What would make you no longer want a sequel?

[GloatingSwine]

It could work for the movie, definitely. Really the only reason it couldn't work, with the appropriate tweaks, for the comic (okay, apart from the fact that it's Alan Moore and there would be riots) is the aforementioned threads of gold: the little subplotlets which are, every last one of them, tied up when you view the work as a whole. It's such a cohesive whole that any attempt to tack on a postscript would set off every antibody our brains possessed.

And yet, DC are doing exactly that as we speak.

And the sequel ties the Watchmen universe and characters into the ongoing dreary soap opera continuity of DC comics.

Because they are exactly that crass and art has no value to them, only product they can extract revenue from.

[Lord Joeltion]

And I did read the Never Ending story but couldn't finish it. Sucks that the book defies all known laws of physics by being infinite.

I guess you would have killed Sherezade on the second night. You bastard...

We can work this point out, I'm fairly sure. If Disney is cranking out Star Wars sequels, that's consumerist as all git-out; if Shakespeare reworks the myth of a river god into palace politics, and Kurosawa reworks it again to fit feudal Japan, that's a legitimate creative endeavor. The difference is that Disney is coasting off the fumes of the story everyone's excited about, while Shakespeare and Kurosawa are taking an old story and making it their own creation.

Sorry, but the line you are defining there is not only blurry and pretty much impractical for a standard. It's also completely arbitrary. "Consumerist" doesn't equate "bad" and "artistic" doesn't equate "good". That's complete nonsense. I come from a home where the ultimate form of art is music; but even with all my knowledge in music both simple (folk) and complex (opera) I can't deny that, for all his entrepreneurship and consumerist view of music; Michael Jackson isn't the best musician of the past century by far. Alriiiiiiight... ONE of the best. And if you try to deny the fact, you are showing how little of music you know

Point being, one thing doesn't exclude the other; and art genius isn't related in any way to being commercially successful or not. Only a hardcore hipster would regard art in such a way, and that logic is completely flawed. It's even against the whole purpose of art (to be appreciated, monetary or not).

Anyway; I think OP's proposed question is fundamentally flawed. The need for art isn't like "being hungry". Art is not something that "fulfills" your mind like food, and once you got enough "art" you don't need any more of it. No, that's silly, that's wrong, and (no offense, but) I can't understand how somebody could have that kind of regard towards what art or entertainment is.

Art is supposed to stimulate and make you a better person. You never get "enough" of a better person. You ALWAYS need more. Sometimes a piece of art is self contained, yes. But that doesn't ban any other piece of work from ever being spawned from the stimulation/inspiration that the piece of art caused in a viewer. Even the same writer can be re-inspired by his own work. You can't seriously exclude those things. Art is like water: try to contain it in a enclosed space, and no matter how big, it will eventually spill all over the place. And that is good, because that's the whole point of art to begin with. It stimulates, it wants to be shared, it overflows, and is trying make you grow as a person.

tl;dr: But if OP insist on an answer, it's this. Stories don't have ends. A storyteller only tells whatever is needed to make a point come across. That doesn't mean there aren't more points to be brought with the same story. Claiming otherwise is only a show of poor creativity, that's all.

[Sapphire Guard]

I'm not keen on a sequel to Watchmen, because the whole point of the ending relies on us not knowing whether Veidt's plan works or not. If you settle that question, you suck a lot of the impact out of that ending.

Something similar applies to Casablanca, the impact relies on the viewer not knowing what happens next.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Michael Jackson isn't the best musician of the past century by far. Alriiiiiiight... ONE of the best.

Another example is John Williams, whose professional life I would easily compare to Mozart: spending his life writing music for entertainment, but whose music will easily survive the entertainment it is attached to. Long after noone but classicists know about, say, Jurassic Park, I suspect orchestras will keep playing its main theme, just like I doubt I could even find a production of the Magic Flute but man can I enjoy the heck of the Queen of the Night Aria.

Grey Wolf

[Scowling Dragon]

I guess you would have killed Sherezade on the second night. You bastard...

I find it disturbing to think you would have killed her at the thousandth.
You brought up a compilation series as an example of why stories should go on forever.

It's also completely arbitrary. "Consumerist" doesn't equate "bad" and "artistic" doesn't equate "good".

Artistic indeed does not equate good, and consumeristic does not equate bad. But veiwing everything in a consumeristic fashion is unbalanced and unhealthy.

Point being, one thing doesn't exclude the other; and art genius isn't related in any way to being commercially successful or not.

And I didn't bring up commercial success. Im not arguing commercial success. Im asking people as individuals why they will demand for sequels that unbalances a work as whole.

Anyway; I think OP's proposed question is fundamentally flawed. The need for art isn't like "being hungry".

