^The point, of course, is to make money. If audiences are still willing to spend money on a franchise but it's not feasible to continue it in its original form, it can be restarted in a different form. There's no sense in letting it lie fallow when it could be earning the studio money in the near future.
And really, I don't see why it's so objectionable to start the new incarnation promptly when it's in movies. I mean, in the past two decades we've had five distinct animated TV continuities featuring Batman and/or Robin (DCAU, Teen Titans, The Batman, Batman: The Brave and the Bold, Young Justice
-- six if you count Krypto the Superdog
), all coming out in quick succession or even directly overlapping each other, and we've got another one, Beware the Batman
, already in production for next year. And that's alongside the Birds of Prey
TV series, the Nolan movies, and the multiple independent continuities of the DC Universe DVD movies. We've also had quite the succession of Spider-Man incarnations on TV -- the original cartoon in the late '60s, the Electric Company
version in the mid-'70s, the live action series in '77-'79 (plus the Japanese live-action series starting a year later), two simultaneous animated series (which may or may not have been in continuity) in '81; then a long drought until the '94-'98 FOX series, then Spider-Man Unlimited
in '99, then the MTV CGI series in 2003, Spectacular
in '08-'09, and Ultimate
beginning this past year.
So I don't understand the double standard. Going quickly from one continuity/interpretation for a fictional franchise to a different one is common and accepted in TV animation, so why is it treated as some kind of criminal act when movies do it?