1989 Jon Peters interview

Started by The Laughing Fish, Sat, 8 Jun 2019, 10:54

Previous topic - Next topic
I found this audio interview with producer Jon Peters back when B89 was first released. He talked about the development of the film, the casting considerations, and some expectations he had for the future of the series.



The biggest surprise, for me, was Peters mentioning the prospect of a Batman trilogy while discussing the decision not to include Robin. Everybody knows Warner wanted Robin to be introduced in the movies at some point; the character was originally conceived in both of Sam Hamm's early draft of the first movie and his Batman II script. But this is the first time I've heard of anybody involved in the production suggesting a trilogy. Whether Peters was serious or he was only speaking hypothetically, it goes to show the idea was considered at some point. I suppose Warner were desperate to have Burton come back to direct the sequel following B89's success, that they were willing to offer him more creative freedom? And any plans or considerations for a trilogy was compromised as a result? Maybe. Maybe not. Nonetheless, it's fascinating to think about.

Eventually, Dick Grayson/Robin made his appearance in live action. But whether or not you could say Schumacher's movies were a direct sequel to the Burton era - or even sequels at all - is another matter of debate.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Yeah Peters said in different magazine interviews at the time that they were envisioning a trilogy. Which is why I was surprised their involvement in Returns was basically non-existent.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Tue, 11 Jun  2019, 11:29
Yeah Peters said in different magazine interviews at the time that they were envisioning a trilogy. Which is why I was surprised their involvement in Returns was basically non-existent.
Peters and Guber were running Columbia Pictures shortly after Batman '89 came out. That's why Warners was so adamant about bringing back Burton to not only direct, but produce as well.


I never mentioned how much I appreciated Peters for saying how nobody wanted B89 to be the formulaic, by-the-numbers origin story, like we tend to see in a lot of superhero movies nowadays. Sure, the Joker murdering the Waynes wasn't part of the original script, but that addition for this movie as a standalone makes it thematically worthwhile, in my opinion.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei