Batman Forever Directors Cut Exists

[ZariusTwo]

Last week came word from ?Star Trek: Picard? and ?Castle Rock? writer Marc Bernardin that he had heard on ?VERY good authority? that a 170-minute cut of Joel Schumacher?s 1995 superhero blockbuster ?Batman Forever? exists.



The report indicated that Warner Bros. Pictures was ?unsure if there?s any hunger for what was described to me as a ?much darker, more serious? version of the film.?

Variety has now confirmed with a source that Schumacher did assemble a longer cut of the film that was much darker in nature and includes a few new scenes with the villains, but mostly focuses on the emotional and psychological issues that led Bruce Wayne (Val Kilmer) to decide to become Batman.

The subplot involves Wayne dealing with buried childhood memories tying back to Thomas Wayne?s journal and Bruce?s guilt over his parent?s death. It apparently adds over a half-hour or so of footage to the film?s 129 minute theatrical runtime.

Representatives for the studio tell the trade there are no discussions about distributing a director?s cut of ?Batman Forever,? and are not aware if footage for an extended version has even survived ? however some of the deleted scenes do appear in DVD and Blu-ray editions of the movie.

Schumacher?s death in June has reportedly sparked a renewed appreciation of his work and his two ?Batman? films.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/the-batman-forever-extended-cut-exists/

[Sumac]

I thought it was called "Burton's cut"...well, I don't think anything can improve that movie anyway.

[Wesley]

Meh, I still don?t care much for the Schumacher Batman movies and this BF director?s cut likely isn?t going to convince me otherwise.

[Andrew NDB]

I've actually seen such a cut. It's sufficiently different... but no, doesn't save the movie.

[MikeandRaph87]

It is my favorite Batman film so I am for this! What will it take to see its release?

[ZariusTwo]

I've actually seen such a cut

One of the fan made ones then?

There's really not much of a point for a main release, all of the important deleted scenes are readily available on the DVD, and any fan with decent editing software can remaster them and integrate them into the movie with an available score.

[cammy85]

I had the novel where that personality crisis did take place. He wanted to give up being Batman because he believed his parents' death was his fault according to the journal. But eventually, he read on and realized that his parents made him wait because there was a movie they wanted to see instead. So it wasn't his fault; and he didn't want his new ward to have to take up the fight especially with vengeance on his mind.

[MikeandRaph87]

I had the novel where that personality crisis did take place. He wanted to give up being Batman because he believed his parents' death was his fault according to the journal. But eventually, he read on and realized that his parents made him wait because there was a movie they wanted to see instead. So it wasn't his fault; and he didn't want his new ward to have to take up the fight especially with vengeance on his mind.

He said, "I killed them" to Chase. I wanted to see that followed up. What did the novelization have about this?

[AquaParade]

I feel like this would be a waste of the momentum the Snyder-Cut has built up. Let's save these requests for movies that may actually be good.

[MikeandRaph87]

I feel like this would be a waste of the momentum the Snyder-Cut has built up. Let's save these requests for movies that may actually be good.

I know I am in the minority, but as a fan of Dick Grayson and The Riddler this fan stands out to me in a good way.

Here is a video I watched months back comparing the comic adaptation to the film and it has a focus on the opening sequence. Would this be it or what more is left off? I wanted to see a psychological look in this film.
Xzsk4fVKDTg

[Leo656]

I know I am in the minority, but as a fan of Dick Grayson and The Riddler this fan stands out to me in a good way.


I know you've mentioned this often, but is it really the simple presence of those characters that's good enough to make you overlook everything else?

I mean, I also love Dick Grayson, but that's one of many reasons I hate this movie: I'd rather him not even be in a movie than exist and be done so poorly. But that's me. I wanted to punch Chris O'Donnell in every single scene and I liked him in other movies. Furthermore, the sins of Joel's two movies are compounded by the fact that some of his takes on characters like Robin were done SO poorly that WB is afraid to utilize them in live action almost two decades later, all because of that movie.

Grayson should be likeable, and they totally botched that. So I have a really hard time forgiving that because they're probably never gonna use him in a movie as Robin again; if Grayson ever appears in a film, it'll be as Nightwing, andthey'll probably just use Damien if they ever put Robin in another movie. So to me, this movie and B&R is just another example of "You had ONE chance, and you blew it." So yeah, not gonna let that go.

