Why JOKER Does Not Need a Sequel

Few could have predicted the massive success of Warner Bros.’ Joker movie. A mid-budget, R-rated character study of an iconic supervillain doesn’t sound like much, but the film really had an impact. It became the first R-rated movie to ever gross $1 billion at the worldwide box office. And with a production budget of less than $70 million, it is the most profitable comic book movie of all time. And that’s not including the awards season hype, which has seen the film earn two Golden Globes.

Naturally, this has led to discussions about a potential sequel. There have been conflicting reports about whether or not a second film is in development. However, director Todd Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix have talked about the possibility more than once. It would be surprising if the studio did not at least explore the possibility, given how much money the first movie made. But does Joker really need a sequel?

I would prefer if a Joker sequel didn’t happen, and that the film would exist as a one-off.

Back when Joker was first announced in 2017, it was said to be a standalone movie with no connection to DC’s film universe. Sequels weren’t even in the original reports. There was the intention of launching a “DC Black” label of movies, but even then, the focus was just on getting Joker right. It is rare for blockbusters today to stop at one movie, with sequel after reboot after remake keeping the property active. This is especially rare for comic book movies. Giving Joker a sequel would take away from how special the film is. Thankfully, it seems like Phillips and Phoenix have no interest in a sequel if the story doesn’t match the original’s quality. But why take the risk?

Also, one thing that people love about Joker is how open-ended it is. The film has spawned countless theories, thanks to Arthur Fleck’s unreliable narration. Did the whole movie take place in his head? Could Thomas Wayne be his father after all? Is Arthur the “real” Joker, or is he merely the man who inspired the Joker? The mystery has fueled countless discussions and debates about the film. If they make a Joker sequel, it would take away the mystery. And we all know how protective fans get over their head canons…

And if they do make a sequel, where would the story go? The obvious choice would be to fast-forward to an adult Bruce Wayne becoming Batman and taking on Arthur, or a man inspired by him. Batman vs. Joker has already been done several times on film, and a Joker sequel would risk making it stale. What can it do that hasn’t been done already? And surely this is something that will eventually be revisited in the DC Films universe and/or Matt Reeves’ Batman series.

Of course, while a Joker sequel is unnecessary, the “DC Black” label has a lot of potential. Take the same gritty, low-budget approach to new characters. Lex Luthor, Mr. Freeze, Vandal Savage…the possibilities are endless. And personally, I would rather see Warner Bros. dedicate its resources to new characters rather than doing Joker over and over again.

Before I go, I want to clarify that I am a huge fan of Joker. It is one of my favorite movies of 2019, and one of the most groundbreaking comic book movies in modern times. I love it. But my love for it has also led to me wanting the best for it. And, in my opinion, it is best if Joker existed as a one-off, rather than an ongoing franchise.