Know This: Franchising ‘Billions’ Could Actually Work
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
On an otherwise unassuming Monday in February, Showtime issued a press release that, sans context, appeared to be business as usual. The cable channel/streaming service announced development plans for two of its most popular series: “Dexter,” the mid-aughts serial killer thriller, was exploring up to three new iterations, and “Billions,” the ongoing financial drama starring Paul Giamatti and Damian Lewis, was developing four spinoffs, including two titled “Millions” and “Trillions.”
Reactions were swift and merciless.
More from IndieWire
While plenty of eyes rolled in “Dexter’s” direction, a pervading sense of inevitability won out. Why wouldn’t Showtime extend a show that, despite complaints the original ran too long already, led to a revival that became “the most-watched series in Showtime history. (“Dexter: New Blood,” baby!) Suits are physically incapable of leaving money on the table, so sure, fine, make “Teen Dexter” (actual working title: “Dexter: Origins”) and “Dexter Jr.” (aka “Dexter: New Blood” Season 2).
But why, oh why, is there going to be more “Billions”?
Catching the entertainment world off guard, fans initially thought the reports were a joke. Once reality settled in, mocking the numeric titles became an easy game of one-upmanship, and critics chastised the network for prioritizing shows led by white men. (Among the jabs, “diversity, schmiversity” is a personal favorite.)
Still, for those who’ve kept up with Brian Koppelman, David Levien, and Andrew Ross Sorkin’s drama over its seven seasons, Showtime’s plans shouldn’t seem so strange. “Billions” began as a show about two gladiators squaring off on Wall Street, but soon pivoted into a damning critique of the mega-rich’s vast reach beyond the traders’ desks, and later evolved into a rollicking procedural built around its spirited cast, evocative music cues, and cunning twists. Set to conclude Sunday, October 29, “Billions” did what great TV shows often do: It repeatedly remade itself, and in the process, it not only netted droves of fans, but forged a replicable formula for success — in this show and the next (and the next, and the next).
“Billions” began in January 2016, back when “The Walking Dead” still averaged more than 10 million weekly viewers, “Mad Men’s” final season remained fresh in the cultural mindset, and “House of Cards” earned steady accolades, including Emmy nods for Kevin Spacey. It was, in many ways, a different time, when white male antiheroes were peaking, and Showtime’s high-stakes battle between billionaire hedge fund manager Bobby “Axe” Axelrod (played by former “Homeland” star Damian Lewis) and the crusading U.S. Attorney Chuck Rhoades (Oscar nominee Paul Giamatti) sounded like a possible successor to the Walter Whites and Tony Sopranos of TV. Money! Power! Two men in a pissing contest! Let the golden age continue, unabated.
But “Billions” also arrived during a cultural sea change. “Stranger Things” was about to take Netflix by storm, ushering in a new wave of nostalgic comfort food, and “This Is Us” was readying the return of kindhearted everymen as viewers’ preferred protagonists. Then there was that little election in November, which slightly altered perceptions of America’s rich. Fanatical Manhattan power players battling for control of the world’s wealth didn’t quite capture the cultural zeitgeist in a way they may have a few years prior.
So, being the nimble little show it repeatedly proved itself to be, “Billions” shifted with the tide. After a bombastic first season (bookended by two screaming matches between Chuck and Axe), the follow-up moves away from a vibe early critiques referred to as “‘Entourage’ for grown-up finance bros” and leans harder into its underlying message about the way our world turns. That meant forcing characters to wrestle with their crueler choices, providing more foils for the toxic masculinity running rampant in financial circles, and finding a formula that helps make their points clear without sacrificing good ol’ fashioned entertainment value.