Riddler... eh, I really like the comic book character but I don't think he works as a movie villain. WAY too cheesy. I don't think that was ever gonna work, so while I do hate Carrey's portrayal and pretty much Carrey in general, that's basically how the character goes so it's less the movie's fault. 1995 was a year we'd all love to forget for many, many reasons and that's merely one, not one of the worst. :trazz:

I'unno, just trying to sort of understand. For me, it's not enough to sprinkle in a few familiar elements of things that I remember or enjoy; if they're done poorly, it's pointless. Otherwise "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" would be legendary. :lol:

But it feels like, in your case, you can forgive a lot about the movie because at least two characters you like were in it; by contrast, that movie ruined any chance of ever getting GOOD portrayals of Robin and Riddler in a movie so I kinda have no choice but to hate it (not JUST for those reasons but definitely In Addition To). Kinda interesting!

[MikeandRaph87]

I know you've mentioned this often, but is it really the simple presence of those characters that's good enough to make you overlook everything else?

I mean, I also love Dick Grayson, but that's one of many reasons I hate this movie: I'd rather him not even be in a movie than exist and be done so poorly. But that's me. I wanted to punch Chris O'Donnell in every single scene and I liked him in other movies. Furthermore, the sins of Joel's two movies are compounded by the fact that some of his takes on characters like Robin were done SO poorly that WB is afraid to utilize them in live action almost two decades later, all because of that movie.

Grayson should be likeable, and they totally botched that. So I have a really hard time forgiving that because they're probably never gonna use him in a movie as Robin again; if Grayson ever appears in a film, it'll be as Nightwing, andthey'll probably just use Damien if they ever put Robin in another movie. So to me, this movie and B&R is just another example of "You had ONE chance, and you blew it." So yeah, not gonna let that go.

Riddler... eh, I really like the comic book character but I don't think he works as a movie villain. WAY too cheesy. I don't think that was ever gonna work, so while I do hate Carrey's portrayal and pretty much Carrey in general, that's basically how the character goes so it's less the movie's fault. 1995 was a year we'd all love to forget for many, many reasons and that's merely one, not one of the worst. :trazz:

I'unno, just trying to sort of understand. For me, it's not enough to sprinkle in a few familiar elements of things that I remember or enjoy; if they're done poorly, it's pointless. Otherwise "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" would be legendary. :lol:

But it feels like, in your case, you can forgive a lot about the movie because at least two characters you like were in it; by contrast, that movie ruined any chance of ever getting GOOD portrayals of Robin and Riddler in a movie so I kinda have no choice but to hate it (not JUST for those reasons but definitely In Addition To). Kinda interesting!

Not quite. My favorite characters are Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, Riddler, and Mr. Freeze. Does that make Batman & Robin awesome? No. Daphane Pennyworth pretending to be Barbara Gordon doesn't count and Mr. Freeze spouting stupid puns that even I cringe at wearing a glow and the dark suit? Nope. Chris O'Donnell despite being 27 at the time did well though. Certain characters presence make me much more invested in a film. Pulling off their portrayal to my satisfaction is something else. Tone is also important. I prefer the Denny O'Neil flavor, the porridge is just right. Dig into the psychological aspect of Bruce blaming himself. The never meet your idols bit that sent Riddler over the edge. That would have been more interesting especially to me now as an adult opposed to being 7 years old when it came out.

I do hate the look of The Riddler. Why the red hair wig? Eddie Nashton's hair is black and Jim Carry's is as well. The stupid light up onesie? Ugh! I want the characters to look the part (Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is a great example!) too. I also hate the neon aesthetic. However of the seven villains in the four films, how many of them acted like their comic counterparts? Sometimes it can be interesting like Joe Chill/Joker being melded into one character. Others have the right idea like incorporating Mr. Freeze's Batman:TAS origin, but execute the goofiness and it falls flat. This is where the tone problem occurs. Not so gothic its campy like Burton, but not colorful and silly either. Adapting Batman:TAS tone in live action would have been ideal and still is.

Though yes I can forgive SOME if characters I love are used in the film. The backlash of the Schumaker films perhaps will deprive me of Dick Grayson/ Robin and The Riddler in a film. I certainly hope not as I am still waiting to see Robin in film again. I hope The Batman can give that though I do not know. The Riddler will be involved to some degree, but will I like the portrayal? All I have ever seen of Paul Dano is his lead role in Love & Mercy. However it is the script he is given that will effect it the most.

[Leo656]

I do hate the look of The Riddler. Why the red hair wig? Eddie Nashton's hair is black and Jim Carry's is as well. The stupid light up onesie? Ugh!

Oh, man, all that was godawful. And yeah, what the hell was with his hair? The first thing I said when he was cast was, "Well, at least he kinda looks just like The Riddler", and then they went all-in on Goofy Wigs for no real reason. Which had to have added a lot of expense to the budget as well as time in the make-up chair. For what?

...Actually it's often been colored as more of a dark brown than black, but yeah, either way, why red? This movie and the animated series really got on my nerves with that. That ain't what the guy looks like! Of course, even more modern "reinterpretations" have gotten even farther away from his "proper" look, to the point where... well, now I dread whenever anyone wants to use him because I know it's gonna be yet another "wacky" new reimagining and they're all worse than the last, with him.

