What would make you no longer want a sequel?

[tonberrian]

I don't think there's any point at which I would not want a sequel.

Or, in another way of speaking, a work's status as a sequel (remake, reimagining, prequel, interquel, or just sitting in the same universe as) should be a reason why the work shouldn't be made. I'm not even sure what criterion I'd use for deciding that some piece of art shouldn't have been made, because even the most terrible of works can inspire great ideas.

[Jay R]

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

Any definition of "the best comics" that excludes "For the Man who Has Everything", "There is no Hope in Crime Alley", "This Man, This Monster", "The Kid Who Collected Spider-Man", "Snowbirds Don't Fly", "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", the first Jaka story, "The Valiant Also Die!", and "Days of Future Past" is a little too limited.

To put it another way, your definition excludes Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman, the Avengers, and many others because they are so successful that they have outlived their creators' comics-writing careers.

Many great comics fall in your category, but many great comics don't.

----------------

Getting back to the main question, many great stories have wonderfully satisfying endings, and just don't need a sequel. Examples include Tom Sawyer, The Hobbit, The Three Musketeers, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story, etc. It would be easy to say that writing sequels to them would be wrong.

Unfortunately, all of them had great sequels. There's no way I could have predicted that.

I conclude that I'm in no position to set rules for great authors. We should judge real sequels, after they're written, rather than hypothetical sequels that haven't been written.

Otherwise, we're treating The Empire Strikes Back like it's The Phantom Menace.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Sandman has had a couple other works published outside of its limited run and I don’t think they decreased the quality of the work at all.

[Reddish Mage]

I conclude that I'm in no position to set rules for great authors. We should judge real sequels, after they're written, rather than hypothetical sequels that haven't been written.

Otherwise, we're treating The Empire Strikes Back like it's The Phantom Menace.

I don’t think it is practical to say there is no rules on disallowing a sequel prior to actually making one and seeing it.

Imagine I am a studio executive trying to choose which out of hundreds of movie ideas being pitched to me to proceed with. IRL there are a lot of criteria used in these cases to decide what gets a green light and what is let go. Now you might say most studios don’t care about artistic quality and just want any dreck that can sell. Sequels will appeal because they presumably come with a built in audience.

Hypothetically though, let’s say I’m an executive of a studio that wants to be known only for putting out high quality work. Is there truly no rules involving sequels?

I think there are at least several examples of movies that have to prove themselves. Another Transformers movie? A Disney sequel? Another Shrek?

I’m not saying its impossible to make good sequels to those sorts of things, but they have an abysmal track record.

Also include the next DC movie set in the Snyderverse, unless it’s Flash doing a hard-reboot.

[Mechalich]

I don’t think it is practical to say there is no rules on disallowing a sequel prior to actually making one and seeing it.

Imagine I am a studio executive trying to choose which out of hundreds of movie ideas being pitched to me to proceed with. IRL there are a lot of criteria used in these cases to decide what gets a green light and what is let go. Now you might say most studios don’t care about artistic quality and just want any dreck that can sell. Sequels will appeal because they presumably come with a built in audience.

Hypothetically though, let’s say I’m an executive of a studio that wants to be known only for putting out high quality work. Is there truly no rules involving sequels?

I think there are at least several examples of movies that have to prove themselves. Another Transformers movie? A Disney sequel? Another Shrek?

I’m not saying its impossible to make good sequels to those sorts of things, but they have an abysmal track record.

Also include the next DC movie set in the Snyderverse, unless it’s Flash doing a hard-reboot.

Sequel vs. Reboot is an interesting construction. I think that, at least, is a question with a real answer. The question being: would drawing on previously produced material in this property add value - artistically and commercially - to a new production or would it be better to take the concept and start fresh from an ostensibly neutral position?

Of course there are degrees of reboot, from simply disregarding some recently produced piece of media - like how the Fast & Furious franchise decided to divorce Tokyo Drift from the sequential timeline - while changing nothing else, to disregarding an entire assembled media creation to start from the inspiration anew - like Disney's Star Wars reboot, to fundamentally changing the concept in a massive way - like going from G1 Transformers to Beast Wars (Beast Wars ultimately chose to integrate a lot of G1 lore, but initially it was a totally different thing united primarily by the 'transform' idea).

