Jack Nicholson doesn't sign on to "Batman"

I know, I already did another thread about changing that particular franchise. But I was wondering about this recently.

To convince Nicholson to play the Joker, Warner Brothers had to offer him a considerable amount, and even with such offers, it took Nicholson a long time to agree to play the part, at least from the studio and Tim Burton's perspective.

Nicholson's involvement was also a major factor, perhaps the major factor for why Batman was such an enormous hit.

So let's say that from the studio and Burton's point of view, the worst happens. Negotiations with Nicholson break down, or he's already signed on to do another film, etc. Point is, pretty much everyone involved's top choice to play the Joker is unavailable. Instead they are forced to go with their second choice pick-Robin Williams.

Is the resulting movie still a success? How does a Nicholsonless "Batman" fare against its competition in the summer of 1989?

What does the resulting film look like and how does the substitution of Williams for Nicholson alter the plot?

The Joker as mobster element seems like it was designed for Nicholson, and would not be as good a match for Williams, indeed, the Joker would probably be a different character entirely here. The wounded narcissist element works well with Nicholson, but wouldn't work as well with Williams. Therefore, if that element was not written into the script after Nicholson signed on in the first place, I can see the character being altered to create a more appropriate character for Williams to play, and that might well alter the whole plot of the film.
 
Robin Williams' take on the Joker could be interesting, but it would be very different from what both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger did. Jack Nicholson's Joker was a white collar criminal in clown make-up. Heath Ledger's Joker was a psychotically violent, nihilistic terrorist. Robin Williams' Joker would probably be a clown with a VERY warped and sadistic sense of humor. This version of Batman might actually be very dark but also very funny.
 
Jack Nicholson wasn't that influential on the process, and the man who was supposed to play the Joker would have taken the role he was born to play. Michael Keaton was originally the Joker, but wasn't considered a juicy enough name to attract fans.
 
Wow, this could have been an early big break for Williams to show his acting chops.

I wonder how audiences would react to seeing Williams play the Joker, though. Would they assume--before seeing trailers--that he'd play it campy a la the TV show? Would viewers--or producers, for that matter--not be able to get over Williams' past roles like Mork or Adrian Cronauer (Good Morning, Vietnam)? Would he steal too much of the show from Keaton's Batman? It would be a really tough sell, but I think he could pull it off.

Another factor, of course, is when he's cast. Would Sam Hamm be willing to potentially rewrite the Joker during filming or not? There's a lot of questions to consider.
 
IMDB also list Tim Curry, David Bowie, James Wood, Willem Dafoe and John Lithgow as actors considered for the Joker.

No idea how accurate that is.
 
Last edited:
Robin Williams wasn't the second choice. He wasn't favored at all.

Second choice is probably pushing it more than a bit. Everyone associated with the film was so attached to the idea of Nicholson appearing, and had been for a considerable period. Therefore it's difficult to determine just who would have had the role in his absence. I hypothesized Williams on the theory that the threat to cast him that the studio made to Nicholson only makes sense if that's a legitimate possibility, and not something that the studio obviously is not going to do.

So if not Robin Williams, who would legitimately take the role in your view? Presuming Nicholson isn't available.
 
Once again I thin Keaton was the best choice, but Defoe and James Woods were also in the running.

What about Mark Hamill as the Joker? He's voiced the Joker for decades in cartoons and videogames. Don't some people consider him to be THE definitive portrayal of the character?
 
What about Mark Hamill as the Joker? He's voiced the Joker for decades in cartoons and videogames. Don't some people consider him to be THE definitive portrayal of the character?
BTAS hasn't aired yet, so at the time, Mark Hamill is Luke Skywalker, and only Luke Skywalker. I think Tim Curry was asked to play the Joker, but had trouble doing the voice or something. Either it was for this or for BTAS before Hamill signed on, I don't remember.
 
BTAS hasn't aired yet, so at the time, Mark Hamill is Luke Skywalker, and only Luke Skywalker. I think Tim Curry was asked to play the Joker, but had trouble doing the voice or something. Either it was for this or for BTAS before Hamill signed on, I don't remember.

If I remember things right, Curry did record a voice, but they felt it was either too scary or didn't really work with the Joker they wanted.

