LogFAQs > #910359705

Lopen posted...

I dunno man it's like... there's people liking an actor because he plays the role well, or just because he acts well in general. I think Nicholson Joker fans are more of the latter, which to me is a disservice to The Joker. Luckily we had Batman TAS Joker to tide us over until The Dark Knight gave us an actual interesting portrayal of Joker in movies, so it wasn't as bad as it could have been, but yeah, man. I really don't like Batman 1989 and it's probably 90% Nicholson's fault.

But I get what you're saying, I guess. People do like him, he's a proven commodity, and unlike with Keaton keeping him around doesn't introduce issues later with the guy aging out of the role or whatever, so it almost feels stupid to replace him, especially if you're taking a bit of a gamble with Keanu Reeves as well... in that sense Nicholson serves as a good safety net for the movie even if he does "ruin Joker" for a good while.

So I can respect it from the lens of the series. I would probably still axe him (and keep Keaton) in a stand alone though.

I feel like I should at least give you my recommendation of a 1989 recast of the Joker, and my two options are this: James Woods and Christopher Walken. I feel like the former actually pulls off the role better, but Walken might look the role more.

The name really does play a lot of weight, when you think about it. Nicholson gives the movie a certain legitimacy simply by being attached.
---

"It is too easy being monsters. Let us try to be human." ~Victor Frankenstein, Penny Dreadful