[Andrew NDB]

One of the fan made ones then?

Yeah... a buddy from Greece mailed me one on DVD eons ago. It has footage I'd never seen even from the deleted scenes. He swore by it but meh... again, doesn't save the movie.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

5 minutes of a Man-Bat dream sequence ain't gonna undo 2.5 hours of terrible Jim Carrey.

[cammy85]

He said, "I killed them" to Chase. I wanted to see that followed up. What did the novelization have about this?

Unfortunately, it's been many years since I had the novel. He believed he killed them because it was his idea to go to the movies in the first place. After fully reading the journal, he learned that wasn't the case. Thomas and Martha had decided to go to see a movie they wanted and promised young Bruce they would see his cartoon next time.

[PizzaPower1985]

Are you guys talking about The Red Book Edition? Batman Forever: The Red Book Edition has been something that Bat-fans have been speculating about for 15 years. Are we finally getting it?

The 5 or 7 extra minutes of young Bruce Wayne and the red book... the parent's diary or whatever it's supposed to be, plus Val Kilmer whining over dead mommy and daddy ain't gonna wrinkle up my forehead. The only way to make Forever better is to cut about 30 minutes of Riddler's and 20 minutes of Two-Face's more extremely overacted scenes. And get rid of those Roman Statue nipples... just airbrush them out or something.

No amount of Bruce's pathos is gonna save this flick.

It's interesting that most people blame Schumacher for destroying the Batman franchise... The comics werent great by that point either. In fact, by the time Batman Returns got released in 1992, the Batman as we had seen him from 1969 onward was starting to disappear. 1992 in the comics was a year before Knightfall and things were already sliding downhill. From 1992 on, we've seen a few bright spots in the bat-titles (Paul Dini's 'Tec run always comes to mind, plus Batman: Hush, Loeb/Sale, a few more) but Bruce hasn't been the same. 1992 started the shift in Batman comics and Burtons #2 effort WAS NOTHING like the first. Sacking Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle (RIP) from the Bat books was DC's first crack in the road to a broken Batman... The New 52 was the nail that sealed the coffin. So, as bad as THIS MOVIE is, I think we can finally stop laying the bad Batman movies at Schumacher's front door.

[Hamato Yoshi]

"Thomas and Martha had decided to go to see a movie they wanted"

Makes no sense , wasnt it Bruce who wanted to see Mark of Zorro , thats what ive seen in some comics ?

[Andrew NDB]

1992 in the comics was a year before Knightfall and things were already sliding downhill. From 1992 on, we've seen a few bright spots in the bat-titles

What are you talking about? That was a great time to jump aboard the Batman comics. An exciting time. Jason was killed off not long beforehand, Tim Drake was new and fresh. Bane was introduced. KGBeast, etc..

[Leo656]

The mid/late-90s were definitely rather meandering within the Batman books. Not "bad" really, but fan backlash forced them to end the Jean-Paul "experiment" a bit earlier than they'd planned to, thus "KnightsEnd" was heavily truncated and they didn't really have a solid follow-up plan in place by then, so the next few years were rather all over the place. Really, what befell the Bat-books was more or less the same thing that hurt all of comics during that era, the insistence on Events over Stories.

Pre-KnightFall, most stories in the Bat-books were between one and three issues in length; after that, everything HAD to be "an arc" that took up a year's worth of issues and promised "Huge Surprises and Permanent Changes to the Status Quo". After "KnightFall", there was "KnightQuest", "KnightsEnd", "Prodigal", "Contagion", "No Man's Land", "Bruce Wayne: Murderer" and quite a few I know I'm missing, all of which got mixed reactions and did mixed business. There was a definite feeling of "Event Fatigue" as a lot of Batman readers were already longing for the days of a nice, "simple" two-part story with Riddler or something, a story that wasn't going to demand a giant investment to follow and enjoy, and when it became obvious that the Bat-books were just bouncing from Event to Event, readers became disenfranchised with the main Bat-books.

I don't think it's any surprise that some of the most popular Batman stories from that era were mini-series that were only in vague or loose continuity with the main series. Although stuff like "Long Halloween" or "Dark Victory" were still multi-issue books, they were more in the vein of "classic" Batman and also self-contained; they weren't promising to "Change things forever in ways you never expected!", they were "just" telling Batman stories. Stuff like "Legends of the Dark Knight" was also more popular during the late-90s than the main Batman books, for the same reason: simple, clean, one-to-three issue stories. Basically, it felt the most like what Batman books HAD been, pre-KnightFall, and readers who were sick of Big Events and "just" wanted stories really appreciated that.

