yedidyaYour 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.
01:09 AM