So to take the Michael Bay Transformers movie franchise as an example, I personally cannot see how trying to make a movie that incorporates the idea that Last Knight and it's predecessors actually happened would give you something better than just making a whole new Transformers film from the same inspirational material, the existing films are such a disaster, especially in terms of storyline, that they can only damage new productions. There is absolutely a point where things are so bad that you're digging yourself out of a hole and it would be better to just start on the ground somewhere else.

[Jay R]

Is there truly no rules involving sequels?

Sigh. OK, here are my rules for sequels:

1. If you write a great, intriguing, original story, with interesting characters and an compelling plot, then it doesn't matter whether there was an earlier story with them, it's a successful story.
2. If you write a lame story, with an overworn plot and no originality, using characters that do not ring true to us, then it doesn't matter whether there was an earlier story with them, it will not be a successful story.

So how to make a great, intriguing, original story, with interesting characters and an compelling plot?

I promise you that if I knew the answer to that, I wouldn't be writing on a forum.

[Lord Joeltion]

I don’t think it is practical to say there is no rules on disallowing a sequel prior to actually making one and seeing it.

Imagine I am a studio executive trying to choose which out of hundreds of movie ideas being pitched to me to proceed with. IRL there are a lot of criteria used in these cases to decide what gets a green light and what is let go. Now you might say most studios don’t care about artistic quality and just want any dreck that can sell. Sequels will appeal because they presumably come with a built in audience.

Hypothetically though, let’s say I’m an executive of a studio that wants to be known only for putting out high quality work. Is there truly no rules involving sequels?

I think there are at least several examples of movies that have to prove themselves. Another Transformers movie? A Disney sequel? Another Shrek?

I’m not saying its impossible to make good sequels to those sorts of things, but they have an abysmal track record.

Also include the next DC movie set in the Snyderverse, unless it’s Flash doing a hard-reboot.

That is all fine, but you are making an argument against capitalism/commercialism influencing the way artist develop art. The argument doesn't reference the question about sequels in the least. You are basically saying that people who write for profit without regards of artistic value/meaning is a bad practice. Which is true, but can't work as a fast rule for every sequel. It applies to any story, be it a sequel or not.

like Disney's Star Wars reboot, to fundamentally changing the concept in a massive way

What. I get the canon was refurbished, but seriously... what?

going from G1 Transformers to Beast Wars (Beast Wars ultimately chose to integrate a lot of G1 lore, but initially it was a totally different thing united primarily by the 'transform' idea).

Funny enough, it was supposed to be a "canon" timeline to G1 during the first part, until they essentially screw it up and now nobody knows how the timeline is supposed to work

There is absolutely a point where things are so bad that you're digging yourself out of a hole and it would be better to just start on the ground somewhere else.

But that doesn't mean Transformers can't be rebooted or made a sequel that revitalizes the franchise. It just means that Michael Bay is a horrible, horrible director/writer/producer/human being. I'm not trhilled for any Bayformer movie, but I'm still waiting too watch a good "live-action" film with Optimus and palz during my lifetime.

Sigh. OK, here are my rules for sequels:

1. If you write a great, intriguing, original story, with interesting characters and an compelling plot, then it doesn't matter whether there was an earlier story with them, it's a successful story.
2. If you write a lame story, with an overworn plot and no originality, using characters that do not ring true to us, then it doesn't matter whether there was an earlier story with them, it will not be a successful story.

Again, these bunch of rules apply to every story as a "story" on its own, not exclusively to "sequels". I think a lot of people are making a distinction where is actually none (that is actually relevant). Sequels are only different to other stories simply because they come after. But they are stories just the same.

EDIT: on second thought, I think we were agreeing

[BeerMug Paladin]

Stop wanting a sequel? As in, I wanted a sequel in the first place and learned something about the creative process which made me cease wanting it to be produced? I'm honestly not sure how to answer that question.

I think any concept can be written well, and I'm interested in good writing. And I won't know whether something is written well or not until I actually see or read it.

I generally don't consider sequels as something I want to indulge in the first place, but if an author/creator has a good track record with something I might stick around to see more of what they create. Sequels included.

