But the whole point of theatrical art is to make something that can become a franchise that shits out soulless garbage to the point of over saturation so that some art hating child rapist can make a bunch of money off of it.

Individual stories are fine as long as they don't end up with a cliffhanger, or as something I have to watch to understand upcoming movies or shows. I'm also sick of shit getting cancelled early.

The most recent Lanterns was great, but the way it ends feels like the story isn't finished and I will be annoyed if they wrap it up there. They're planning to use him in a future movie, so it was left feeling incomplete and they haven't renewed it for a second season yet. That's annoying to me, and guarantees I'll never watch the show again unless I have to for the movie and I've forgotten what happens.

A great example is Mr Robot. The story was written start to finish and wrapped up in four seasons. They told the story they wanted to, and it feels complete to the viewer. If instead they were planning on continuing the story and ended early, or didn't wrap it up so they could use the same characters in a movie or something, it would feel incomplete and lose a lot of meaning/value to me as the viewer.

Tl;dr just finish the fuckin story in a concise and satisfying way if you don't want to continue with the character.

I would argue that it is a complete story. It just ends with John ready to begin something new.

Cope. Both are fine techniques. It's ok to accept that both are valid, don't need to be a butthurt baby just because you stick to one particular style.