It isn't. Im just saying that when people view it that way its unhealthy. And consumeristic perspectives is viewing art like food to be eaten without understanding its value on its own.

You widened the goalposts to quantify everything as a sequel therefore sequels are good. Whats with this deflection? I already wen't through it.

[Knaight]

I often see people view sequels or prequels in the case of "Well its gonna suck/ Its gonna be awesome!"
But I never see it in a fashion of "Should this even need a sequel?"

That's odd, as " this doesn't need a sequel" is pretty boilerplate analysis that crops up all the time.

[Reddish Mage]

I guess you would have killed Sherezade on the second night. You bastard...

Sorry, but the line you are defining there is not only blurry and pretty much impractical for a standard. It's also completely arbitrary. "Consumerist" doesn't equate "bad" and "artistic" doesn't equate "good". That's complete nonsense. I come from a home where the ultimate form of art is music; but even with all my knowledge in music both simple (folk) and complex (opera) I can't deny that, for all his entrepreneurship and consumerist view of music; Michael Jackson isn't the best musician of the past century by far. Alriiiiiiight... ONE of the best. And if you try to deny the fact, you are showing how little of music you know

Point being, one thing doesn't exclude the other; and art genius isn't related in any way to being commercially successful or not. Only a hardcore hipster would regard art in such a way, and that logic is completely flawed. It's even against the whole purpose of art (to be appreciated, monetary or not).

Anyway; I think OP's proposed question is fundamentally flawed. The need for art isn't like "being hungry". Art is not something that "fulfills" your mind like food, and once you got enough "art" you don't need any more of it. No, that's silly, that's wrong, and (no offense, but) I can't understand how somebody could have that kind of regard towards what art or entertainment is.

Art is supposed to stimulate and make you a better person. You never get "enough" of a better person. You ALWAYS need more. Sometimes a piece of art is self contained, yes. But that doesn't ban any other piece of work from ever being spawned from the stimulation/inspiration that the piece of art caused in a viewer. Even the same writer can be re-inspired by his own work. You can't seriously exclude those things. Art is like water: try to contain it in a enclosed space, and no matter how big, it will eventually spill all over the place. And that is good, because that's the whole point of art to begin with. It stimulates, it wants to be shared, it overflows, and is trying make you grow as a person.

tl;dr: But if OP insist on an answer, it's this. Stories don't have ends. A storyteller only tells whatever is needed to make a point come across. That doesn't mean there aren't more points to be brought with the same story. Claiming otherwise is only a show of poor creativity, that's all.

We got a lot of defenders of sequels but here, you seem to be suggesting that sequels are the very nature of art.

That’s going a bit too far. Plenty of movies don’t give themselves to sequels. “Titanic” is as obvious one. “Amistad” is another. Imagine a sequel to “Gone with the Wind” or “Citizen Kane.” So many movies end on such an obvious fine point, telling a closed story that does not give itself to any sort of follow up.

That's odd, as " this doesn't need a sequel" is pretty boilerplate analysis that crops up all the time.

Most of what we want to analyze here are the superhero and other sci-fi and fantasy movies. If anything, those are the works that give themselves to sequels.

[JoshL]

For all the "But that is another story, and will be told another time" illustrating the richness of the world, I don't really have the desire to read the books that tell those stories. The whole point of that phrase is to have horizons you can only glimpse at a distance - to display a vaster world than the reader can actually explore.

This reminds me of a thing I wanted to do many years ago. Create a website to tell those stories, community/fan/wiki driven. The only rule is you need to include two similar hooks in your story so more people can branch off it. For each hook, you can follow a link to add a new story, or read a random story that people have created based on it. Make it actually neverending. But I was a lot more optimistic about the internet then, and later realized you would really need more content-based rules, and it would take a lot of time moderating/editing it. So less wiki and more "open submission"

Anyway, on topic, it's a case by case thing for me. I like stories with an end. But I also like new possibilities. I'm also a horror movie fan, and in a lot of cases there, the sequels continue the concepts, rather than the characters or narrative. Part of that is because films were re-branded as sequels for marketing purposes. The Demons series, for example, the first two were related, but the rest are just named sequels, to the point that there are two movies that were marketed as Demons 3. As such, sometimes if I like a movie, but hate a sequel, I still might give another sequel down the road a shot. And also with horror movies, if you get a bad horror, you might end up with a good comedy.

Anything COULD have a good sequel, whether it's "needed" or not. Taking Casablanca (as a great film and one that definitely has no need of a sequel), if I was doing a sequel, I'd have another story set at the bar, rather than following Rick and Ilsa. To go back to the Neverending Story, a tangential sequel rather than a narrative sequel. That wouldn't be guaranteed to be good, of course, but there's more potential there, I think.