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.

Funny, I always thought the ending implied that Veidt's plan was bound to fail. It was just a matter of detail for how it goes off the rails and when. As in, Veidt's plan never "ended", it was just something he would be continually pulling off until he couldn't keep it under wraps anymore. Kind of like Veidt was a forum user, trying to keep a thread on topic.

[Reddish Mage]

That is all fine, but you are making an argument against capitalism/commercialism influencing the way artist develop art. The argument doesn't reference the question about sequels in the least. You are basically saying that people who write for profit without regards of artistic value/meaning is a bad practice. Which is true, but can't work as a fast rule for every sequel. It applies to any story, be it a sequel or not.

I said I’d like rules to apply to a sequel. The hypothetical studio executive who wishes to apply hard and fast rules is just a way to bring home the relevance of such rules.

But then, I didn’t want people taking that hypothetical into a direction of saying studio executives like dreck that sells. So I bracketed questions of whether sequels sell.

You can discuss all you want whether a sequel will or won’t sell. I just don’t see how that question impacts our discussion which is about the merits of making sequels.

Reboots are also interesting to discuss but they are not the same as true sequels. I think Star Wars and Star Trek were both benefited by going the reboot route for the latest films (and other media) rather than just creating more sequels weighted down by all the canon that entailed.

I think there are movies that are not-sequellable, or at the very least a sequel would be both a hard-sell and extremely difficult to pull off in ways an original story would not. I was having trouble putting a hard rule on what movies they are.

Now however, I think there are a few. I’ll allow exceptions but they have to be very rare:

I think very serious films with closed-ended stories are likely to be non-sequellable.

I think that franchises that have put out several bad and unsuccessful sequels cannot be followed up with a true sequel and require some sort of reboot.

I think new actors playing the original roles make it hard for audiences to accept a sequel as simple continuation of previous films.

Separate from a hard and fast rule about sequels and reboots: it has long been said that there’s something bad about Hollywood’s reliance on sequels and reboots, and there is not enough original content being produced. Would you agree?

[AlexBlade]

I liked sequels but Ghostbusters 2016 killed my passion So, I wont see stupid sequels...

[veti]

The only way you can care about Superhero stories is by both having the elements you like exist in your head as nostalgia, and selectively delete everything in the past as well, and seletively don't think ahead.

The way you describe superheroes makes them sound positively mythic. The story that's retold, as if new, to each new generation - with different twists and bit players and morals to suit the times, but clothed in the semblance of continuity...

Really, the only fly in the ointment is that they're owned by soulless corporations, and you can't do squat without their approval.

I do not believe there would ever be a situation in which a sequel shouldn't happen. There are always more stories to be told.

I would agree with the second part of that. But "shouldn't" is a big word for me. In general, I don't know how to say what should or shouldn't be.

I think Terminator 2 is a work of dreck that devalues everything good about the first movie. I think Aliens and Mad Max 2 are empty spectacle, pointless cash-ins on their predecessors' success, although unlike Terminator they don't actively betray those predecessors. But a lot of people like them, even preferring them to the real movies, and who am I to say they're wrong? They're their own stories, why not let them stand or fall by their own merits, rather than "as sequels"?

And that's the difference between a story-with-sequels, and a story that's conceived from the get-go as a series or trilogy (like Star Wars, or LotR, or Back to the Future, or...). In those cases, I like to judge the whole as a single work. Which is why I think The Matrix is excruciating masturbatory drivel, devoid of any redeeming features whatsoever.

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.

I agree. The ending of Watchmen is - tension. To resolve that tension, one way or the other, is to destroy that ending. It's a case where a sequel fundamentally changes the original.

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.

"Worst remake ever" is a big claim to make. The Pink Panther? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Planet of the Apes? The Italian Job? The Ladykillers? I guess some are only awful because they're so inferior to their originals, and if you'd never seen said originals they might pass for merely forgettably dull.

Remakes are not sequels. I find it's a once-in-a-decade level event for a remake to be worthwhile if I cared a straw for the original. They don't even have the excuse of "telling a new story". (I exclude "remakes" that completely change the plot of the original, like The Fly or The Thing.) In my opinion, the only way a remake can win is by vastly superior casting. The Front Page (1974) beats its predecessor by pairing Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, which is almost cheating.