In Season 2, Chuck walks a dark path engendered by his honorable pursuit of the rich and too-powerful. He lets pride fuel him, spite bend him, and competition get the better of him. His turning point — the unforgettable Ice Juice twist — illustrates just how far Chuck is willing to go to punish Axe, sacrificing friends and family for one shot at his nemesis. By the end of Season 2, it’s clear Chuck can no longer claim the side of the righteous, and rather than continue to position a power-hungry politician against a law-breaking billionaire, “Billions” lumps its obvious antihero (Axe) in with its flawed champion (Chuck) in order to bear witness to wealth’s near-infinite, thoroughly corrosive reach. As Chuck himself would be prone to quote: “Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Such a focus better suited the burgeoning animosity viewers felt for real-life billionaires (both actual fat-cats and one lying orange tabby), but it also kept “Billions” from getting boring. When it came to Axe vs. Chuck, the end of Season 1 already felt like it was running on empty. Squaring off again in Season 2 took a Herculean effort worthy of the gods. (Again: That Ice Juice twist is an all-timer.) So how many times could they formulate attack plans without fully toppling their opponent? How many times could they meet up just to shout at each other? How can a show centered on two petty men’s billion-dollar beef keep going season after season?
The answer: expansion, in more ways than one, but which you can see most clearly in the cast itself. Wendy Rhoades (Maggie Siff) begins as a de facto third lead and only solidifies that position in subsequent seasons. Her inseparable ties to Chuck (via marriage and their children) and Axe (as her employer and long-term friend) keeps her at the crux of their machinations, often as a corrective moral compass but one that more than wavers from time to time. Brian Connerty (Toby Leonard Moore) gets a fascinating arc, morphing from Chuck’s No. 2 man (and heir apparent) into a cautionary tale — a worst-case scenario for what could’ve happened to Chuck himself, had fate, family, and better judgement not intervened. (And we get to see how that would play out without losing Chuck to a prison sentence.) Mike “Wags” Wagner (David Costabile) fills a similar role for Axe, but moves in the opposite direction — a fan-favorite who’s regularly rewarded for his wicked ways.
Among many more beloved players (Mafee! Ira! Dollar Bill! And the great David Straithairn as “Black” Jack Foley!), one supporting figure stands out: Taylor Mason (played by Asia Kate Dillon) immediately upends the status quo, as the non-binary brainiac who stands in direct opposition to the testosterone-based model of industry titans like Axe, while still drawing compelling parallels to her boss, Chuck, and other macho characters. Their arrival, successes, and failures also invite viewers to reconsider the show’s broader premise: There are obvious blindspots within the finance world (aka the birthplace of hostile work environments), but if this much money, in this system, controlled by these people can poison even those with the best intentions — outsiders and insiders alike — why bother preserving any of it?
Let’s look beyond the characters, though, and spot advancements in the surrounding story. Even before Season 3, Chuck and Axe start to pursue causes unrelated to one another. Axe goes toe to toe with Taylor, then Grigor Andolov (John Malkovich, in a blunt revival of his Russian, Oreo-loving “Rounders” character — a film written by Koppelman and Levien), then Michael Prince (Corey Stoll). Chuck also faces adversity from within via his Christian conservative boss Waylan “Jock” Jeffcoat (Clancy Brown), who eventually orchestrates Chuck’s offing. Axe and Chuck don’t square off again in earnest until Season 5 (when Axe/Lewis left the show), and that’s only after they teamed up for a season or so.
Given where things stand in Season 7, Koppelman and Levien knew they struck gold in that Season 3 partnership. At first, seeing Chuck and Axe working together is both befuddling and harmonious. They may hate each other on principle — principles that are unwavering — but we’ve seen enough of their similarities (ruthlessness, pride, and with an impossible pop culture acumen) to relish our two alphas joining forces. Better still, their shared goal — stopping an egocentric immoral bully from reaching higher office — also allows us to set aside our previous reservations about two sociopaths running roughshod over America’s economic system. Having spent a full season watching Chuck do battle with his replacement antagonist, Michael Prince, seeing Axe return to help sabotage Prince’s run for president is all the sweeter. Ultimately, Axe and Chuck’s connections win out, and all we want is more.
