Predicting The Biggest TV Flops Of 2026

Not every single television show can be a hit, but sometimes one can smell the failure wafting up off certain projects from the moment they're greenlit. We're talking about one-season wonders of yore like "Pink Lady and Jeff," or shows that don't manage to even survive half of that, like "Meego." There are some that die but are memorable enough to leave a huge crater in pop culture, while others disappear quietly, unremembered, unloved, and forgotten.

The 2025-2026 season will be here before you know it, and when it arrives it will bring a number of hits. But there will always be a few duds in the bundle. Looper's developed a pretty good nose for this sort of thing, which means we have a decent idea of which series will hit the skids before we make it to 2027. While not every project that you'll see in 2026 has been greenlit as of this writing, there have been a number of announcements that hint at what might be ahead in the future, and a bunch of shows that are in production.

It may be a little bit early to make a call on such matters, but the 2024-2025 season has definitely set up a precedent for what's in and what's out. Here's a list of shows we think might make a splash — or more like a brief ripple — in 2026.

It's bound to get a lot of eyeballs on it — well, at least at first. HBO's upcoming "Harry Potter" series will presumably follow the blueprint of J.K. Rowling's books, tracking the growth of the destiny-marked boy wizard from penury and abuse to heroics and fame. The question is: will the world accept the series as a mutable franchise whose characters can be played by anyone, after Warner Bros.' classic film series made such an impact on a generation? Or will there be a reluctance to subscribe to yet another spin through Hogwarts after Rowling attacked the now-grown actors of the first film series for pushing back on her views about the trans community?

The answer might already be obvious thanks to the existence of "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child," but don't count your chickens before they hatch. There's a difference between dedicating an hour of your life to the continuing adventures of Potter's compatriots and giving up years to retelling a familiar story. The book series would have made an ideal television property 10 years ago, and even though fantasy is a hot topic and curiosity over the project is high, there are no guarantees that fans would be thrilled to sit through this for years. Will millennials be willing to watch Harry fly again? Or should this show be expelled from Hogwarts?

Fox has to be kicking itself for renewing this one so early, yet that tends to be the proper practice for animated programs. But with 13 episodes under its belt, "Universal Basic Guys" definitely hasn't posted ratings worthy of its Season 2 renewal. The series has been largely dependent on NFL overruns to get eyeballs on it, and when it airs on a night that isn't filled with helmet-headed heroes, it tends to slide below the one million viewer mark.

In an era marked by second-day viewing, streaming and video on demand, that doesn't seem disastrous. But it's not making a big impact on pop culture, either. With both "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" being held back during the late winter and early spring months, Fox might push this newbie to the summer months to be burned off.

Following Mark (Adam Malamut) and Hank Hoagies (Craig Malamut) as they become a part of a universal basic income program after losing their factory jobs, the show's wit isn't strong and its satire isn't fresh. Will it scare up a large fanbase for its second season, or be relegated to the late midweek dustbin like its fellow animation domination siblings of yore such as "Duncanville"? Only time will tell if they fail or fly.

Enter the Taylor Sheridan-wannabes. "Ragdoll" is set to be a drama about bull riders, and until an untimely need for surgery caused him to bow out, it was going to be a vehicle for Tim McGraw. The singer truly cut his acting teeth playing a sad-eyed but resolute patriarch in "1883," and this Western drama seemed to be up his alley, filled with old lions in self-doubt and young lions ready to pounce. He will apparently stay on to produce, but if and when the series gets a new star, its success remains in doubt.

The strikes against it are numerous. Even though Sundays and Saturday mornings are often laden with broadcasts of professional bull riding shows, the sport has rarely managed to make a compelling film or television topic in non-reality formats. "Urban Cowboy" is the closest it ever came to creating a cinematic sensation, and those bulls were mechanical. 

On the other hand, the show's logline — which suggests another veteran-versus-mysterious-young-buck clash — doesn't sound like anything to write home about. It looks like the veteran will end up being the new kid's father, and if that doesn't happen it might be worth eating your cowboy hat. So far, though, it looks like it's got nothing new up its sleeve. Perhaps McGraw will pull off a fancy trick and rope this bronc in successfully, but as of right now it looks like he's stuck in a chute with no hope of rescuing his rider.

