Is ‘Succession’ Truly Over If HBO Doesn’t Let Great IP Die?
As I watched the series finale of what I consider one of the greatest TV shows of the last 30 years, I found myself oddly stoic.
There I was savoring the last minutes of HBO’s “Succession,” a show I’ve watched every episode of multiple times, and the cloud of sadness that typically hovers over me whenever I’m about to bid goodbye to programming I love was nowhere to be found. Just one night earlier, I felt that awful gloom as another good, but not quite great, series — Prime Video’s “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” — had its own finale. But when it came to “Succession” … nothing.
And then it hit me why that was: because I refused to believe it was the last I would ever see of “Succession.”
This faith that I will one day be reunited with one of my all-time favorites has no basis in fact: While HBO has certainly not closed the door on one day bringing “Succession” back, the company has made clear there is no active discussion with series creator Jesse Armstrong to develop anything of the sort, as HBO drama chief Francesca Orsi made clear in a recent Deadline interview.
But I’d bet however many zillions fictional “Succession” mogul Lukas Matsson paid for Waystar Royco, we have not seen the last of this intellectual property. And it has me wondering whether the increasing habit of HBO, among other entertainment brands, of never letting any half-decent IP ever truly die will make it more difficult to eventize the endings of shows when the audience is trained to expect them to resurface eventually.
Not that the “Succession” finale was hurt by that notion: The series ended on a ratings high. Not that 2.9 million in the initial airing (delayed viewing will see that number multiply) is all that impressive compared with capital-H “hits” like “Game of Thrones” or “Euphoria,” but that’s not really the point.
“Succession” is a different kind of show that earns its true value not with mere ratings but on the Emmy Awards and critics’ year-end lists that HBO needs to dominate in order to continue luring the best artists to do their work for Warner Bros. Discovery instead of Netflix or Apple.
And it’s the show’s very artistic integrity that might have you thinking “Succession” is not some widget that can be mass produced and exploited over and over again as if it were some Marvel superhero flick. You don’t ask a creative genius like Armstrong to crank out additional seasons out of some misguided sense of crass commercialism!
True … but you also don’t ask Armstrong to crank out additional seasons when he’s indicated he doesn’t want to precisely because you don’t want to alienate him with unwelcome pressure that sends him into the arms of one your rivals.
HBO will make whatever Armstrong wants to make next because he has rightfully earned a blank check to create whatever his heart desires. But you better believe the time will come years from now when Orsi or her equivalent finds the right moment to gently prod him with, “Hey, you ever think about revisiting ‘Succession’?”
Let’s not forget, this is HBO, where the great franchises always return in some shape or form, as we saw with other TV masterworks: In 2021, there were “The Sopranos” ( film prequel “The Many Saints of Newark”) and “Sex and the City” (series spinoff “And Just Like That …”); and in 2022, “Thrones” begat “House of the Dragon,” the first of multiple offshoots in development from that franchise. The network even developed resurrected versions of “Six Feet Under” and “True Blood” but ultimately passed on the projects.
So, of course “Succession” will be back. Consciously or not, Armstrong ended the series in a fashion that leaves the storylines open-ended. Kendall Roy doesn’t jump into the ocean at which he stares bleakly in the series’ final scene. And Shiv Roy will surely angle her way back into power via new CEO husband Tom Wambsgans. Sure, it’s highly doubtful we’ll see a pick-up-where-they-left-off fourth season anytime soon, but write in a time jump or two, and it’s all good.
Even in the event that the fabulous “Succession” stars become too darn famous to deign to revisit the roles that made them household names, a sprawling ensemble like this can be rebooted even with a key player or two missing. If “And Just Like That …” managed to go on without Kim Cattrall, really anything is possible. And maybe Armstrong himself will be too busy making Oscar-winning movies to trifle with TV series, but he’ll inevitably find some lieutenant to bring his brainchild back to life while staying attached as executive producer.
In an industry with so many shows that (1) standing head and shoulders above the clutter gets harder and harder and (2) the best way to break through that clutter is with pre-branded IP that comes with a nostalgic instant audience who are much pickier about trying new titles, "Succession 2.0" is an inevitability.
No, "Succession" won't spawn a cinematic universe like "Thrones" or Marvel, but these corporate characters could inhabit so many other worlds in TV or movie form. Just as "Many Saints of Newark," for instance, carved out a fascinating period of history decades before Tony Soprano became a mob boss, we could easily see the vaguely alluded-to early years of Logan Roy and his rise to power fully fleshed out.
When you consider the creative possibilities, it just doesn't seem plausible that this is the last we've seen of the Roy clan. So pardon me if my eyes stayed dry when I watched the finale. How can I miss "Succession" when I know it really hasn't gone away?
