Eh, I would've preferred Joker to be a standalone film but we all knew that this was coming. Warner Bros made too much money off this to not make a sequel
I may have some issues with the movie, but I can't say I'm not curious to see another Todd Phillips Joker, now that the character has transformed from just being A Fleck. Though, Phillips' Hangover sequels were just the retreads of the first movie, so we'll see how this goes. I was actually hoping the success of this movie would prompt WB to be more bold with their decisions, but a Phillips mini-DCU was not what I had in mind, so I'm glad they didn't go with that. Curious to see what the other DC property is though.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I thought Phoenix wasn't one for sequels? And I have a hunch the next person to crack in Gotham will be a certain District Attorney named Dent.
Interesting. I don't think this needs a sequel but obviously it made WB money and was by all means a well received film so I can't say I'm surprised. I wonder if eventually we'll see Batman in this universe? I doubt this will get tied into Pattinson's Batman though.
Just as long as Phillips doesn't pull another Hangover II by doing a damn near verbatim frame-for-frame remake of the first one. Anyway, Phoenix has been talking for weeks about wanting to do more of the character, so this news isn't surprising. Disappointing, though, that no one can ever seem to stand by their 'one and done' positions once big money starts rolling in.
Joaquin has talked previously about how Joker is that kind of character that he wont be against exploring futher.
No Joker Sequel Yet, Todd Phillips Never Pitched DC Origin Films – Deadline The Joker sequel news that hit a trade today is great click bait, but multiple inside sources said that while a sequel to the billion dollar grossing film is an obvious likely eventuality that makes all the financial sense in the world, at this point there are no deals for a sequel, nor even any negotiations with director Todd Phillips or his co-writer Scott Silver to craft one. Those sources add that the linchpin of today’s THR story — that a week after Joker‘s opening, Phillips met with Warner Bros film chief Toby Emmerich to pitch a portfolio of DC character origin stories — is as flat false as earlier stories that Martin Scorsese contemplated directing the first Joker (Scorsese was originally going to be a producer, but dropped out because of his crowded schedule). Multiple sources said no such October 7 meeting between Phillips and Emmerich occurred, and that Phillips hasn’t even considered overseeing other DC character films. That would be in keeping with Phillips’s track record of being selective: after The Hangover began breaking records for R rated films, he did not seek to turn his company into a comedy factory. No one is saying a Joker sequel won’t happen someday. But multiple sources said nothing has happened yet, and that Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver have made no real moves to draft the further dark rise of Joaquin Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck character, or even to make a deal to do that. Might be worth killing this thread and just merging these posts into the main Joker one.
And once again proof that you have to seriously fact check even sites that are generally considered "reliable". Welcome to the internet I guess...
Joker star Joaquin Phoenix reportedly offered a MASSIVE paycheck for Joker 2 and Joker 3 Joaquin Phoenix is in talk for Joker 2 and 3, but for $50 million for the 2 movies.
Not sure what they would even do in a part 2 as the director confirmed-- Spoiler The whole movie was in the jokers head and it was just him telling a "how did a get these scars" type story and none of it was really real!
The only way I can see a second or even a third Joker movie existing is if they each told a different story about how he became the Joker. Eg: 1950's - he was in the Red Hood gang 1970's - his dad was abusive and cut a smile on his face. (*shrugs* I dunno, it's just an example) jD001
LOL this will be a joke... er. Like, what will we have, a 20-something Bruce Wayne fighting a 60 year old Joker? I did not like the movie much, despite all the hype. I felt it was just Taxi Driver that got squished into the DC universe, barely. Arthur lacks everything that made the Joker a good villain in comics, cartoons, movies - he isn't some mastermind or has an insane logic at all, he was just a Joe Schmoe at the right time at the right place to be selected as the leader of a movement. I'd like that. As it was put as a 2-page "origin story" for the Joker in Countdown (terrible series, but this comic was good) where he basically goes through his origin, and tells a few of them, ending with "I got a million of'em!" I doubt this director is that insightful. He likely just approached DC with the offer "Hey, if you give me funds, I will remake Taxi Driver but you guys can pretend it is about the Joker! You get awards and people will take comic book movies seriously, I get funding! Everybody wins!" Because that's all I see on the net - people praising this movie for being a serious movie unlike other comic book movies... because they miss the point how this is not even a comic book movie at all.
Love Joker... love the idea of further exploring that world, but worry that they can’t capture that lightning in a bottle and won’t be as good.
He's actually said the film was left ambigious for us the audience to decide if the whole thing was real or just a random guy imagining that he was the Joker.
Which is weird when Todd Phillips removes all ambiguity in scenes such as with his imaginary girlfriend or being lauded by his idol. The movie was designed to let the audience know whenever something was in Joker's head. This was done with either a framing device or a montage of flashbacks. It would also undercut the supposed meaning of the movie if the lower class rebelling against the rich was all in the Joker's head. A film like The King of Comedy, which Joker "borrowed" from used the unreliable narrator to much greater success (that's Martin Scorsese for you). The audience is able to know when Rupert Pupkin is making something up with how the characters and their relationships were established at the beginning. It strengthens the film's commentary on celebrity obsession by showing how entitled Pupkin is when reality catches up to him.
I'm honestly fine without a Joker 2, it was a great stand-alone movie. The only way I would watch it is if they called it Joker 2: Society
