The year was 1995. At the ripe age of 11, with my bedroom decorated in “Batman” (1989) posters, my innocent world was shattered. Val Kilmer was cast as the next “Batman.”

My first thought was, “How can the lead singer of The Doors honestly expect to have the acting clout to don the cape and cowl?”

My father entered my room just in time to hear me madly screeching to the heavens, “I’m Batman! I’m Batman!” As I frantically smashed my model Batmobile, a confused look overtook my father’s face. He casually said, “The hell is wrong with you, boy?”

How could he possibly understand the implications of this doped-up hippie singer replacing acting royalty, Michael Keaton, who created unforgettable roles in “Beetle Juice,” “Johnny Dangerously,” “The Squeeze” and TV’s Murphy in the series “Report to Murphy?”

It’s undeniable: character recasting shakes entire planets — maybe even solar systems. But why do we make such a fuss?

In the past few years there’ve been a few notable role replacements: Daniel Craig replaced Pierce Brosnan as James Bond; Brandon Routh entered Christopher Reeves’ Superman role; Brad Pitt will be replacing Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, and Christian Bale replaced Keaton, Clooney and Kilmer.

The obvious fear is that the newcomers will somehow taint the current and past versions of the character. In the case of Batman, all the actors tried to emulate the same quiet confidence Keaton created.

Kilmer’s random spouting of drug-induced abstract song lyrics ruined him, Clooney’s smelly arthritis ointments and reliance on a walker contributed to his awkward onscreen presence and no one can forget British actor Christian Bale’s “angry Batman” voice which resonated with a hint of Cookie Monster.

Unlike Batman, the new James Bond is a reinvention of the character rather than a carbon copy. The word reinvention terrifies fans worse than the phrase, “It’s going to be a darker, grittier, version of (insert name of beloved character about to be destroyed by bad writing).”

Characters can’t stay the same. If they did it’d be like watching the same movie with a new label, or making a Rocky VI movie — but no one would have the cobbles to do something that lame.

Adam West made a fine Batman, and I don’t hear any complaints about him going MIA. Neither do I hear, “how about someone perform some kind of Voodoo to resurrect George Reeves so he can return Superman to ’50s golden status — and reveal who killed him?”

The fact that a character can be replaced by a new actor might be a sign of the character’s lack of depth. Most roles that matter are considered untouchable. Creative rights aside, you don’t hear too much talk of new “Star Wars” movies with actors replacing the now-ancient actors (although, plenty of mortifying voice-actors have butchered “Star Wars” characters in videogames).

Considering there is a sequel novel to “Forrest Gump” the book; would the movie version ever be created without Tom Hanks? No.

Don’t be upset about someone replacing your character, because the new version may finally render him or her irreplaceable.

> Comments