Taylor Sheridan has numerous "Yellowstone" spin-offs headed out the door in 2026. While "1944," his two untitled Kayce (Luke Grimes) and Beth Dutton (Kelly Reilly) spin-offs, and "6666 Ranch" all have ties to or star characters that were on "Yellowstone," "The Madison" is a bold departure in that it will feature none of the Duttons regularly but will focus on life in Montana in general. 

"Beverly Hills 90210"-style, the show will zero in on the McIntosh family, who move from New York to the wilds of Montana. The matriarch, Stacy, will be played by Michelle Pfeiffer, and she'll have two daughters named Paige (Elle Chapman) and Abigail (Beau Garrett), both of whom are grown and fighting their own dissatisfactions. Paige is married to Russell (Patrick J. Adams), who works as an investment banker, while Abigail is a single mother with two daughters of her own. The show's cast is rounded out by Matthew Fox as the brooding hunk Paul.

Naturally, tenderfeet like the McIntosh family will have to learn the code of the West, Sheridan-style. While the setup for the series as well as the cast promises soapy drama, is there hope for the show without a Dutton in the bunch? And will it differentiate itself from the rest of the "Yellowstone" universe by allowing different views on the West than the one often trumpeted by Sheridan? It would be interesting to get a less catty look at life in Montana than what we've gotten so far from him, but unless fans are here for Pfeiffer, this one might be DOA.

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know — can you repeat the question? That might be the phrase "Malcolm in the Middle" fans are singing to themselves these days with the revelation that the show is going to be the subject of a mini-revival from Disney+ in 2026. Most of the original cast has signed on to return to the program, with only Erik Per Sullivan, who played Dewey, abstaining from the reunion, apparently to deal with college life. 

The show will feature Malcolm (Frankie Muniz) coping with his existence as a single dad to a daughter while dealing with the demands of his lioness mother Lois (Jane Kaczmarek) and his more sensitive father, Hal (Bryan Cranston). Both want him to attend their 40th wedding anniversary celebration, where lunacy will surely ensue. Will Malcolm have paid off his promise and genuis-level IQ and scaled heights of greatness? Or did he end up swimming in the mediocrity that governed his life as a child?

Why are we hesitant to call this one a total success? "Malcolm in the Middle" had a certain quality about it that screamed the '00s. Its sour, hard-bitten attitude and its wryly dark sense of humor are emblematic of that time period. And yet the show also had a loving, but never sentimental, core; you understood the characters loved each other without them giving flowery speeches. It's going to be hard to recreate that wild, destructive, freewheeling spirit with everyone. One can only hope they'll pull it off. 

A series that everyone's probably rooting for is the reboot of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Or should we call it "Nova the Vampire Slayer"? While Sarah Michelle Gellar's Buffy will appear in the show on a recurring basis, the show will focus on the tentatively-named Nova, a total smartypants who sounds like a younger version of Giles. Her squad will include the queer Hugo and fangirl Gracie, who is their closest connection to Buffy via her constant research on vampire lore. 

There's no word on what kind of position Ms. Summers will hold in the show, but it's clear she's got some kind of slaying authority in the area. Since Sunnydale ended up being sucked into its own Hellmouth during the "Buffy" series finale, there's no telling as to where the show will be set. Sadly Nova likely won't be played by Zendaya, whom Geller said she wanted for the reboot when asked.

The shadow of Joss Whedon will sadly hang heavily over the project, and one hopes that it's possible for the series to break free of it and become its own thing successfully. On the other hand, a "Buffy" spin-off that's light on Buffy and doesn't have any of the other Scoobies signed up so far is a recipe that begs for cancellation. But in this case, we hope we're proven wrong.

Name-only reboots tend to be troublesome. The central concept has to be very strong and the world-building at its peak for fans to accept these new adventures and these new characters as worthy of the world that the old ones left behind. "Prison Break" is already swimming in some uncharted areas due to the fact that it will now be entirely about new characters when it's rebooted in 2026. 

