I'm sorry if I came over as condensending, but all those TLJ and sequel trilogy discussions have made me kind of sensitive to this argument. I don't feel like it's a compelling one, as, as I argued, the other alternative would lead to a non-story. You can't tell a story without conflict. The trick is to come up with new, compelling conflicts and use what came before as a jump of point. Any conflict will in a way 'undo' a happy ending, as happy endings kind of imply a state of absolute happiness and 'everything is okay'. It's just a sentiment I can't get behind. It's inherent to a sequel that it will fuck up the all-is-perfect status quo the original happy ending left behind. Because, and that's what I ment with 'basic storytelling' you need this to be able to tell a story.
I feel the new Star Wars trilogy, by choosing new main character's and giving the old heroes new conflicts to overcome (I'm mostly talking about Luke, as TFA doesn't do this as well as TLJ. And yes, Luke fails and runs away from it all. He went trough an arc in the OT, and then made new mistakes. It doesn't revert his previous succes. He is still the man that redeemed his father. But in trying to restore the Jedi Order he made mistakes, and reacts to it in the wrong way by giving up, and than learns that he was wrong. It's a new arc, that imo doesn't revert his previous one at all.)
It's also an argument that mostly looks at the external conflict, which at best is the most superfluous and least important one in a story. Yes, the Galaxy is at war again and there is an Empire 2.0 but what the character's have learned along the way has not really changed. (And what would the alternative be? It's Star Wars. You kind of need a War of some sorts. if it wasn't an Empire-esque FO, it would've been another fatcion threatening peace. Again, the rise of the FO and the backstory could've been handled a bit better, but it was kind of expected that peace wouldn't last in the New Republic if you want to make a sequel, right?)
I don't think it's realistic to expect to have a happy ending ànd a sequel that completely keeps that ending in place. It's seems to me your problem is not with the storytelling, but with the concept of sequels and franchising. (And that's perfectly fine.)
In my opinion you have two kind of sequels:
- the bad and not so good ones: completely disregard what the main character learned in the previous movie, and repeats the same conflict and arc again. An example of a sequel I actually kind of like, but did not enjoy as much as the original: In How to Train Your Dragon Hiccup struggles with being different and not being able to live up to expectations. In the sequel that is kind of repeated. Again he is afraid not being able to live up to expectations (becoming chief). The writer's failed to give him a new arc. Your Luther example seems to be a great one too (haven't seen that series)
-The good ones find new arcs for the main characters, without reverting the arcs of the previous movie. Imo the ST of Star Wars mostly fits that bill. I hope IX can confirm this.
To close things of: you did not give an example of a sequel who did it right in your opinion. Can you name me one story with a happy ending, ànd a straight sequel that didn't at least revert some stuff from that happy ending?
I agree with you that some degree of 'unhappiness' is necessary for a sequel to happen, but what my issue is and where I think you're misunderstanding me is that I believe that you can make a sequel that doesn't completely undo the progress made before. Star Wars
does completely undo the progress made before because, as I said in the OP, literally every single thing that the final shot of Return of the Jedi represents is either undone or diminished by the time The Last Jedi ends. I do not get the sense that anything that was learnt or achieved in the Original Trilogy has any bearing on the characters in the Sequel Trilogy; Luke's arc is perhaps the closest to this not being the case but, outside of that, they might as well be fighting the same battles they did 30 years prior.
As for your point about "there needing to be a war", that's simply a matter of writing that failed to create a unique new scenario. The Prequels, despite their shittiness, managed to create the titular "Star Wars" whilst avoiding the same "Empire Vs. Rebels" dichotomy that the Original Trilogy was about. The Sequels have not and likely will not, The First Order is pretty much just The Empire 2.0 and The Resistance is just a synonym for The Rebellion in practically every single way. Again, my issue
isn't that there is conflict, but that the conflict there is doesn't take into account what happened before. As for potential alternatives; The First Order being a terrorist-like organisation that uses guerilla tactics to try and undermine the New Republic would have been an amazing conflict and one that doesn't completely disregard what had come before. It would have made Luke's abandonment of his friends and family more reasonable (because right now he stood by and did nothing as
billions of people ended up dead), it would have allowed Leia to keep the New Republic, it would have provided much-needed unique lore to the SW universe (instead of just 'not-Tatooine' and 'not-Hoth') and it would have allowed at least some of the characters to get out with a decently happy ending.
For an example of a 'sequel to something with a happy ending that keeps the happy intact' (because, again, I don't expect everything to be intact, that's a misreading of my argument), look to Shrek 2. Yes, the meme film. Shrek 1 had Shrek and Fiona battling with how they view themselves and the fact that they are Ogres; by the end of the film both characters have grown to a place where they're comfortable with who they are as people. Shrek 2, then, has the two characters (mainly Shrek) facing the issues that come with how
society views them, and the main conflict comes from whether the two characters can overcome that. In more superficial terms it also has a new villain and a mostly new cast. Essentially it's a sequel that would not have been possible if the previous film's character progress hadn't have happened. The characters from the
end of Shrek 1 face a new conflict and not the characters from the
start of Shrek 1.
