Joker was a critical and commercial smash, making a sequel likely, but doing a Joker 2 would risk harming what worked so well about the first movie. When Joker, directed by Todd Phillips, was first announced, many fans were skeptical. After multiple entries into the DCEU chronology, including the introduction of a different Joker (Jared Leto) in Suicide Squad, the prospect of a standalone Joker origin story existing entirely outside of the DCEU continuity seemed like a questionable move at best.

To add to those concerns, many fans also weren't sure about giving Joker a set backstory, as in most modern incarnations he's been a mysterious force of chaos. Expanding on why Joker ended up the way he did, and exploring his interpersonal relationships, came with an inherent risk of ruining the character by making him too overly explained, possibly turning Gotham's scariest villain into a figure of pity. Could Phillips and star Joaquin Phoenix do this in a way that would benefit Joker, and not hurt him? It turns out the answer was yes.

Joker managed to make Arthur Fleck sympathetic without making his criminal alter ego any less scary, and crafted a Clown Prince of Crime truly worthy of facing off with any version of Batman. The film doing so was definitely going against the odds though, and making a sequel would really be pushing things. Capturing lightning in a bottle the way Joker did is hard enough to do the first time, and can be nearly impossible to do the second.

Joker Works Best As A Standalone DC Story


It's well-known that Joker was designed from the ground up to be a standalone story. There was no long-term confusion as to whether or not it was part of DCEU canon, such as occurred with The Batman. While there's certainly things available to explore further in a Joker 2, just because that could be done, doesn't mean it should. Some of the most acclaimed films ever are standalone works that got in, told their story, and got out.

In fact, Joker draws directly on two respected Martin Scorsese films starring Robert De Niro for elements of its plot, style, and tone, those being Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. De Niro of course plays a supporting role in Joker, just to make the connection even clearer. Both of those films left room a good writer could've used as an opening to craft a sequel, but no one ever did, and both are all the better for it. Sequels can be great, but a bad sequel can harm the legacy of the original work, forever marring its lineage.

Joker 2 Would Have To Answer The First Movie's Questions (& Risk Hurting It)


One of the best aspects of Joker is its ambiguous ending, which leaves it up to the audience to decide just how much of Arthur Fleck's metamorphosis and murderous rampage was real and how much was imagined. We already know for sure that his entire relationship with Sophie was all in his head, which leaves the possibility open that more of what happened onscreen was just a figment of Arthur's imagination.

There are some theories that take things further, arguing that the entire film was simply a fantasy conjured up by an Arthur who had been locked up since the beginning. Some would argue these questions need to be cleared up, but history is littered with examples of ambiguous endings that have gone on to be explained, and many tend to be highly unsatisfying. Plus, even if Joker's story really did happen, continuing it would require clearing up whether Thomas Wayne is really Arthur's father, and why Joker is so much older than Bruce Wayne, which again, are arguably questions better left alone, allowing the audience to debate and discuss them.

Joker 2 Would Need New Characters (Losing Arthur's Personal Connection)


Another problem with continuing Joker's story with a Joker 2 is that all the major characters aside from Arthur likely wouldn't appear. Joker was a character study, always seen through Arthur's point of view, and all the other characters were seen through that lens as well. Arthur had a personal connection to every other major character, even if only in his own disturbed mind, that made his interactions with them so much more effective and interesting. But now, they're almost all dead.

Arthur killed his mother, Penny Fleck, killed his imagined mentor and idol Murray Franklin, inspired the killing of his possible father Thomas Wayne, and surely frightened imaginary girlfriend Sophie enough that she'd never speak to him again, and might've left town. Arthur's entire small world of people has crumbled, but a Joker 2 would need new major characters for him to interact with, all of which - aside from his brief moments with Bruce Wayne and Alfred - would be completely new to him, and without an established personal connection to draw on.

How A Joker Sequel Could Still Work


That all said, a creatively successful Joker 2 could certainly still be possible. Perhaps the best way to go about it, albeit at the risk of alienating some fans who only liked Joker due to Phoenix's performance, would be to not focus the story entirely on Arthur. Sure, there would still be the issues of having to clear up what did and didn't happen, but perhaps doing a time jump a bit into the future and having a new Joker appear that's been inspired by the infamous actions Arthur took in the past would help things. Arthur would still be a big part of the story, and could either still be imprisoned or have been released after appearing to have reformed.

This new Joker, who perhaps could be the eventual villain that Bruce Wayne's Batman will battle for eternity, could seek Arthur's advice and guidance on how to proceed in taking up his legacy. Arthur could then wrestle with whether or not he wants to be the inspiration for further killings, or possibly, be inspired to pick up his old mantle, leading to two Jokers that end up having conflicting interests. There's no real way to do a Joker 2 without dealing with the pitfalls outlined above, but if one has to happen, this might be the best route.