I wouldn't have said "King Kong" was one of those movies that could be remade but I thought it was great.

Which remake are you thinking of? The 1976 version, in my teenaged opinion, was memorable chiefly for Jessica Lange's wardrobe. The 2005 version didn't even have that going for it.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And that's the difference between a story-with-sequels, and a story that's conceived from the get-go as a series or trilogy (like Star Wars, or LotR, or Back to the Future, or...). In those cases, I like to judge the whole as a single work. Which is why I think The Matrix is excruciating masturbatory drivel, devoid of any redeeming features whatsoever.

Only one of those four sets of films was conceived as a trilogy from the get-go. The other three were stand-alone films that got ret-conned into trilogies when the original film was successful.

Also, please consider these examinations of the themes of the Matrix before calling it a "excruciating masturbatory drivel, devoid of any redeeming features whatsoever", because such declarations, especially when you don't back them up, come across badly.

I agree. The ending of Watchmen is - tension. To resolve that tension, one way or the other, is to destroy that ending. It's a case where a sequel fundamentally changes the original.

The end of Watchmen, both comic and film, is the opposite of tension. It is quite clearly established that Ozymandias' plan won't work, and thus that the entirety of what you just read/watched only got a large bunch of people killed for no reason. It was a continuation of the message of the work: superheroes are useless at everything, as appropriate for a work of deconstruction of a myth.

Grey Wolf

[Lord Joeltion]

Also, please consider these examinations of the themes of the Matrix before calling it a "excruciating masturbatory drivel, devoid of any redeeming features whatsoever", because such declarations, especially when you don't back them up, come across badly.

Wait a minute.... If the Matrix isn't just a Skynet 3.0; but an allegory of the Cisgender Status Quo; that makes a way better ending for Matrix 3. I mean, one that doesn't completely suck at least. I always thought the Matrix allying itself with Neo because Smith was a jerk didn't mesh well with the story. Now, if Neo's journey was in fact one in which he finally comes to terms with Cis people and Cis people comes to terms with hir new transidentity... that would be way more clever. It would be an allegory for "Change the worldview and kill all the bigots" or something like that

Not that it will change my opinion on the movie tho. I never liked The Matrix too much to be honest. It's like everyone who is a great actor (practically everyone) was just reading the lines of the script 4 am in the morning.

[Reddish Mage]

If you didn’t like even the first Matrix that’s one thing. However, thatdoesn’t mean it cannot be read as a single movie, especially by the standards of the Witkowski sisters’ own favored criticism.

Wait a minute.... If the Matrix isn't just a Skynet 3.0; but an allegory of the Cisgender Status Quo; that makes a way better ending for Matrix 3. I mean, one that doesn't completely suck at least. I always thought the Matrix allying itself with Neo because Smith was a jerk didn't mesh well with the story. Now, if Neo's journey was in fact one in which he finally comes to terms with Cis people and Cis people comes to terms with hir new transidentity... that would be way more clever. It would be an allegory for "Change the worldview and kill all the bigots" or something like that

How does the allegory change the story of the entire trilogy or even the first movie?

I don’t quite understand the description of “cis” and “trans” identity in some of these criticisms. Being transgendered is not a choice that is made, its something one discovers about oneself. After one discovers it, there is no going back.

Also, given the trans-identity of the writer-directors, I am not surprised that The Matrix has trans-themes, but that its a full-on allegory for trans-identity gaining cis-acceptance? I don’t think so. There’s too many other identity-themes thrown in. The trans-gendered matrix is at best a burnt book.

[Jay R]

On the subject of The Matrix sequels:



No this isn't off-topic. The topic of this thread is, "What would make you no longer want a sequel?"

[GloatingSwine]

The end of Watchmen, both comic and film, is the opposite of tension. It is quite clearly established that Ozymandias' plan won't work, and thus that the entirety of what you just read/watched only got a large bunch of people killed for no reason. It was a continuation of the message of the work: superheroes are useless at everything, as appropriate for a work of deconstruction of a myth.

Grey Wolf

It's not "clearly established".

