“Anything That One Does to Hinder That Effort Is Just Unfair”: The Real Reason James Spader Hated ‘The Blacklist: Redemption’ Spinoff

James Spader, known for his enigmatic portrayal of Raymond “Red” Reddington on NBC’s hit series The Blacklist, has never shied away from expressing his opinions on the show’s direction.

However, one particular topic that has remained controversial among fans and insiders alike is his apparent disdain for the short-lived spinoff, The Blacklist: Redemption.

While the show sought to expand the franchise and delve deeper into the lives of certain characters, Spader reportedly saw it as a threat to the integrity of the original series.

Why Spader Opposed the Spinoff

In various industry reports and insider accounts, it has been suggested that Spader felt The Blacklist: Redemption detracted from the storytelling of the main series.

Given The Blacklist‘s intricate plotlines and well-developed character arcs, Spader believed that siphoning off key characters for a spinoff would only serve to dilute the impact of the original show.

During an interview, Spader reportedly made a pointed remark about storytelling cohesion, stating, “Anything that one does to hinder that effort is just unfair.

” While he never explicitly named The Blacklist: Redemption, those close to the production interpreted his words as a veiled criticism of the spinoff.

Creative Tensions Behind the Scenes

The development of The Blacklist: Redemption was spearheaded by the same creative team as The Blacklist, including series creator Jon Bokenkamp.

The spinoff followed the character of Tom Keen, played by Ryan Eggold, as he embarked on covert missions with his biological mother, Susan Hargrave.

While the concept intrigued some fans, the execution ultimately failed to capture the same magic as the parent series, leading to its cancellation after just one season.

Spader, known for his meticulous approach to his craft, was reportedly unhappy with the way Tom Keen’s departure affected The Blacklist.

The character had played a crucial role in the show’s early seasons, and his absence disrupted certain narrative threads.

Though Eggold’s return to The Blacklist was brief following the cancellation of Redemption, the detour had already left its mark.

The Spinoff’s Short-Lived Run

The Blacklist: Redemption premiered in 2017, aiming to expand the Blacklist universe in a similar fashion to other franchise spin-offs.

However, the show failed to resonate with audiences, struggling with ratings and an unclear narrative direction.

Unlike The Blacklist, which thrived on the magnetic presence of Spader’s Red Reddington, Redemption lacked a compelling central figure to anchor the story.

Critics also pointed out that the spinoff felt like an unnecessary extension rather than a fresh take on the universe.

Without the enigmatic and unpredictable nature of Red to guide the plot, Redemption failed to establish its own identity, leading to its swift cancellation after just eight episodes.

Spader’s Legacy on The Blacklist

Despite his grievances about the spinoff, Spader’s commitment to The Blacklist remained steadfast until the show concluded its impressive ten-season run.

His portrayal of Reddington became the heart of the series, drawing praise for its complexity and charisma.

Fans and critics alike recognize that the show’s longevity was largely due to his presence and performance.

In retrospect, Spader’s concerns about The Blacklist: Redemption seem justified.

Rather than strengthening the brand, the spinoff’s failure only reinforced the notion that The Blacklist was a singular, self-contained entity that thrived on its own terms.

For Spader, protecting the integrity of the original series was always the priority—and anything that threatened that was simply unacceptable.

As the dust settles on The Blacklist‘s decade-long run, one thing is clear: Spader’s instincts were right.

The magic of The Blacklist could never be replicated, and attempts to do so without its lead star were destined to fall short.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.