Curry's...possible as the live action Joker. although I think he might be filming Stephen King's It at this time.
 
BTAS hasn't aired yet, so at the time, Mark Hamill is Luke Skywalker, and only Luke Skywalker. I think Tim Curry was asked to play the Joker, but had trouble doing the voice or something. Either it was for this or for BTAS before Hamill signed on, I don't remember.

Curry signed on, and even recorded dialogue for the first few episodes of that show. I have heard conflicting accounts as to why his voice wasn't used, including the possibility that his voice was "too creepy"

Hamill is nowhere near enough to being a big enough star at the time to have the role.
 
Curry signed on, and even recorded dialogue for the first few episodes of that show. I have heard conflicting accounts as to why his voice wasn't used, including the possibility that his voice was "too creepy"

Hamill is nowhere near enough to being a big enough star at the time to have the role.
Oh, he's definitely big enough, at least among Star Wars fans. The question is whether he would be considered for a role so completely unlike the one he's known for or not.
 
Curry signed on, and even recorded dialogue for the first few episodes of that show. I have heard conflicting accounts as to why his voice wasn't used, including the possibility that his voice was "too creepy"

I read it was because he couldn't do the Joker's laugh because it hurt his throat.
 
Once again I thin Keaton was the best choice, but Defoe and James Woods were also in the running.

Dafoe would be interesting, and I agree that Keaton would have done well with the role, though I have never heard any rumors that he was ever considered for it at the time. I do remember rumors from before Ledger was cast in the Dark Knight that Keaton was going to play the Joker in the sequel to Batman Begins, but that's another matter.

According to some sources, John Glover, of all people, was in serious contention had Nicholson not been involved.
 
Robin as The Joker would be deeply weird, but could be hilarious.:cool::cool:

James Woods gives him a coolness not far short of Nicholson, & a lot of nuttiness. (Woods can do crazy.:cool:)

Defoe might end up making The Joker more sympathetic: he's uglier to start with.

One other option I'd offer: Eric Roberts. He also does crazy well... Whether he had the weight to get the role is another matter.:rolleyes:

I should also point out: it's correctly Warner Bros. (The studio abbreviates as an official name.)
 
Last edited:
James Woods would play the Joker much different than Nicholson. Nicholson is your Uncle's Joker, so to speak. From the way James Woods acts, I get the impression his Joker would be much more "I'm going to f*ck you up. Don't f*ck with me. I will skullf*ck you and not give a sh*t". Woods acting seems to be to act very calm until it's time to do something, and then going totally brutal and vicious and nuts. I think his Joker would be much more for an R rated film and closer to the absolute "I'm f*cking terrified" of the Heath Ledger version. A Joker that isn't just the bad guy, but is absolutely and brutally evil and does not care and will happily laugh at the absolute brutality and monstrous cruelty he commits.
 
Emperor Norton I said:
James Woods would play the Joker much different than Nicholson. Nicholson is your Uncle's Joker, so to speak. From the way James Woods acts, I get the impression his Joker would be much more "I'm going to f*ck you up. Don't f*ck with me. I will skullf*ck you and not give a sh*t". Woods acting seems to be to act very calm until it's time to do something, and then going totally brutal and vicious and nuts. I think his Joker would be much more for an R rated film and closer to the absolute "I'm f*cking terrified" of the Heath Ledger version. A Joker that isn't just the bad guy, but is absolutely and brutally evil and does not care and will happily laugh at the absolute brutality and monstrous cruelty he commits.
I could definitely see that. (I never got that from Ledger, with all the lip-licking.:rolleyes:) I get much the same vibe from Roberts, myself: a guy that's okay til you push his buttons, & then he just flips out.

When you look at the early Joker stories, that's really what you want, IMO. This guy wasn't a standup comic having a bad day. He was a nutcase. Compare Arcade: The Joker, AFAIK, never had that kind of style ("Crazy as a loon. Been that way for years."), but was just as nutty.

Nicholson was a much more "kid-friendly" bad guy, more Arcadesque in his approach.

Which reminds me: if you wanted the Nicholson touch, you could consider Alan Rickman, who had that same vibe going for him.
 
Last edited:
Top