To some degree, we've never really moved on from that Event Fatigue problem; now every story in EVERY book is "an arc, one that promises Huge Surprises and Big Changes" (and also, conveniently Written For The Trade Paperback to take up exactly at least six but no more than twelve issues worth of space, whether it's "needed" to tell that story or not). Some people call it progress, but I've never been so sure. Heck, even the story that "saved" the Batman line, Jeph Loeb's "Hush", is yet another "event" series conveniently written for the collected edition that plays havoc with the status quo, BUT, unlike its precursors, it was drawn by Jim Lee, so it sold a billion and picked the entire Batman line up from the malaise it had been in... but it wasn't really much "different" from the Batman stories it was "saving" us from, and the Event Format never changed at all. In fact, once Morrison came on, it got worse - not the stories, I like those, but in the sense that EVERY book Morrison writes is touted as being a Huge Event by default just because he's writing it, so in essence, we got four straight years of Event Batman written by a guy who desperately needs an editor. I can't speak to anything post-Flashpoint, really, but I see by some people's feelings that the character's had some rough going in the past decade, with that Scott Snyder guy being real hit-or-miss with most people.

There's definitely a hard line in the sand with the Batman books, insofar as Pre-KnightFall and Post-Knightfall - reading the Batman books is a completely different experience Before and After that arc - but I feel like that story itself gets an unfair amount of blame for it. I feel like the story was perfectly fine and people just didn't really get the point of it, and abandoned it because they hated Jean-Paul even though them hating him was the entire point of the story, which in turn made the editors rush to the finish line before they really had it all planned out, and thus they never really got back on track. Combined that with the new and overwhelming "Write Everything For The TPB" demand, and there you have a pretty clear example of How and Why the Batman line sort of became a mixed bag in the mid/late-1990s. There were lots of good stories still, sure, but again, among readers who were feeling fatigued by it all, there was greater solace in things that felt more like "1980s Batman" or "Classic Batman" than what was in the contemporary output.

I don't lay all the blame on the KnightFall storyline for the shift away from Just Stories to "Events" that overtook the Batman line in the 90s, but I do understand why a huge chunk of fans look at the Batman line and use that story as the Dividing Line. Things had been running smoothly and super-hot from, like, the late-70s through 1992 and it all felt consistent; after 1993, it felt like the books just jumped from Event to Event with no clear impetus or momentum other than "selling more copies than the last arc did". So yeah, that's pretty much where The Shift happened, and most Batman fans usually place themselves on one or the other side of that line, as far as their preference. Makes sense, can't blame 'em.

There's also the whole fact that Batman was being heavily featured in Grant's JLA book during that period of time, and while I like that series, we have Him and Only Him to thank for the whole "BatGod" thing, where Batman abruptly went from being Just Really Good to "He can beat up Doomsday by himself with enough Prep Time". So yeah, if people wanna point at the mid/late-90s as the time where Batman "was ruined" or fell off track or whatever... I might not feel as strongly as they do about it but they definitely have a very strong case.

Everything pre-1993, though, I feel is pretty bulletproof. 80s Batman, to me, was Ultimate Batman.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, I never would have jumped on if not for the Knightfall "saga." Which kept me around until maybe a year or so after "Prodigal"... where I just kept feeling increasingly "duped" by DC. Here I was buying all these 20 Batman comics a month and there was only ever the illusion of change... and then right back to status quo.

It also made me go in reverse and yes, buy a bunch of 80s Batman comics all the way up to some of the first shades of Knightfall. Good stuff.

Green Lantern was a much better fit for me. Not as many comics and they were and are mostly immune to constantly changing timeline/retcon crap.

[Leo656]

I only really hopped off of Batman because I was a kid, and we were poor, and I couldn't buy every single book that I wanted to, especially once they jumped from $1.25 to $1.50 (ahhhh, simpler times!). I didn't get an allowance, so most books that my Dad didn't buy for me, I had to pay for with money I wrangled from the couch cushions and otherwise. The four Superman books were mandatory, so that's $6 a month right there. Flash and Green Lantern were both really hot so I tried to pick them up as much as I could, which was easy since both of them were only one book per month for each character, but there I'm up to $9.

I hung onto Batman and Detective Comics for as long as I could - and KnightFall definitely made them "can't-miss" books for that few months - but after a couple of months, I just didn't care about Not-Bruce being Batman anymore, and grew impatient for the story to finish and Bruce to come back. So yeah, I was one of the "didn't get it" people, but in my defense I was like 11. BUT, they also added "Shadow of the Bat" and "Legends of the Dark Knight", and I just couldn't keep up with all that. $15 a month or more for comics is a lot when you're a kid, your parents are on welfare, and you also occasionally like to buy a new CD, go see a movie, grab a slice of pizza down the street or whatever.

