Arguments for include:

Story-wise, there were plenty of loose ends leaving the door open for a sequel.

We never see Clarence find out his father was killed, let alone mourn his death. Now that there is some kind of motivation for Clarence to consider turning the hunter into the hunted.

Speaking of whom, not only is Vincenzo still alive, but we never even met Blue Lou Boyle, similar to how Star Wars introduced us to Darth Vader, but we never meet his boss until the sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. And, they certainly can't be happy with this hack punk Clarence killing (or causing to be killed) one of their producers, Drexl, as well as several of their enforcers (Virgil, Lenny, Marvin, Luca). Not to mention he stole a crapload of product. No way all of this should/would be let to stand.

Given he's such a "loveable imbecile" as another poster mentioned elsewhere on this message board, any sequel would have to demonstrate he's used the circumstances of True Romance to make him grow the F up and take things more seriously. He'd have to do lay low, do some training, find new connections for intel...

And, what about this "true romance"? Did it last? I'd argue it must have had to - not so much to justify going after Vincenzo/Blue Lou (their killing his father was sufficient for this) but to a, ) defend the original title as being worth something, but b) to add to the stakes: if they "broke up", he's just a guy with nothing left to lose; if they're still together, there's added risk, which raises the drama/tension.

And then, there's the cops. There was a ton of coke. An investigation that hit a snag when its lead investigators were shot to death in a hail of stand-off bullets. At least one high profile victim, producer Lee Donowitz - two if we count informant Elliot, and Clarence and Alabama, suspects that are connected to bodies piled up across the country. And once all the bodies in LA are identified and connected to the killing of Drexl and Clarence's dad back in Detroit, well, the FBI would have to be invovled in a federal case. That brings some real heat on the proceedings. How in the hell would Clarence keep ahead of both the mob AND the feds?

And then, there's Brad Pitt. Of all the stars that were whacked and thus could never reappear in this sequel (unless they loaded up lots of flashbacks fleshing out more of the first story), I'm sure anyone who was a fan of this movie to begin with would certainly root for Brad Pitt to reprise his stoner roll. Who knows? Perhaps we find out he's a stoner to kill the pain of being an Afghanistan or Gulf War vet, but he cleans up and puts some of his skills to work with Clarence.

Business-wise, with streaming services taking over distribution from theaters, as well as the pressure on putting lots of people in physical theatres thanks to covid-19, today's streaming distribution paradigm would make it much easier to a) reach viewers as well as b) benefit from word of mouth to get more viewers. The anticipation alone would drive a lot of curious eyeballs to start watching anyway.

Arguments against include:

Business-wise, box office was brutal, abysmal. It lost money. I'm not saying this alone dismisses the potential, but it really puts a damper on things. Producers will invest in stupid-ass movies that make money (see Transformers and most Michael Bay movies); and a lot of great movies only paid back 3x budget. But producers are seldom interested in throwing good money after bad.

Casting is a curious issue with this film as well. There were a crapton of starts in this first movie, yet it did poorly. That's not likely a formula producers would attempt again. But, if Slater, Arquette, Walken and Pitt are back (shucks, even Rappaport), with a heavy to play Blue Lou, I'd be willing to watch just to see what happened. And, historically (back to arguments for) there are a few franchises in which the sequel was better than the original (The Empire Strikes Back, Blade II, Godfather 2 are among those that arguably were better than their originals).

Either way, what am I missing?