[Vinyadan]

Another example is John Williams, whose professional life I would easily compare to Mozart: spending his life writing music for entertainment, but whose music will easily survive the entertainment it is attached to. Long after noone but classicists know about, say, Jurassic Park, I suspect orchestras will keep playing its main theme, just like I doubt I could even find a production of the Magic Flute but man can I enjoy the heck of the Queen of the Night Aria.

Grey Wolf

????

You can find a production of the Magic Flute any day, unless I gloriously misunderstood what you meant.

Also, that a guy called Ende wrote the Neverending Story is quite the thing

I think that there is no reason for a sequel when a story has said all it wanted to say. Remarkable books and movies rarely deal only with character and setting, and, instead, they try to present questions and/or aesthetic experiences. If all of what was meant to be produced has been produced, then a sequel isn't needed. Actually, it might cause problems by retroactively cheapening or changing the meaning of the previous installment or its components. Mm

Other problems are bound to the history of the narrative. W. Disney thought that the fairy tale films couldn't have a sequel. Back then, those characters were still those of the fairy tales. But, today, they are those of the Disney movies. So we got some subpar sequels.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't have a problem with sequels as a concept. In fact (thinking mostly from a book perspective here), there are many well-written works that I wish could be expanded much further. I enjoy plenty of fanfiction too; it's not official work, but it fills a similar gap in my mind. My issue comes in with whether or not the sequel is actually well-written. I do not think that something being a sequel means it will be inherently inferior, and would rather judge a work on its own merits than whether or not it came after an already established work.

[DomaDoma]

Anyway; I think OP's proposed question is fundamentally flawed. The need for art isn't like "being hungry". Art is not something that "fulfills" your mind like food, and once you got enough "art" you don't need any more of it. No, that's silly, that's wrong, and (no offense, but) I can't understand how somebody could have that kind of regard towards what art or entertainment is.

Art is supposed to stimulate and make you a better person. You never get "enough" of a better person. You ALWAYS need more. Sometimes a piece of art is self contained, yes. But that doesn't ban any other piece of work from ever being spawned from the stimulation/inspiration that the piece of art caused in a viewer. Even the same writer can be re-inspired by his own work. You can't seriously exclude those things. Art is like water: try to contain it in a enclosed space, and no matter how big, it will eventually spill all over the place. And that is good, because that's the whole point of art to begin with. It stimulates, it wants to be shared, it overflows, and is trying make you grow as a person.

Sometimes, as a story observer, you don't so much grow and overflow as fall into a rut. Winston Rowntree calls it "porn", as in "food porn", "decorating porn", &c., but as I consider this discussion, I'm thinking more of C.S. Lewis and the fallacy of finding Joy/The Island by repeating the last experience that evoked it.

[2D8HP]

A lot of people liked Aliens more than [I]Alien, and The Empire Strikes Back was better than Star Wars, so there is a craving for sequels, but as to "What would make you no longer want a sequel?" question one answer is preminent in my mind: The Return of the Jedi was so disappointing that I skipped all subsequent "Star Wars" movies.

[Dienekes]

There being a first one.

Sequels that werent planned at the inception of the property rarely rise above the level of fan fiction. Is it meant to be a trilogy? Great! Make all three. Was it a one off that expanded into a parody of itself? Kill it.

See: Robocop, Matrix, Terminator, Jurassic Park, etc.

I liked Terminator 2 better than Terminator. And Aliens more than Alien. And Godfather 2 more than Godfather. Fury Road and Road Warrior more than Mad Max. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness more than Evil Dead. Wrath of Khan.

Honestly, the only thing I’m interested in is if the sequel has a story to tell and has effort. There are cash ins. There are movies just retelling the plot of the older movie.

But even then you get things like the new Blade Runner which I loved. Maybe not more than the original but I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

But I’ll never watch another Transformers because they’re empty crap.

[Reddish Mage]

I think that there is no reason for a sequel when a story has said all it wanted to say. Remarkable books and movies rarely deal only with character and setting, and, instead, they try to present questions and/or aesthetic experiences. If all of what was meant to be produced has been produced, then a sequel isn't needed. Actually, it might cause problems by retroactively cheapening or changing the meaning of the previous installment or its components. Mm

Other problems are bound to the history of the narrative. W. Disney thought that the fairy tale films couldn't have a sequel. Back then, those characters were still those of the fairy tales. But, today, they are those of the Disney movies. So we got some subpar sequels.

It is often a case that sequels try to stitch characters into new stories that are either cliche or haven't been written for them. This often results in subpar stories. Shrek sequels do this, taking cliche storylines (Shrek 2, guess whose coming to dinner!, Shrek 3 and the sword in the stone, Shrek 4 Christmas Story). However, it works when done as parody (check out the sidebar author's various StickTales).

