I'm not sure, I think both options would kinda be bad.
If there is a sequel, it could ruin the purpose of this movie, and make it feel like just the first part of a typical action series.
If there isn't a sequel, it could prove what some people have been saying, that this story could've easily been done without the Gotham setting, and that the Gotham setting was just a pointless way to make this movie more popular.
No, I think the story had a satisfactory ending.
shareIt's being reported that Todd Phillips is writing it as we speak.
https://collider.com/joker-2-writer-todd-phillips/
I don't think the lack of the sequel proves that, really.
It was a movie with a famous comic book villain. It wasn't meant to tie in with other versions of the character, or with any other movie currently out. It was it's on interpretation of the character.
The movie had ended the story well enough, and a sequel isn't needed.
Yes.
It was an amazing origin story, but it didn't even scratch the surface of what Joker would become.
I say build on it.
The thing is, the aspect of the movie that made it great, was his BECOMING the joker. Now that's done.
Teh way to make a sequel, would be to have him BEING the Joker, years later, and show Bruce Wayne BECOMING the Batman.
I don’t think so as I just can’t picture where they would take it. I really cannot see this Joker taking over the city or being a charismatic ruthless villain .
share