Though it's arguable that creating scenarios that forced Linc Burrows (Dominic Purcell) and Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller) to break back into prison over and over again truly strained the concept of the original series past the bounds of credulity, It would probably be a good idea to have somebody from the original main cast as a regular in the series. 

Nevertheless, "Mayans M.C." co-creator Elgin James is working on a version of "Prison Break" that will be entirely new. One can expect boldness from him; after all, "Mayans M.C." did not shy away from violence or other horrors during its FX run. Will his "Prison Break" have the courage to take on for-profit prisons and the police state atmosphere we're living in during the 2020s? If anyone can do it, it's James. But will any network or streamer have the bravery to truly go there? We'll see.

There are definitely properties that fans still hold out hope for, in spite of the fact that they might end up being a mess. While some audience members enjoyed the wild visual style of "Blade Runner 2049," it was no great shakes at the box office. Still, Phillip K. Dick's story has continued in comic books, video games, short films, and novel-length works by K.W. Jeter, and now "Blade Runner 2099" is starting all over again with Michelle Yeoh headlining this iteration. She's playing a replicant named Olwen who — like Rachael (Sean Young) and Roy (Rutger Hauer) before her — is facing down a replicant's worst fear: the conclusion of her long if artificial lifespan.

Make no mistakes — this is a project worth looking into, with actors that are interesting and characters that have potential to be the same. Original "Blade Runner" director Ridley Scott even has a hand in the show's production. But the franchise's only foray into a series format was "Blade Runner: Black Lotus," which only lasted for a single season on Toonami. Odds aren't in its favor, even with that much talent behind it, so it feels like a likely flop. But Prime Video will hopefully prove us wrong here. It may not live forever, but then again what series does?

It was a tiger for Netflix back in 2022, but will the second season of "Wednesday" be party to the same sort of enthusiasm that greeted its first edition? Three years is a long time to ask anyone to wait for anything, and the 16-year-olds who did that viral "Goo Goo Muck" dance for Tik Tok are now 19 and in college. Will they be willing to indulge their inner kid again, or will the show be forced to scare up new customers? And can they drive new subscribers to Netflix's customer base in the process?

The second season of the ooky horror-comedy-mystery-thriller will likely build on what Wednesday (Jenna Ortega of "Scream") does now that Nevermore Academy has closed for the rest of the semester. While she and her friends managed to save the day from Tyler (Hunter Doohan) and Laurel Gates (Christina Ricci), will she see her new best friend Enid (Emma Myers) again? And will she return to Nevermore Academy or be forced to go to a new school? 

Even more interesting — will she end up being tossed into the adult world, with a show-based time skip that matches the one that happened in reality? Maybe we'll be proven wrong, and the show will come up with something just as daring for its next batch of episodes. But it's quite possible that the world's response to more "Wednesday" will be "Nevermore!"

Prime Video has staked an enormous amount of money on "Citadel" succeeding. It renewed the show in 2023 on the strength of its good but not outstanding Season 1 numbers, then spun up a whole franchise of spin-offs for its universe. That includes "Citadel: Diana," which has managed to become something of a minor international hit in 2024. The Indian-centric "Citadel: Honey Bunny" was also launched in 2024 and did respectably but not fantastically in the streaming world. 

But the franchise's future has darkened in the wake of Jennifer Salke, who once headed Amazon's streaming and television arm, departing Amazon in 2025. Without its biggest supporter there, the middling thriller might be done for. The second season of "Citadel" has endured a whole lot of production agony, and has been pushed back from its intended 2025 debut to 2026. On top of that, the futures of "Honey Bunny," "Diana" and any future spin-offs will depend on how Season 2 of "Citadel" does. 

That bodes ill for the quality of this next batch of episodes, since Season 1 wasn't received with raves by action fans in the first place; our own review called it "a spy thriller that only gets the job half done." The show doesn't seem to have caught on with a wider audience either, especially compared to huge action hits like "Reacher" and "Fallout." Plus Amazon now fully owns James Bond. Why on earth does it need lukewarm spy shenanigans on its roster when it has the gold standard for spies on its side now?