However, words like "all that's meant to be produced is produce" saying a sequel "isn't needed" don't help. If you mean original intent: note that covers many movies with good sequels. Aliens would never have been made for instance, The Alien was originally envisioned as being a single movie with the Alien surviving and using the captain's voice to lure more ships with a distress beacon. The creator only changed it because the studio insisted there be a "final girl" who survives because horror stories always have to have a final girl that survives.

They found that the return to that world that they spent like 5-minutes on in the first movie made for a good movie. The first movie left a ton unaddressed regarding the world Ridley lived in that the 2nd movie answered. Who knew?

A lot of people liked Aliens more than [I]Alien, and The Empire Strikes Back was better than Star Wars, so there is a craving for sequels, but as to "What would make you no longer want a sequel?" question one answer is preminent in my mind: The Return of the Jedi was so disappointing that I skipped all subsequent "Star Wars" movies.

The Return of the Jedi, if you are one of those who dislike it, clearly wasn't bad because it wasn't meant to be written. Empire Strikes Back, unlike A New Hope, isn't self-contained but clearly ends on a "To Be Continued with the search for Han Solo" note. There's lots of other reasons why Return of The Jedi plotline is weaker (it was put together from a variety of ideas, but then, so was Empire Strikes Back, I think it may have been rushed because Lucas got busy with his other Hollywood gigs, and they go with another Death Star which is highly derivative in itself).

I liked Terminator 2 better than Terminator. And Aliens more than Alien. And Godfather 2 more than Godfather. Fury Road and Road Warrior more than Mad Max. Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness more than Evil Dead. Wrath of Khan.

Honestly, the only thing I’m interested in is if the sequel has a story to tell and has effort. There are cash ins. There are movies just retelling the plot of the older movie.

But even then you get things like the new Blade Runner which I loved. Maybe not more than the original but I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

But I’ll never watch another Transformers because they’re empty crap.

Again there's no rule here about what makes a sequel a bad sequel, except "empty crap" is clearly bad wether its a sequel or a new movie.

Sequels can be atrocious because lots of movies can be bad. Having magic in the bottle with one movie doesn't always translate. Writers may lose touch with what makes their work loved, and Hollywood studios are perpetually enamored with the idea that certain formulas and elements of movies (they need a star, they need a romantic subplot, etc) make for success and often impose their vision.

If there's any signs that a movie must be bad because its a sequel, its probably when the sequel itself is uninspired rather than because there is a hard and fast rule that disallows sequels.

I think there are some movies that end in a way that we really DON'T want to see the characters again, or the nature of the movie doesn't allow a sequel. I think Amistad is an example were the absurdity of a sequel is clear. Its hard to pin down a single rule. Historical movies generally don't make good sequel bait, and whenever a movie kills off the protagonist it tends to be a sign (although a prequel may be done though, Wall Street II worked off the villain and jettisoned the protagonist).

Everything, however, seems to be subject to the remake. Often times those remakes, too, are awful. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is probably the worst remake ever. I'm far more sure than I am about sequels that there are no hard and fast rules about what cannot be remade.

Casablanca they attempted to remake time and again, and it hasn't happened or only in some very ill-received small budget pictures.

One could have a whole thread about whether a movie should or should not be remade. I wouldn't have said "King Kong" was one of those movies that could be remade but I thought it was great. I also think "Karate Kid" with Jayden Smith hit it out of the park, or kicked it out of the dojo (into a China actually where they call the training halls something other than a dojo). Many remakes though are just bad.

[TeChameleon]

What makes me personally no longer want a sequel?

Well, this is far more for literature and other printed media than movies (I just don't really care that much for or about movies, generally speaking), but when the original creator/creative team is dead or no longer involved. Time and again, properties have shown a marked tendency to go anywhere from 'downhill' to 'off a cliff' once the people that originally made them are gone. Pogo just isn't the same since Walt Kelly's passing, Asterix... well, Uderzo tried his best, but when Goscinny died, the quality honestly took a nosedive (at least, as probably needn't be said, but, well... in my opinion, obviously), even the Muppets, since losing pretty much the entirety of the original crew, just don't have the same bite they used to.

*shrug*

Just my two cents, and there are obviously exceptions (as an example, despite being neither Jack "King" Kirby nor Stan "The Man" Lee, Walt Simonson's run on the Mighty Thor comics was brilliant), but generally speaking, I don't tend to be a fan of officially licensed fanfiction.

[Future Sword]

[PERSONALLY]
I'd check out of wanting a sequel if all the proposed sequel ideas failed to interest me. If I liked the "first" entry enough to think about a "next" one, I'd rather have no sequels, than have even one boring sequel.
[/PERSONALLY]

[Ninja_Prawn]

*from the back of the room, shouting* WHEN THE STORY IS OVER.

*also from the back, wondering why I'm here* I AGREE WITH ZODI.