It's intentionally ambiguous. Will the crackpot newspaper nobody believes publish Rorschach's journal and will anyone believe it?

There's a fairly strong clue in his name that all that he builds will be forgotten by time, but it's not explicit in the tale and that's on purpose Geoff Johns **** off all the way to space you money grubbing hack.

The idea that Ozymandias' plan will fail straight away though embraces a nihilism that Watchmen rejects (chapter 9 is an explicit rejection of materialist nihilism via a character embodying Jung's search for meaning, hence the quote its title is drawn from).

What Ozymandias is a far stronger warning against though is the argument "the ends justify the means", because nothing ever ends. The "ends" are only one more ultimately transitory state and the terrible price paid to bring them about will not secure the imagined good in perpetuity. In that sense as well, ambiguity is stronger in the ending because it is a reminder that the future is unknown. The imagined horrors Ozymandias sought to avert at so terrible a price may never have come (as they didn't in our own timeline, despite calls just as close), so who can tell if it would have been worth it?

This is again reinforced by the Tales of the Black Freighter interludes, the Mariner's actions are driven by his foresight of the freighter at his home down, and when he has committed the very slaughter he feared he realises it was only ever there for him. Likewise the nigh-apocalyptic tensions that run through the book that drive Ozymandias are proximately caused by Dr. Manhattan buggering off to Mars which Ozymandias himself manipulated into occurring.

The failure of foresight is a major theme for Ozymandias, and so knowing what happens next defeats the point of his arc.

[Lord Joeltion]

If you didn’t like even the first Matrix that’s one thing. However, thatdoesn’t mean it cannot be read as a single movie, especially by the standards of the Witkowski sisters’ own favored criticism.

To clarify, it's not that I didn't like Matrix 1. It's just that I wasn't impressed in the least. The most original parts of it were the action scenes, not the story/characters/philosophy. It wasn't anything new for me. And I was like, 10-12 yrs old at the time. That's probably why I like Matrix 2 more than the first. Ok, not that I "like it" more; but like hell I can enjoy it more. The first one hinges between pretentious and dated for me. The second is even worse, but on contrast, the action scenes are way cooler

How does the allegory change the story of the entire trilogy or even the first movie?

I don’t quite understand the description of “cis” and “trans” identity in some of these criticisms. Being transgendered is not a choice that is made, its something one discovers about oneself. After one discovers it, there is no going back.

Also, given the trans-identity of the writer-directors, I am not surprised that The Matrix has trans-themes, but that its a full-on allegory for trans-identity gaining cis-acceptance? I don’t think so. There’s too many other identity-themes thrown in. The trans-gendered matrix is at best a burnt book.

(note: I didn't bother to read every single article linked)
I don't think it's meant to be changing anything. But when something is allegorical, it's meaning/value changes. Look at it this way: Plato sucked at telling stories. But he sure knew how to make a good allegory.

Most of what Neo does throughout the movie(s) is far from making choices (except when facing the Architect, where he made the Jerk's Choice). The first movie revolves around him realizing he is the Chosen one. It's certainly a story about acceptance. He can only start to affect the plot once he believes in himself. The second movie is about... making cool scenes? And the third one is about Zion or something. I doubt anyone was paying attention. Anyway, point being: Matrix isn't anything like the typical Hero's Journey. Or at least, it isn't presented quite like it. Neo barely ever chooses anything unless the plot strictly demands it (the pill, the door.... the cookie?). He basically has zero to no agency other than fulfilling a prophecy he never heard/believed about but he does anyway so who cares? If the Watchowsky were trying to make an allegory (that isn't about what is literally in the movie) more than telling a proper story, then kudos for them. It worked.

Oh, and I didn't really meant the "transgender" message changed the end of Matrix 3. Just that what happens at the end of the trilogy makes much more sense if the Matrix isn't really Skynet but an allegory of something else. Because really, whatever you believed happened in that movie, the end is absolutely dumb. And cliched. And out of nowhere. It doesn't look like making much sense to me. It's better as an allegory IMO

[JBPuffin]

I didn't want more Harry Potter after Deathly Hallows - they lived happily ever after, as far as I'm concerned, because their story ended where it needed to: the end of their career as wizard schoolkids.

