Broadcasters learned from big-budget misses in 2025 and now aim to cut risk and raise investment efficiency.
Adaptations from web novels, webtoons (online comics), and films, plus sequels to existing series, serve as reliable entry points for audiences.
However, this safety-first approach raises concerns about a slowdown in original creativity.
Familiar titles: new opportunity or hidden risk?
The core is clear.
At first glance, the 2026 schedule feels familiar.
That familiarity is intentional.
Broadcasters and streaming platforms are lowering risk by leaning on already established worlds and built-in fan communities.
In 2025, several high-budget projects underperformed, leaving a lesson for the industry.
Producers realized that big budgets do not guarantee hits, and that lesson changed how investments are judged.
As a result, the 2026 lineup emphasizes works adapted from existing sources and season-based continuations.
History repeats itself.
When several billion-won productions ended with disappointing ratings in 2025, studios and broadcasters grew more sensitive to cost versus return.
Therefore, adaptations from web novels, webtoons, and films, plus follow-ups to hit series, became seen as more predictable business models.
At the same time, platform expansion accelerated: online streamers and terrestrial channels increasingly cooperate.
For example, MBC’s 2026 slate reportedly includes seven titles such as "Judge I Han-young" (a web novel adaptation; actor Ji-sung returns), signaling a bid to capture attention with star power.
Meanwhile, platform originals like TVING’s "Yumi’s Cells" Season 3 aim to keep fandoms engaged while expanding their reach.
Ultimately, production decisions now prioritize stable investment and faster return on costs.
Arguments in favor.
Adaptation-based dramas use existing story structures and characters to secure early viewership.
Web novels and webtoons come with ready-made audiences, which producers can cite when convincing investors.
So, financing becomes relatively easier to arrange.
Meanwhile, serialized seasons keep loyal viewers returning.
As seasons continue, fandoms sustain interest and consumption.
Platforms gain stable subscriber bases, and producers can model predictable revenue streams.
From a market perspective, genre variety and international collaboration partially offset the limits of adaptation-focused strategies.
Romance fantasy, courtroom drama, time-travel plots, and historical epics coexist, widening viewer choice.
At the same time, star comebacks and marquee casting amplify marketing effects.
Securing stability relative to investment is a practical choice.
Thus, broadcasters and producers can lower financial risk while maintaining reasonable chances of success.
This boosts short-term business prospects.
Arguments against.
Relying on familiar titles and proven stories is safe, but it risks shrinking the variety of creative voices.
Continuous adaptations and expanding seasons may reduce incentives to develop original scripts.
Over time, the pool of new ideas—the industry’s competitive engine—could shrink, stalling the market.
Fan-driven success also has clear limits.
If sequels mainly appeal to existing fans, shows struggle to bring in new viewers.
That constraint can prevent a series from growing beyond its initial audience.
Moreover, the tilt toward safety can produce genre bias.
The 2026 slate’s heavy romance presence has drawn critique.
Less representation of thrillers, sports shows, and experimental formats narrows viewer choice.
The real divide.
Supporters argue that finances and rapid payback justify adaptation-and-season strategies.
Critics counter that preserving cultural diversity and creative energy is essential for long-term health.
Both positions have merit, and the solution is not simple.
In practice, budgetary balance, changing audience expectations, and platform competition all shape programming choices.
Broadcasters must weigh these factors when setting schedules.
Therefore, strategies should aim to deliver both short-term returns and long-term ecosystem vitality.
Deeper analysis.
High-profile misses in 2025 reshaped production and investment decisions.
When large projects prove uncertain, funds move toward safer bets.
In that context, adaptations and seasons emerged as reasonable alternatives.
At the same time, streaming growth and subscription models increased the value of ongoing seasons.
Platforms want steady content flow to reduce churn, and seasons match that need.
Consequently, broadcasters and OTTs are reorganizing content portfolios together.
Policy and industry structure also matter.
Rules, subsidies, and support programs influence which projects get greenlit.
If policy fails to encourage original creation, businesses will naturally gravitate to safer choices.
Practical proposals.
First, pursue a portfolio approach.
Make adaptations and seasons the stable core, but also fund small-scale original projects.
This balance supports short-term revenue and long-term creative health.
Second, redesign institutional support.
Tax incentives, production grants, and development funding for new writers can reduce the risk of originals.
Such measures spread risk and encourage experimentation.
Third, diversify collaboration models with platforms.
Joint investment between broadcasters and streamers, overseas rights sales, and cross-media strategies broaden revenue streams.
Particularly, localization for foreign markets can open sustainable growth paths.
Conclusion.
Ultimately, balance is the key.
Choosing source material and seasons makes sense for reliable hits, but investment in original content must continue.
Only when policy and business models support both aims can the industry sustain growth and diversity.
In short, the 2026 lineup reflects a strategy focused on risk management and efficient investment.
But to secure cultural competitiveness over the long term, the industry must pair creative infrastructure and policy reform with platform cooperation.
Which side would you prioritize?