As someone who has written stories, I'd have to say you just know when they're over. It's a feeling you get.

[Reddish Mage]

What makes me personally no longer want a sequel?

Well, this is far more for literature and other printed media than movies (I just don't really care that much for or about movies, generally speaking), but when the original creator/creative team is dead or no longer involved. Time and again, properties have shown a marked tendency to go anywhere from 'downhill' to 'off a cliff' once the people that originally made them are gone.

Just my two cents, and there are obviously exceptions (as an example, despite being neither Jack "King" Kirby nor Stan "The Man" Lee, Walt Simonson's run on the Mighty Thor comics was brilliant), but generally speaking, I don't tend to be a fan of officially licensed fanfiction.

This rule, as a rule to draw a line on when sequels are no longer acceptable, is both far too limited, and has far too many exceptions. Far too often a lot of quality lost from the works, while the author is writing the sequels.

The second is you mention comics and comics is probably the one medium of literary works where transfer is not only commonplace and expected, but as produced a lot of great works. Thor is hardly the exception to there being worthwhile superhero stories after the original author stops writing. Superman, as we know him, has little to do with how his creators thought of him. Batman stories like “The Killing Joke” and most of the other great comic. Superhero stories come not just years but decades after the original author and creative team has been switched out. Your rule doesn’t have so much a couple of exceptions as a couple of genre’s that buck the trend.

Finally, your rule implies that you cannot make movies, TV or animated adaptions as the book authors most often yield creative control and have little input (its also not uncommon for works to be adapted, like Lord of the Rings, after the creator is dead).

True you said your rule doesn’t apply to movie adaptions, but it the very success of these stories when changed and added to in other mediums suggest that the rule is not hard and fast.

At this point, we don’t have rules with exceptions, we have a couple of vague notions (“when the stories done”) and a few rules where industries run counter to.

[Lord Joeltion]

I find it disturbing to think you would have killed her at the thousandth.
You brought up a compilation series as an example of why stories should go on forever.

Why committing authorcide? That's worse than killing a golden goose! In any case, my point isn't that they must go on and on; they rather go on by themselves. It's in the nature of storytelling. My point is more about the fact that asking for authors to stop where they wrote the end is pretty much a short-sighted way to regard stories. I wouldn't say every story ever told must go on; but I'm dead sure all stories have the same potential to have a great sequel. Or not. Art tends to be pretty random too.

Artistic indeed does not equate good, and consumeristic does not equate bad. But veiwing everything in a consumeristic fashion is unbalanced and unhealthy.

I don't think you need to be consumerist in the least to ask for a sequel. Or prequel or whatever. Most authors find themselves wanting to tell about a sequel but don't do so because we are a short-lived species. And because they need to eat too

And I didn't bring up commercial success. Im not arguing commercial success. Im asking people as individuals why they will demand for sequels that unbalances a work as whole.

There is nothing to "unbalance" at all. You may as well not like a specific sequel; but then again, nothing, except consumerism would ever compel you to read/watch/learn about it. So, in a sense, you did implied the topic consumerism yourself. I don't think people necessarily ask sequels out of consumerism alone (or even partially). Some people just love stories, y'know?

It's just that asking for a "sequel to never be made" as if it would hamper or threaten your experience with the original work is:
- a very "purist" way to be a fan of something;
- a very consumerist way to regard art (as in: because it was made, it's now "canon" and as such MUST be had in consideration); and
- completely absurd.

For example, I don't like Dragon Ball Super in the least, but saying that just because it was made it makes me any less of a DB fan would be nonsense. I simply don't watch Super, that's it. I never asked for it, yet I enjoyed quite a lot unofficial "sequels" of the original show. And even today I think Dragon Ball Z it's ok just the way it was finished in canon. Idk, maybe I am the eccentric here, but I don't think so. Does DB in my opinion required a sequel? No, it's a self contained story. Are there bad sequels to the show? Yes, as were with everything ever made (90% of everything is garbage). Are sequels (official or not) bad to Dragon Ball? No, why would anyone think so?

It isn't. Im just saying that when people view it that way its unhealthy. And consumeristic perspectives is viewing art like food to be eaten without understanding its value on its own.

Don't you dare using my analogies backwards against me. The thing is, eagerness for art doesn't work like hunger. There is no "hunger" without "satiety", both concepts are intertwined. But the craving for art/knowledge, when you truly crave for knowledge (be it in the form of a story or not) nothing satisfies you. Ever. You always want more. You only stop because you are tired, or have to sleep or work or something; but you wouldn't stop if what you crave for is "art". And if you were an elven-kin, probably. That's the difference between a J.K Rowling fan and a literature fan. I admit that I don't understand how people can be one without being the latter; but it seems there is people who just are.

