Was there ever a financially very successful movie that didn't have a sequel?

The writer of ET wrote a novel that continues the story. For some reason the studio passed on that story.

I have to disagree.

The Star Wars OT had to be done and so did The Lord Of The Rings.
Most of the DC and Marvel movies were met with enormous box office success because millions of people love the continuing story of these fun characters. Netflix spent a ton producing Superhero stuff on good to great series to satisfy audience demand.

The first three Friday The 13th movies are very excellent horror films and who didn’t like seeing Dirty Harry turning up on the case to figure out what hoodlum needed to get blown away to close the case over and over again?

Sequels continue the story and if it’s a great story tickets get sold.

The Rolling Stones still tour, they are ancient guys but they still sell out stadiums.

YOU HAVE MUCH TO LEARN YET,YOUNG ONE.

I was about to say-- a lot of the old high grossers did not have sequels. Sequels were more of a rarity for A-pictures long ago.

There was actually a Gone with the Wind sequel called Scarlett released in 1994.
https://moviechat.org/tt0108915/Scarlett

I heard recently that Neil Blomkamp was actively working on District 10. But then at the same time I hear he's working on an Alien movie as well as a Starship Troopers reboot.

I'd like to see another movie similar to Roger Rabbit. That was a fun movie. A really old school take on Bugs and Daffy could be interesting.

True Lies was a lot of fun. Now everyone seems to old to do a proper sequel.
Goonies 2 should have been made years ago but still possible.
Se7en? I liked the movie but didn't seem like it needed a sequel.

Joker apparently is getting a sequel
Bohemian Rhapsody could continue telling the story until Freddie died
Sixth Sense probably didn't happen already because the director said he didn't like doing sequels
The other ones unnecessary