I didn't want more Percy Jackson because, even if The Lightning Thief didn't solve every one of Percy's problems, it solved enough of them that I didn't need an expansion pack.

I want more One Punch Man because the series is more episodic than most with a continuous narrative underneath it. Also, Saitama is just great. I could watch his face for hours.

I stop wanting sequels when I'm satisfied with the end - this is less about "no plots left unsolved" and more about how much I enjoyed what there was and what kind of questions are still buzzing around in my head. If there are enough questions, I'll probably want more. Otherwise...well, Riordan's work is an example in my mind of something stretched farther than I'd appreciate. Star Wars isn't that for me, Marvel's Cinematic Universe isn't that way, Stranger Things has maybe 2 seasons tops before it would end up in this territory (unless each of those sets up something and subverts my expectations to the degree Season 2 did...), and One Punch Man could literally go on forever, but Riordan's whole Olympian business can go rot for all I care. Also Rowling's Cursed Child, I really only cared about their school years...

[Reddish Mage]

To clarify, it's not that I didn't like Matrix 1. It's just that I wasn't impressed in the least. The most original parts of it were the action scenes, not the story/characters/philosophy. It wasn't anything new for me. And I was like, 10-12 yrs old at the time.

I would really like to know where else you were introduced at the age of 11 to 1) post-modern deconstructionist and post-nihilism type media 2) Hollywood media featuring more slender vulnerable action hero guys and kick-ass females 3) mystical-philosophical-cyberpunk 4) total illusion scenarios.

Heck your pretty precocious if you already were exposed: post-apocalyptic, cyberpunk, manga-style media or even media in which the messianic hero has to go on a heavy trippy vision quest with a lot of people saying he's a failure and he can't do it.

The matrix is pretty ground-breaking for how trippy they make the story, the characters are not stock Hollywood types, and the philosophy isn't exactly something pre-teens are overexposed to.

[Bohandas]

Id say the opposite. Superheroes are the prime example of this problem. I don't understand how I can treat any character development or event with any seriousness, because it will be undone, forgotten, or revised with the passage of time, and then probably repeated.

I suppose that could be a problem if you're the type that looks for that kind of thing. Not so much me though. My favorite TV show is Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a show in which the main characters have seven different totally contradictory origin stories and characters are regularly killed off and then brought back in the next episode with no explanation

Thats a pretty corporate/ consumerist way to view art

What's wrong with being consumerist. It is for the consumer that products exist. Corporations and workers enter into the equation solely as an expression of the unfortunate laws of thermodynamics that prevent us from simply comnjuring things into existence.

[Reddish Mage]

I suppose that could be a problem if you're the type that looks for that kind of thing. Not so much me though. My favorite TV show is Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a show in which the main characters have seven different totally contradictory origin stories and characters are regularly killed off and then brought back in the next episode with no explanation.

I don't understand how you can extrapolate from a gag-show with no sense of continuity to something the purports to be serious and serialized.

The extreme and purposeful lack of consistency in Aqua Teen Hunger Force would destroy the majority of shows on television, let alone books and comics. To suggest otherwise is not merely wrong its facetious.

[Bohandas]

I don't understand how you can extrapolate from a gag-show with no sense of continuity to something the purports to be serious and serialized.

The extreme and purposeful lack of consistency in Aqua Teen Hunger Force would destroy the majority of shows on television, let alone books and comics. To suggest otherwise is not merely wrong its facetious.

Since when are comicbooks serious?

Additionally, it's not just that ATHF was inconsistent it's that it resisted the temptation to become otherwise, and this kept it fresh. It didn't fall into the trap that other shows have. Adventure Time With Finn and Jake and My Little Pony did NOT need to become semi-serialized.

[Bohandas]

I would really like to know where else you were introduced at the age of 11 to 1) post-modern deconstructionist and post-nihilism type media 2) Hollywood media featuring more slender vulnerable action hero guys and kick-ass females 3) mystical-philosophical-cyberpunk 4) total illusion scenarios.

Heck your pretty precocious if you already were exposed: post-apocalyptic, cyberpunk, manga-style media or even media in which the messianic hero has to go on a heavy trippy vision quest with a lot of people saying he's a failure and he can't do it.