You widened the goalposts to quantify everything as a sequel therefore sequels are good. Whats with this deflection? I already wen't through it.

I never said sequels were a good thing. That would be like saying that because I love reading books, I believe every book is good. No, that's not what I'm talking about. I said nothing will stop sequels, because art is a sequel of itself. I am talking about some sequels being good; and being open to sequels is a good practice because any sequel has the inherent potential to be good. Not wanting a sequel is simply not wanting to read. Hardcore fans of Tolkien wouldn't want a sequel, maybe. But true fans of reading, will always be eager for more Tolkien stories.

We got a lot of defenders of sequels but here, you seem to be suggesting that sequels are the very nature of art.

Maybe I exceeded OP's post, but yeah. The concept of "continuing the story" is the nature of art. The Hero's Journey is a circle, not a line... yadda yadda and so on. You got my point.

That’s going a bit too far. Plenty of movies don’t give themselves to sequels. “Titanic” is as obvious one. “Amistad” is another. Imagine a sequel to “Gone with the Wind” or “Citizen Kane.” So many movies end on such an obvious fine point, telling a closed story that does not give itself to any sort of follow up.

I think you are kinda arbitrary to what constitutes a "sequel". From my point of view, there are sequels that aren't even written by the same author, or time period (Lovecraft, Dragonlance, etc.). On a very, and I mean very specific case by case study, you may or may not find a specific piece of art that doesn't require or offer themselves to "continuing the story". Maybe. Yet I find that suggesting no sequel whatsoever could ever be good out of it, is simply ludicrous. Or a mere lack of imagination. I'm damn sure that in a different universe, there is a "Citizen Kane V" that is better than the original trilogy In a weird turn of events, Rosebud was the main villain all along

Sometimes, as a story observer, you don't so much grow and overflow as fall into a rut. Winston Rowntree calls it "porn", as in "food porn", "decorating porn", &c., but as I consider this discussion, I'm thinking more of C.S. Lewis and the fallacy of finding Joy/The Island by repeating the last experience that evoked it.

I don't consider that kind of "porn" bad. Neither do I the other, but I digress... Art isn't something immaculate and pure that should be had in the greatest pedestal or thou shalt be burn in flames you heathen! That kind of thinking was obsolete since the Industrial Revolution, probably before. If people can find some artistic/literature/philosophic value in the works of the Marquis de Sade... who am I to consider "porn" fiction lesser fiction than the "original". Because, in the end, even Tolkien becomes "porn" fiction of the Eddas, once you get very pedantic about Mythology.

[DomaDoma]

I don't consider that kind of "porn" bad. Neither do I the other, but I digress... Art isn't something immaculate and pure that should be had in the greatest pedestal or thou shalt be burn in flames you heathen! That kind of thinking was obsolete since the Industrial Revolution, probably before. If people can find some artistic/literature/philosophic value in the works of the Marquis de Sade... who am I to consider "porn" fiction lesser fiction than the "original". Because, in the end, even Tolkien becomes "porn" fiction of the Eddas, once you get very pedantic about Mythology.

Art-as-intrinsically-sacred reached its height with the Romantics. Which (while an Industrial phenomenon) was a perfect example of the kind of rut I'm talking about, though more on the part of the writers than their readers. Poetic navel-gazing has taken a serious slide in quality since they left the scene - Romanticism has richness enough that you can appreciate Wordsworth or Byron without ending up navel-gazing yourself - but still, fixating on the fineness of your own feelings at the expense of what the feelings are actually about makes an overlarge appetite for novels about Qui-Gon look quite mentally healthy by comparison.

But the latter is still mental junk food. Life's too short.

[TeChameleon]

This rule, as a rule to draw a line on when sequels are no longer acceptable, is both far too limited, and has far too many exceptions. Far too often a lot of quality lost from the works, while the author is writing the sequels.

The second is you mention comics and comics is probably the one medium of literary works where transfer is not only commonplace and expected, but as produced a lot of great works. Thor is hardly the exception to there being worthwhile superhero stories after the original author stops writing. Superman, as we know him, has little to do with how his creators thought of him. Batman stories like “The Killing Joke” and most of the other great comic. Superhero stories come not just years but decades after the original author and creative team has been switched out. Your rule doesn’t have so much a couple of exceptions as a couple of genre’s that buck the trend.

... bit ironic that the example you give as an exception to my rule is one that I'd consider one of the strongest examples of its truth.

I'd consider the superhero comic genre as a whole to be almost entirely stagnant, struggling to stay afloat in a tiny, self-cannibalizing niche market and used mostly as a testbed and way to maintain the IPs for their far more lucrative movie properties, all while attempting to cater to an audience that, as far as I can tell, appears to demand a simultaneous stream of endless novelty and constant catering to their nostalgia.