That goes double for the flair of “Billions.” As seasons progress, the show’s personality becomes stronger and better ingrained, as go-to catchphrases and characteristics grow charming in their labored integration. There’s the way everyone speaks, Axe’s dressed-down leather jackets and band shirts, fanboying over New York restaurants and chefs, random real-life guest stars (casting Triple H as an advisor to Chuck marks an insane highlight), the classic rock soundtrack, and the reliable yet satisfying plot twists. Without any of these, “Billions” wouldn’t be “Billions.” (Know this: I’d pay top dollar for a super-cut of every time a character says some version of “know this.”) These facets distinguish the series, becoming even more endearing over time, and now stand as an integral part of the show’s very identity.
Which brings us back to the “Billions” television universe and how it might actually work. When the original series ends on October 29, Paramount+ with Showtime has plans for four separate continuations: “Millions” focuses on a younger generation of financial moguls trying to make their way in Manhattan. “Trillions” lives in the other extreme, examining the absolute richest people on Earth; “Billions: London” takes the franchise international by hopping across the pond, while “Billions: Miami” — which Koppelman and Levien are already writing — is “set in the world of private aviation, where the clientele believe the rules of society, government and gravity don’t apply to them, amidst the wealth, nightlife, contraband and the cryptocurrency that pulses through that city” (via Showtime).
While all these ideas certainly resemble the general shape of related TV shows, they need something that binds them together beyond a shared obsession over shared currency. The “Billions” universe can’t only be held together by money, and it doesn’t have to be. Among the tangible ties like characters that can bridge the gap (given Wags’ unique personal ties to the state of Florida, he could easily surface in “Miami”) and the shimmering visual style established by pilot (and finale) director Neil Burger, the original series also provides the template for future stories.
Listen carefully, dear readers, as Mike Prince explains a certain formula during the series’ penultimate episode. Using a football play as his metaphor for game theory, Prince asks how a defense should go about defending a pass. If the defender just watches the quarterback’s eyes, then all he has to do is step in front of the receiver being stared down. But what if the QB is eyeing that receiver in order to move the defender away from his real target? Or what if the QB is only pretending to throw and instead hands it off to the running back? Or what if he’s doing something else entirely, like carrying the ball himself, aiming for his third read, or even setting up a quick kick?
That, in a nutshell, is the “Billions” formula: Take one scheming protagonist, give him an opponent who can see the field, and see how many steps they have to take — how many head-fakes they have to give, how many tricks they have to deploy — in order to get the ball across the goal line. Initially, it was Chuck vs. Axe, but it soon became Chuck vs. other white collar criminals, conspiring colleagues, and political opponents. The fun came from seeing Chuck’s process (or seeing his plans upended), just as it did when Axe’s long- and short-term cons worked (or didn’t). Sometimes their plays spanned entire seasons. Others played out in an episode or less. But every time, it was the joy they took in the schemes themselves that paid off for audiences at home.
If all these spinoffs come to fruition, the legacy of “Billions” may have more in common with CBS procedurals like “CSI” and “NCIS” than Showtime’s other prestige dramas, such as “Homeland” or “The Affair” — and that’s OK! Shows that run seven seasons and expand into a half-dozen additional programs aren’t typically tied down by one-of-a-kind characters or irreplicable plots. They rely on formula. They toy with it and put their own twist on it, too, but they aren’t afraid of it. And “Billions” has a solid formula that Koppelman and Levien have shown they know how to build out.
While four spinoffs will always sound like a lot, this universe is better suited for the future than many other attempts at franchising. After all, would you rather watch “Dexter” without Michael C. Hall or “Billions” without Damian Lewis? Oh, wait. One of those already worked. So why, oh why, can’t they do it again?
“Billions” airs its series finale Sunday, October 29 on Showtime. The full series will then be available to stream via Paramount+ with Showtime.
Best of IndieWire
Sign up for Indiewire's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
