I'm not saying that Fox wasn't motivated by money, or that they wouldn't have brought the series back had it not made sense, but the revival did make an important decision to justify its existence beyond "Hey you loved this show once, right?" And it is important, because we've seen what happens when someone drags a show out of the '90s for no good reason beyond fond memories ...
The ratings for Fuller House dropped 62 percent in its second season. Why? Because audiences realized that it had nothing new to say. All the characters and storylines were in the exact same place we left them. Danny was still on his "Wake Up" news show, Joey was still lugging a terrifying woodchuck puppet, Kimmy was still the annoying comic relief. It was as if they had all been suspended in ice over the decades. So what's the point? What dire financial situation could the actors have been in to justify such a ghoulish act?
If we're going to drag everything we loved from our childhoods out of retirement, it's super crucial for the writers and directors to figure out a good reason to do so. Indiana Jones, for example, was a hotshot punch-fessor revealed to be at odds with his crotchety father. It makes poetic sense that when we brought him back, he would have a son with the same irksome qualities that he once did. Spielberg was even clever enough to include mirroring motorcycle chases which end with a father appalled by his son's actions.