Are there exceptions? Yes, of course. Do they outweigh the staggering outwash of dreck that oozes from corporations enslaved to the bean counters and the inmates that are running the asylum? Not even a comparison.

Anyways, I'm not sure why my rule needs to apply to anyone but me. The OP's question was 'what would make you stop wanting a sequel'. What stops me wanting a sequel is when the original creator loses creative control. It's a personal thing, and, while I'm well aware of the existence of exceptions, it works well enough for me as a generalization.

[Reddish Mage]

... bit ironic that the example you give as an exception to my rule is one that I'd consider one of the strongest examples of its truth.

I'd consider the superhero comic genre as a whole to be almost entirely stagnant, struggling to stay afloat in a tiny, self-cannibalizing niche market and used mostly as a testbed and way to maintain the IPs for their far more lucrative movie properties, all while attempting to cater to an audience that, as far as I can tell, appears to demand a simultaneous stream of endless novelty and constant catering to their nostalgia.

Are there exceptions? Yes, of course. Do they outweigh the staggering outwash of dreck that oozes from corporations enslaved to the bean counters and the inmates that are running the asylum? Not even a comparison.

Comics are hardly the place to go to find works of the finest literary merit, but as entertainment goes, I don't know if you'll do any better or worse than pulling a random book out of the sci-fi aisle. If you pick out the very best works, you'll do a good bit better.

Are the movies dreck too? The movies are even further removed from the original author and work, transferred to an entirely different medium and usually hacked out by a committee with heavy input from people with marketing and finance backgrounds that don't do much fiction writing but mainly deal with formulas and concepts that have shown a history of selling well. Entire parts like the CGI often get farmed out to third-parties that have a great deal leeway with how they animate. These teams are constantly changing members.

Anyways, I'm not sure why my rule needs to apply to anyone but me. The OP's question was 'what would make you stop wanting a sequel'. What stops me wanting a sequel is when the original creator loses creative control. It's a personal thing, and, while I'm well aware of the existence of exceptions, it works well enough for me as a generalization.

You can rely on any sort of rule you choose, nor do you have to contribute to the soup of potentially workable rules for prejudging sequels that people have suggested (or on the other extreme, that sequels are the very nature of art). However, I hope you are at least open to discussing a considering your rule and its applicability to others or to yourself. After-all, you did post it on an open forum where people tend to like to pick apart these things and add their own colorful doohickies to them.

[Lord Joeltion]

Art-as-intrinsically-sacred reached its height with the Romantics. Which (while an Industrial phenomenon) was a perfect example of the kind of rut I'm talking about, though more on the part of the writers than their readers. Poetic navel-gazing has taken a serious slide in quality since they left the scene - Romanticism has richness enough that you can appreciate Wordsworth or Byron without ending up navel-gazing yourself - but still, fixating on the fineness of your own feelings at the expense of what the feelings are actually about makes an overlarge appetite for novels about Qui-Gon look quite mentally healthy by comparison.

But the latter is still mental junk food. Life's too short.

Actually, I was thinking about art being "sacred" in more literal terms. As in, during the Baroque. Yes, Romantics had high esteem of arts in general and also most of them where kind of elitist, but they also were the people who started deconstructing what "sacred" meant and started to see art purely as an expression from the self; rather than something coming from the divine.

I don't find Byron richer than Tolkien, the same way I don't find Tchaikovsky richer than Steve Vai. They are all different, and trying to value them on the same plane is a complete mistake. Nobody can measure quality of totally different things as if there was an "ideal of art" which every piece of art should aspire to. That way of seeing art is very anachronistic.

Anyway, going back to OP, sequels of any kind (prequels, remakes, etc) have always a chance to be better than the original. There is no thing such as a "perfect" art that can't be surpassed. That would be missing the whole point of art (which isn't about making something perfect, it's about trying to)*

*A funny quote a writer an artist once said to me: "You never finish your creation. Eventually it's published, but it's never truly finished"

[TeChameleon]

Comics are hardly the place to go to find works of the finest literary merit, but as entertainment goes, I don't know if you'll do any better or worse than pulling a random book out of the sci-fi aisle. If you pick out the very best works, you'll do a good bit better.

*shrug*

It occurs to me that my way of thinking has likely been heavily influenced by my own (independent) studies down those roads; Will Eisner, in his published teaching materials (Comics and Sequential Art, and Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative) made it more than a little clear that he was of the opinion that comics were at their strongest when made in their entirety- writing, drawing, inking, lettering, the lot- by a single creative mind, and I've come to agree with him, at least to a certain extent.