So I was like, "Eh, I'll just take a break from Batman until Bruce comes back", and that's kinda what I did... except I fell out of comics completely for a bit shortly after that, as I was just about to be starting high school, my parents were splitting up, we were homeless for a while, and comics just weren't a priority. I only read, like, Superman occasionally and the Archie Sonic comics for the entirety of the late-90s, and hardly anything else. I didn't "really" get back into comics until I was out of school and working... at which point I completely went overboard and started buying all the stuff I couldn't get as a kid, which kinda wasn't smart, but that's what happened. :lol:

But yeah, I would've loved to have kept up with Batman for the duration but circumstances prevented it. I'd always collected Batman before KnightFall; that arc simply gave reading it a sense of real urgency which had been absent for a couple of years after Jason died. I felt like even Tim's debut as Robin was very understated and not given very much attention as it deserved, especially after how much attention the media gave Jason's death, but I guess Bad News always sells better than Good News. But that's what KnightFall did, just like killing Superman, it created a feeling of "You NEED to read this stuff" which had been absent for a while. But on the flipside, it created a need to eternally "top" each event with an even bigger event, which ultimately just isn't sustainable, and most of those late-90s Batman "events" are pretty ho-hum.

"KnightFall", I do think, still holds up, though. It sadly just also opened the door to an unfortunate shift in priority across the entire line forevermore.

[PizzaPower1985]

What are you talking about? That was a great time to jump aboard the Batman comics. An exciting time. Jason was killed off not long beforehand, Tim Drake was new and fresh. Bane was introduced. KGBeast, etc..

I love Tim. I love him. He was the 60's era Spider-man of the 1990's. But Tim's stories were better in his mini-series which was before 1992. He didn't have much of an arc pre-Knightfall as Bruce hardly let him out of the cave when he wasn't living with Jack Drake. All Tim seemed to do until Batman #465 the "Debut" story, written masterfully by Alan Grant, was to whine about how he couldn't go out as Robin. As far as KGBeast, Starlin's "Save Ronald Reagan" story in Ten Nights of the Beast was awful, IMO. And now, it's more dated than the shark in Jaws. And Bane? I NEVER LIKED BANE! Knightfall will NEVER hold any candles next to The Death and Return of \S/ Saga.
Granted, Vengeance of Bane was a good story. Knightfall SHOULD have been done in 1/3 of the issues.

I only really hopped off of Batman because I was a kid, and we were poor, and I couldn't buy every single book that I wanted to, especially once they jumped from $1.25 to $1.50 (ahhhh, simpler times!). I didn't get an allowance, so most books that my Dad didn't buy for me, I had to pay for with money I wrangled from the couch cushions and otherwise. The four Superman books were mandatory, so that's $6 a month right there. Flash and Green Lantern were both really hot so I tried to pick them up as much as I could, which was easy since both of them were only one book per month for each character, but there I'm up to $9.

I hung onto Batman and Detective Comics for as long as I could - and KnightFall definitely made them "can't-miss" books for that few months - but after a couple of months, I just didn't care about Not-Bruce being Batman anymore, and grew impatient for the story to finish and Bruce to come back. So yeah, I was one of the "didn't get it" people, but in my defense I was like 11. BUT, they also added "Shadow of the Bat" and "Legends of the Dark Knight", and I just couldn't keep up with all that. $15 a month or more for comics is a lot when you're a kid, your parents are on welfare, and you also occasionally like to buy a new CD, go see a movie, grab a slice of pizza down the street or whatever.

So I was like, "Eh, I'll just take a break from Batman until Bruce comes back", and that's kinda what I did... except I fell out of comics completely for a bit shortly after that, as I was just about to be starting high school, my parents were splitting up, we were homeless for a while, and comics just weren't a priority. I only read, like, Superman occasionally and the Archie Sonic comics for the entirety of the late-90s, and hardly anything else. I didn't "really" get back into comics until I was out of school and working... at which point I completely went overboard and started buying all the stuff I couldn't get as a kid, which kinda wasn't smart, but that's what happened. :lol:

But yeah, I would've loved to have kept up with Batman for the duration but circumstances prevented it. I'd always collected Batman before KnightFall; that arc simply gave reading it a sense of real urgency which had been absent for a couple of years after Jason died. I felt like even Tim's debut as Robin was very understated and not given very much attention as it deserved, especially after how much attention the media gave Jason's death, but I guess Bad News always sells better than Good News. But that's what KnightFall did, just like killing Superman, it created a feeling of "You NEED to read this stuff" which had been absent for a while. But on the flipside, it created a need to eternally "top" each event with an even bigger event, which ultimately just isn't sustainable, and most of those late-90s Batman "events" are pretty ho-hum.

