This article conflates many different aspects of serial film making, some of which have nothing to do with endings. Fans of these movies love that its a shared universe and that having watched one movie leads to greater enjoyment of the next. You get to follow these characters through more than just one arc.
But my real problem with this (and articles like it) is how it fits into a collective hypocrisy in criticism of film vs tv. (This is a criticism of writers in general, not this one in particular).
Pages and pages have been written about the rise of good television recently. Many point out how better budgets, better talent and other changes have made for a better (and more varied) viewing experience. And its all true.
Much has also been written on how tv is trumping film because you can tell more story over 26 episodes, over 3 or 5 or 7 seasons. Mad Men, Sopranos, Breaking Bad are all praised (rightly) as fine art and entertainment. There's no way you could start the shows half way in or understand what's happening if you skip even one episode. And since they go on for many seasons, its a long time before anything really ends.
The hypocrisy comes when you compare how the critic class speaks of tv and how they speak of movies. "Breaking Bad is amazing. Can't wait for the next season". "Ugh a summer of more sequels". "Wow, Walking Dead's one fight sequence was so well done." "Oh great, another action/zombie/disaster movie". The same characteristics seen in the highest praised tv shows are what make up the "lowest" form of film making.
I'm not saying all serial films are good (holy crap, they're not). And certainly I'm not trying to take down television. I watch it, I love it and can't wait to see what everyone comes up with next. But can't we just acknowledge that as critics (which we all are, this is the internet) we are wildly inconsistent. And maybe what we're looking for is greatly influenced by what we feel "good film" should be. Not by what it actually is.