The matrix is pretty ground-breaking for how trippy they make the story, the characters are not stock Hollywood types, and the philosophy isn't exactly something pre-teens are overexposed to.

It's not so much the Descartes' demon angle that's a cliche (or at least it wasn't at the time, before everyone started copying The Matrix) it's the various vacuous pseudo-profundities and hackneyed feelgood claptrap about the power of love that makes the philosophy of The Mateix subpar

[jayem]

Getting back to the main question, many great stories have wonderfully satisfying endings, and just don't need a sequel. Examples include Tom Sawyer, The Hobbit, The Three Musketeers, Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story, etc. It would be easy to say that writing sequels to them would be wrong.

Unfortunately, all of them had great sequels. There's no way I could have predicted that.

I conclude that I'm in no position to set rules for great authors. We should judge real sequels, after they're written, rather than hypothetical sequels that haven't been written.

Otherwise, we're treating The Empire Strikes Back like it's The Phantom Menace.

I do like that.

[Lethologica]

Since when are comicbooks serious?

Since people upthread have rattled off enough such examples offhand to fill several afternoons, I can only conclude that Reddish was right about you being facetious.

[Knaight]

Since when are comicbooks serious?

Maus and Persepolis come to mind.

[Bohandas]

Maus isn't a comicbook comicbook, it's a graphic novel.

[Bohandas]

Reboots are also interesting to discuss but they are not the same as true sequels. I think Star Wars and Star Trek were both benefited by going the reboot route for the latest films (and other media) rather than just creating more sequels weighted down by all the canon that entailed.

I disagree completely

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.

Right. It's "corporate" that's bad! Their profit margins and regulatory capture are a stumbling block to consumers.

The extreme and purposeful lack of consistency in Aqua Teen Hunger Force would destroy the majority of shows on television, let alone books and comics. To suggest otherwise is not merely wrong its facetious.

As a more subtle example how about The Simpsons? I think the show would have been diminished if they killed off Fat Tony and Snowball II for real instead of both of them being replaced by identical dopplegangars at the ends of the episodes where they died.

It's not so much the Descartes' demon angle that's a cliche (or at least it wasn't at the time, before everyone started copying The Matrix) it's the various vacuous pseudo-profundities and hackneyed feelgood claptrap about the power of love that makes the philosophy of The Mateix subpar

And furthermore in general it gets worse and worse as the series progresses. The sole exception to this is Agent Smith's final monologue in Matrix Revolutions, which is the only genuinely sensible or insightful thing anybody says in the entire series. Sadly this is immediately followed by the most vacuous pseudo-profound statement of the entire series, in which Neo justifies himself by begging the question; i-choose-to-do-this-because-i-choose-to-do-this

[Reddish Mage]

I disagree completely

Right. It's "corporate" that's bad! Their profit margins and regulatory capture are a stumbling block to consumers.

As a more subtle example how about The Simpsons? I think the show would have been diminished if they killed off Fat Tony and Snowball II for real instead of both of them being replaced by identical dopplegangars at the ends of the episodes where they died.

Comics can be serious and they are certainly not usually the sort of humor where a status quo reset can simply be done every issue where people who died are now alive without explanation.

If you really don’t get that about comics I don’t see what a deeper conversation about their creation would serve.

If you aren’t being facetious with this idea that comics can just have the status quo reset like a non-serialized comedy show, your comment on “corporate” influence certainly seems to be.

[Bohandas]

This thread is not exclusively about comics. I'm primarily talking about TV; regular tv; this excludes hour long dramas.

EDIT:
And in any case my greater point is that serialization itself is in general a hallmark of pretentiousness.

EDIT:
And my point regarding corporations is serious although phrased in a semi-facetious manner. Neither corporations nor labor have value in-and-of-themselves; their value lies solely in their ability to provide products to the consumer. The necessity of their existence and the necessity of paying them are both merely manifestations of the first and second laws of thermo dynamics which functionally prevent finished goods from coming into existence with no maker or in infinite quantity and availability (unless you like raw meat, in which case there's only the quantity/availability limitation). Anything that goes to them beyond what is necessary to keep them running is effectively energy lost to heat.