"KnightFall", I do think, still holds up, though. It sadly just also opened the door to an unfortunate shift in priority across the entire line forevermore.

A lot of my problem with comics in the 90's was also $$$$. The BIG EVENTS, BIG GUNS, BIG ART didn't help, and the Rob Liefeld syndrome went overboard. I think 1992 is a good marker for when the 90's began in Mainstream comics. Overblown, overdrawn, not very intellectual or interesting. This was more a problem at Marvel with the X-titles but at DC Batman suffered too and since Knightfall they have rarely corrected the course. My problem with the 90's is a bit contradictory too because the first 21 issues plus the mini of SAVAGE DRAGON are one of the greatest comic book stories in the history of the medium. I also quite like the first 50 issues of SPAWN. Am i a hippie-crit? YES! But Batman was far more mainstream and DENNY was the editor. I cannot forgive them for dragging Knightfall on for so long. If you can't give me a single story in 15 issues or less, WHY should I bother? I told Denny once that I hated Knightfall. He told me to read his novel. The Knightfall Novel wasn't good either, but you think I would tell my hero that? HELL NO! I just told him I enjoyed it.

[Andrew NDB]

I read Denny's Knightfall novel. It was good. Though if I had to recite anything to you now it was only that Bane couldn't get hard due to venom.

[PizzaPower1985]

I read Denny's Knightfall novel. It was good. Though if I had to recite anything to you now it was only that Bane couldn't get hard due to venom.

I think a lot of my problem with LONG novels and comics arcs is just like an un-diagnosed ADD thing.

But yeah the erectile dysfunction thing was weird. I have NO problems reading Hush, Long Halloween, or City At War for that matter. Even the Death of Superman was nowhere near as long as Knightfall or No Man's Land.

But yeah, let's get back to Schumacher's film.

[Leo656]

I like KnightFall. I care a bit less for how drawn-out 'Quest and 'End were, but that's not to say they weren't good. I missed some of those bits so I can't really say.

What I can and will say, is that like everyone else, DC was feeling the pressure to follow what Marvel and then Image were doing with their lines - Big Guns, Big Claws, and Lot of Belt Pouches were "In", and pretty much everything else was "Out". As long as you had an image on the cover that was guaranteed to push issues off the rack, it didn't matter at all if the story inside was junk. And not that all or even most stories were, I'm just saying, it didn't MATTER if they were. I wasn't the only kid in my circle who bought comics, but I was one of the very few who READ them, as in actually read them and followed the stories. Most kids just bought whatever had a "cool" cover and then stuck it in a bag and never glanced at it again. That specific era was 100% about Art Over Stories, especially Cover Art, because I'd venture to say that most people who bought comics in the early/mid-90s did not actually read them, and a lot of the highest-selling books as ranked by Wizard each month were awful to read but had pretty pictures.

Anyways, that said, DC was feeling the pressure to go more into the X-Men/Spawn vibe, and a lot of the higher-ups like Denny and Carlin were not at all inclined to do that, and I did and do applaud them for that. That said, they found a way to both go that route AND not "really" go that route, and KnightFall was the end result. I've spoken at length in the past about the "problem" with KnightFall, but I'll go into it a bit again here:

"KnightFall" was a satire that most people didn't get was satirical, and that's why it's so divisive. Denny and the Bat-writers were being inundated with requests from fans, particularly younger ones, who wanted Batman to be a more violent and bloodthirsty character, like Wolverine and Spawn, and I'm sure there was some pressure from the higher-ups, as well, because Wolverine and Spawn were selling books by the millions and every business, at its heart, is about "How can I get me some'a that?" But Denny, in particular, wasn't comfortable with the idea and fought it, as did the others. Nobody at DC was on board with turning Batman into Wolverine, no matter how many letters they got. But they had to do SOMEthing.

Thus, the story that became "KnightFall" was a bit of a compromise: Take Bruce off the board, and replace him with someone who's so obviously NOT right for being Batman, who's such an overcooked parody of every bombastic cliche that Liefeld and the other hacks had ever spewed out even by THAT early point in the 90s, to the point where readers would understand that Batman Was Nothing Like Those Characters and be grateful for it. They'd see that Batman Isn't The Punisher, and they'd want Bruce back, and they'd get to move along, their point having been made, and along the way they'd sell a few more books than usual. A grand plan, all told.

Trouble is, it worked a bit Too Well and Not Quite As Well As Expected, somehow. On one hand, some people DID like Azrael, like, a lot, and wanted him to stick around, which the writers hadn't planned for and were a bit shook by. "People LIKE this idiot? We're trying on purpose to make him impossible to like!" But again, the audience reading comics in the early 1990s weren't ALL a bunch of scholars, I'm just being honest. I have no shame at all in denouncing many of my "contemporaries" as being only functionally literate at best, and it's as true now as it was then, as "mean" as that is to say. But anyway. So there was that problem, but it wasn't the main one. The problem was that once the "heat" died down and Batman #500 was sold, everyone REALLY wanted Bruce back ASAP, and they hadn't planned for that, yet, either.