I've found that I value consistency of tone and characterization quite highly; the tonal shift that almost inevitably accompanies a new writer, and to a lesser extent, artist, on a comic is something that I find jarring enough that I'll quite often drop the title and not even try it again for years. It's something I realize isn't as important for everyone, but if it's not there, I find that the story that's missing it is often considered to be of poorer quality in general. It's part of the reason I hated DC's Nu52 initiative so much- they'd taken their entire universe of characters and replaced them with bickering douchenozzles in mostly-familiar costumes (and who all looked almost the same- same build, height, weight, jawline, everything. It was sort of creepy once I started noticing it).

Are the movies dreck too? *snip*

This may be a copout... I'm honestly not sure... but I really don't consider myself qualified to judge. I am not a film buff, nor have I made any sort of even a cursory study to gain an understanding of what makes up a good, or even competent, movie. I know what I enjoy, but that's about it.

You can rely on any sort of rule you choose, nor do you have to contribute to the soup of potentially workable rules for prejudging sequels that people have suggested (or on the other extreme, that sequels are the very nature of art). However, I hope you are at least open to discussing a considering your rule and its applicability to others or to yourself. After-all, you did post it on an open forum where people tend to like to pick apart these things and add their own colorful doohickies to them.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I wasn't open to discussing my rule- think I was just having an off-day. Well, that and the current state of comics is one that's been a sore spot for me since... eesh, the early 2000s at least >.0

[GloatingSwine]

Comics are hardly the place to go to find works of the finest literary merit, but as entertainment goes, I don't know if you'll do any better or worse than pulling a random book out of the sci-fi aisle. If you pick out the very best works, you'll do a good bit better.

I think that rather proves TeChameleon's point though.

The best comics are the ones that are a limited run with a single driving creator, like Maus, Watchmen, Sandman, and so on.

The franchise stuff will always undo any meaning anyone tries to put into its stories by later ignoring or undoing whatever happens in them. Very often in the most cataclysmically stupid way they can think of (like One More Day).

[Rodin]

To come at it from a somewhat different slant - there are times with TV series where sufficient time has passed that a show shouldn't be revived, due to the actors having aged and/or moved on. For example, there were cries for a Firefly revival long after that was a feasible thing. The Star Trek TNG movies needed to stop well before they did because the actors aged out of the roles, particularly Brent Spiner. It is possible to return to those universes with all new characters (see: Blade Runner 2047), but it's difficult and for TV series in particular I'm generally inclined to move on to a new franchise.

[DomaDoma]

I think that rather proves TeChameleon's point though.

The best comics are the ones that are a limited run with a single driving creator, like Maus, Watchmen, Sandman, and so on.

The franchise stuff will always undo any meaning anyone tries to put into its stories by later ignoring or undoing whatever happens in them. Very often in the most cataclysmically stupid way they can think of (like One More Day).

Quoting this because it is absolutely definitive.

[DomaDoma]

Actually, I was thinking about art being "sacred" in more literal terms. As in, during the Baroque. Yes, Romantics had high esteem of arts in general and also most of them where kind of elitist, but they also were the people who started deconstructing what "sacred" meant and started to see art purely as an expression from the self; rather than something coming from the divine.

Ah, okay. In that case, I'd agree with the outdated old-timers. A quick scan of what I've stated myself to love in this thread will illustrate that I'm not the kind of person who accordingly restricts myself to Karen Kingsbury, or even Bach, but even so: the best art is best insofar as it reflects the divine. The Big Questions, not to mention beauty and wonder.

(But they have to get you asking the big questions, rather than telling you the answers. This is why Christian anvil fiction by and large fails at being Great Art. Like, Screwtape Letters isn't great art, even if it makes a wonderful guideline to live by. Till We Have Faces, because it runs ellipses around its own message, is great art. And it's safe to say that anything written first in order to double down on the Christian message in a secular age, and second to have a plot of some kind, is downright bad.)

[Lethologica]

I think that rather proves TeChameleon's point though.

The best comics are the ones that are a limited run with a single driving creator, like Maus, Watchmen, Sandman, and so on.

The franchise stuff will always undo any meaning anyone tries to put into its stories by later ignoring or undoing whatever happens in them. Very often in the most cataclysmically stupid way they can think of (like One More Day).

Measuring the very best content at the franchise level is useless. Of course the best franchises are limited-run with a single driving creator, because you're only measuring that creator and that contribution, so there's no dilution. The appropriate comparison would be with the best single run of comics in a large franchise. It doesn't matter that said run might not have meaning at the level of overall franchise continuity.

Alternatively, if you want to validate TeChameleon's statement about superhero comics as a whole, the appropriate comparison would be with an average or typical limited-run single-creator franchise, not with the very best examples of such.

[Fawkes]

The best comics are the ones that are a limited run with a single driving creator, like Maus, Watchmen, Sandman, and so on.

I agree, but they're not always by the original creators of the property. None of the best Batman comics were written by Bill Finger.