it had to do with the movie. Was it yet another case of a movie that could have stood on its own without the tie-in and had little to do with the thing it was supposedly based on?). There have been cases of remakes that were better than the original when there’s a reason to remake it, like improved technology or a change in society. But I’m getting tired of the “Hey, you liked this thing, so here’s another version of it!” attitude when it crowds out everything else in the market.