As I said earlier, my biggest problem - and apparently, many people's problem - with 'Quest and 'End were that it seemingly took forever to get Bruce back, but it was actually supposed to go on for a bit longer, originally. They were originally going to let it dangle just long enough to make people think "Damn, maybe this IS permanent", and THEN have Azrael go completely nuts and have Bruce come back as the only one who could stop him. They still got there, but they had to rush it because the backlash kept growing and it started to hurt their sales. They'd made their point about '90s "Violence Fetish" characters and "Batman Isn't Wolverine", but they'd made it a little bit too well, and people weren't patient enough to stick around for the conclusion, which in turn hurt the overall presentation of the entire latter chapters of the story.

Most times when I talk to someone about KnightFall, it's Love It or Hate It, and if they hate it, it's often that they hate the entire concept. Hated that Bruce was taken out by a Noob, hated that he didn't anoint Dick as his fill-in guy to be Batman, hated AzBats entirely, and just really don't have anything good to say about the exercise as a whole. And that's certainly their prerogative, but I feel like that also ignores the actual purpose of the story, and what points it was trying to make, ALL of which I felt were valid and also, very well-made within the story itself. I myself can't argue much that maybe the entire "saga" was too drawn-out - although it's got NOTHING on the "Clone Saga", am I right? :lol: - but I always understood what they were trying to do and I feel like they accomplished their goal. Which is why I'll always think it's a good story. It had something to say, and it made its point while also giving us some new characters, a rare Lasting Change to the status quo (Bruce recovered physically, but was never "really" the same character again after meeting Bane as he was before), and really put over Batman as not just a costume to be worn but a symbol that represents a certain ideal, just like Superman, and that some people simply can't live up to that ideal because they don't have what it takes inside.

So yeah, I like it. I totally understand why it's divisive, but to me, it's not bad at all, more like, symbolically "The End" of an entire era of Batman. That story is a really hard line for Before and After in the entire mythos; with that, it's going to represent different things to different people. It definitely opened the door for worse things to come and changed Batman forever after - although that was inevitably going to happen, anyway, just due to the passage of time and shifting of trends - but I look at it a little more romantically. The "last" Batman story of an era where he wasn't JUST a "grim avenger" who did nothing but prep and brood. One could even argue that it organically leads to the "newer, darker" Bruce, or rather "BatGod", that came after his return; he wasn't prepared for Bane and paid for it, so afterwards he became all about being "hyper-prepared", to the point where he has all these contingencies and is hyper-paranoid and never lets his guard down, like in the JLA run. Batman in 1992 and Batman in 2002 and then 2012 are very different people; you can blame bad writing, sure, OR, you can squint and say that he never mentally recovered from what happened with Bane and that everything he's done in comics since has come from him being traumatized. And I admit that I kinda like that!

I'd never say KnightFall wasn't a good Batman story. But I understand why it leaves a sour taste in the mouth of some Batman fans. But I don't think that's in any way the story's fault, I think the story is very good. I think it's more about what the story represents, or maybe has come to represent, because that story was the last one before The Dark Times where things were kind of never as good in the Batman books as they'd been just prior to then. It brought a ton of people back into Batman, or got them in for the first time, but it also forced a lot of people to jump off. Which is unfortunate, but also kind of inevitable with anything that tries to do so much.

I'd love to read the novel. If it's anything like Roger Stern's "Death and Life of Superman" then I'm sure it's a hoot. I'll have to check out the ol' eBay and try and snag a cheap copy.


But yeah, let's get back to Schumacher's film.

Threads will never remain on-topic for as long as I'm around. I'm undefeated at Thread-Meandering for over 15 years! When someone has anything of importance to add besides "Man, those nipples were stupid" then by all means they're welcome to go there.

Until then, it's Shenanigans!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I read Denny's Knightfall novel. It was good. Though if I had to recite anything to you now it was only that Bane couldn't get hard due to venom.

That, too, is the major standout I remember from the novelization. :tlol:

[cammy85]

"Thomas and Martha had decided to go to see a movie they wanted"

Makes no sense, wasn't it Bruce who wanted to see Mark of Zorro, that's what I've seen in some comics?

The novelization won't be 100% accurate either. I believe you're right.

