Retiring the Joker, a Test Case in Uncoverability

I just wanted to post a quick link that has some relevance to the concept of uncoverability that I was writing about last week.

Apparently, a group of folks (purporting to be fans of Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight) are petitioning Warner Bros. to have the Joker retired from further film adaptations. Quoting from the CNN writeup:

Barbella said he thinks any new performance just won't be able to top Ledger's.

"He upgraded the character in a thrilling way," he said. "Although a lot of actors would love the chance to play the Joker, as Batman fans and now Heath Ledger fans, we think no one could ever perform it as well as he did."

Now obviously I'd be shocked if this particular campaign led to anything as official as a retirement of the Joker. But its proponents raise what appears to be a legitimate point: once this brand-renewal cycle for the Batman movie franchise runs its course, and some new upstart director gets it in his head to revive it again, would it be that shocking for him to voluntarily eschew the Joker character, given the outsize influence that Ledger had on the role? Imagine casting the Joker. Imagine directing the Joker. Imagine portraying the Joker for God's sake. Wouldn't you feel that what you were doing was somehow superfluous, and that somehow, the character was already locked down?

This has as much or more to do with the iconography that has grown up around Ledger and the Joker as a result of Ledger's death as it does with the unique quality of Ledger's performance, but I don't think that changes the truth of anything I've said here. Posthumously, Ledger's have become some very big shoes to fill, and, at least from where I stand now, it wouldn't surprise me if it takes a long time for another actor to try them on.