Let's get one thing straight right now: the idea of imposing an artificial, bureaucratic limit on movie sequels is pure creative tyranny. It's a solution in search of a problem, born from artistic snobbery and a fundamental distrust of the audience. The market already decides the limit. If a sequel is bad, if it's creatively bankrupt, audiences vote with their wallets and it fails. That's the only limit we need. You want to tell James Cameron he can't make *Avatar 5* because some committee decided three is the magic number? You want to erase *Mad Max: Fury Road*, a fourth film that's a masterpiece, because of some arbitrary rule? That's insanity. This isn't about protecting art; it's about controlling it. Who gets to set this limit? Critics? Studio executives? Politicians? That's a path to mediocrity, where genuine surprise and long-term storytelling are strangled at birth. The entire *Lord of the Rings* saga is essentially a sequel series. The *Before* trilogy deepened with each installment. A limit would have killed those. The argument for limits is based on laziness—laziness of thought. You see a bad sequel and blame the concept of sequels, instead of blaming the specific filmmakers for making a bad movie. The problem isn't the number; it's the quality. My opponent wants to install a creative governor because they don't believe audiences or artists can be trusted. I believe in freedom. Let the stories continue as long as there is vision and an audience. Anything less is censorship.

Your entire argument rests on a fantasy—the fantasy of a perfect, rational market. Audiences don't just "vote with their wallets" on quality alone; they vote on brand recognition, on nostalgia, on marketing blitzes that drown out critical thought. A terrible sequel to a beloved franchise will still make money because the name alone pulls people in. That's not a market correcting itself; that's a market being exploited. Your "creative tyranny" is just accountability. No one is stopping a visionary from creating new stories. They're being told they can't endlessly milk a dry cow. And your examples are hand-picked exceptions that prove the rule. For every *Mad Max: Fury Road*, there are a dozen *Jurassic World: Dominion*s, *Fast & Furious 10*s, and *Transformers 7*s—bloated, repetitive content factories that exist solely because a brand is a safe bet. These franchises crowd out original films, dominate studio slates, and teach audiences to expect less. A limit forces innovation. It tells studios the free ride on an old idea ends, so invest in something new. You ask who sets the limit? How about the principle of artistic integrity? A limit of, say, three films per storyline forces a trilogy arc—a beginning, middle, and end. It gives the story shape and purpose, instead of letting it sprawl into meaningless, revenue-chasing nonsense. Your "freedom" is the freedom for corporations to be lazy and for art to become a commodity. I'm arguing for the freedom of new ideas to see the light of day, instead of being crushed under the weight of endless, decaying franchises. The limit protects the audience from diminishing returns and protects cinema from becoming a museum of its own past.

You're still dodging the core issue. You call it "accountability," but it's just censorship dressed up as concern. You claim audiences are helpless victims of marketing, too stupid to know what they're watching. That's incredibly patronizing. People aren't mindless drones. They choose to see *Fast & Furious 10* because they enjoy it. Who are you to say their enjoyment is invalid? Your "principle of artistic integrity" is a joke. You don't get to dictate an artist's vision. A story ends when the storyteller says it ends, not when some arbitrary rule says it must. You want to force every story into a neat trilogy box? That's not integrity; that's creative suffocation. Some stories are epics. Some are intimate. They don't all fit your three-act factory preset. And your argument about crowding out original films is a complete red herring. Studios fund what makes money. If audiences truly wanted only original films, they'd pay for them. The success of original films like *Everything Everywhere All At Once* or *Parasite* proves the market is there when the product is good. Blaming sequels for a lack of originality is blaming a symptom, not the cause. The cause is bad filmmaking, not the existence of a Part 4 or Part 5. You want to talk about a "dry cow"? Fine. Let it run dry. The audience will walk away. The market will correct. But you don't get to preemptively shoot the cow because you're afraid it might get old. Your entire position is built on fear—fear that audiences can't think, fear that artists can't self-regulate, fear of creative freedom. I'm not afraid of that freedom. I welcome it. The limit you propose isn't a shield for art; it's a cage. And I will never argue for putting art in a cage.