^ ^ Thank you for clarifying your position, but I will continue to respectfully disagree. By your definition of what constitutes a serial film, the STAR WARS films are not serials (since they were not made back-to-back on a continuous production schedule), and that is obviously incorrect. Neither would Superman I and II qualify by your definition, because although they derived from the same screenplay, their productions were divided (after Donner was fired and Lester took over as director). And yet they function as one piece with a full, single story to convey. At all events, why should it be a "problem" for anyone but the filmmakers that a proposed first installment does not do well enough to justify a sequel? If few people liked the movie, no tears will be shed at the lack of further installments (q.v. Van Helsing for a fine/poor example); if many people did enjoy the first film, chances are high this will be reflected in the box office returns, and it follows that the proposed sequel(s) will be made. Why either eventuality should cause a "problem" for an individual audience member is a mystery to me. Either you like the movie for what it is, or you don't. As to Jumper, I think it works fine as a single installment, even if not all questions are answered, clarified or explored in detail. There are plenty of excellent "one-shot" films that do this -- movies such as Unbreakable or Cloverfield -- which were created without a sequel in mind, but which nonetheless have an intentionally incomplete feeling. If no sequel is forthcoming for Jumper, I'll still purchase the DVD and watch it many times over, mining it for clues and simply enjoying the action and intriguing story.