[PizzaPower1985]

That, too, is the major standout I remember from the novelization. :tlol:

Knowing that Denny wrote most of the Knightfall novel after experiencing a major car accident, I wonder IF that's why the narrative is fragmented, particularly in the latter half. If I remember correctly, his additions to the story that were not in the comics kinda come out of left field... the E.D. thing with Bane and venom being one. As a writer myself I know that weird, odd things can be inserted into the work unconsciously... I just wonder if he was concious of it?

[Leo656]

Well, maybe it was as simple as Denny wanting to illustrate that the Venom drug had fairly serious side effects, and that getting into it wasn't glamorous. That's what I figure.

Think of it like this: Most of the people who were going to read either the comics series or novelization of KnightFall were probably between the ages of 9 and 15, give or take. Most kids I knew thought Bane was awesome and they'd have given their right hand to be all hopped up on Venom, because it obviously made you bigger, stronger, faster, better, etc. And in the comics specifically pertaining to KnightFall, Bane really wasn't seen as suffering any ill effects from his blatant abuse of Venom; maybe some ill effects were written into the script for the arc, but they didn't illustrate it in any way, so basically, the comic books may have accidentally made being hopped up on Venom look "cool".

Conversely, the "Venom" arc in "Legends of the Dark Knight" was ALL about the negative side effects of the drug by its very design, so if you'd read that story then you got it... but very, very few people have ever read "Venom" compared to "KnightFall", even to this day but especially back then. No kids, in particular, who I knew would have even been allowed to read that arc because it was very dark and violent.

In reading the Introduction to the "Venom" collected edition, written by O'Neil, he goes into detail about wanting to clearly illustrate the dangers and false promises of addiction and what went into the "Venom" arc, and it becomes very clear that he wanted to illustrate that actions have consequences and that nothing "gained" from abusing a substance comes without a price. It was pretty much why they created Venom, as a way to get that message across.

Fast forward to KnightFall, which was a "mainstream" Batman book/story that wouldn't have quite as long a "leash" to get into certain things in depth or detail, and sure enough, they didn't. If you only read the KnightFall comic arc, and didn't read "Venom" before that, you might be forgiven for thinking, "Why doesn't Batman just get all hopped up on Venom too, and kick Bane's ass?", which is a question I've heard a lot of people ask.

So my thinking is, when tasked with writing the "KnightFall" novelization, Denny was probably not willing or allowed to go too deep into the side effects of Venom were, but also didn't want to glamorize it for younger readers. There had to be some kind of tangible side effect, something that would entrench in a young reader's mind that "This stuff is bad news". What's scarier to a young boy between the ages of 9 and 15 than something that would make their dick not function? "You'll turn into an uncontrollable rage monster with nary a coherent thought" isn't enough to make the drug sound dangerous to a boy going through puberty who's already dealing with that. "Some drugs make your dick not work", though... THAT's terrifying, to a kid that age.

So, without having read the novel but knowing kinda what ideas Denny often tried to put across in his work, specifically with Venom, that's my guess as to what he was angling for when he added that bit to the novel. Just a simple way to explain to younger readers that "This stuff is bad, m'kay", so that they wouldn't empathize with Bane just because he was big and strong. He had to suffer from some kind of consequence that would sound terrifying to a young male reader.

Makes sense to me, anyway. Could be anything, I guess, but it's probably just that.

[AquaParade]

Wait, so how did Bane make this discovery in the novel?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I'm gonna hazard a guess and say the same way ANY guy makes that discovery regarding drugs.....

[PizzaPower1985]

^^^^^^ And if I remember correctly HE DOESN'T CARE because venom is more important to him than his prowess so he basically just ignores it, which doesnt really help Denny's anti-drug message of trying to say "drugs r bad mmmkay!"

Bane basically thinks "oh well small price compared to the power that venom gives me."

Or maybe I read it wrong.

[Leo656]

Bane seemed to be of a very singular focus. I can't imagine he was ever much of a ladies man, anyway. He, personally, probably wouldn't care if his dick stopped working. I know *I* would've been scared straight reading that, though, that's for sure! :lol:

I'm also, like, the One Wrestler who doesn't take steroids or even Deca, on account of I really don't want my balls to shrivel or have a heart attack or get cancer. Literally nobody else cares. You pretty much "have" to do it. Everybody but me at least takes Deca or HGH if they can afford it, and they just say if they die, they'd rather die looking good and they're having fun in the meantime. Everybody knows there are side effects but everyone just laughs 'em off.

So yeah, I'unno, maybe a lot of people wouldn't absorb or recognize the message but that doesn't mean the message was flawed. Some people are just kinda thick. :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

Wait, so how did Bane make this discovery in the novel?

He gets a hooker, if I recall.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

He gets a hooker, if I recall.

Multiple hookers, as I remember it. At once.

I felt like the point it was trying to make was Bane had monstrous appetites. And all the hookers ended up dead.

Actually, it read a lot like a plot point from one of the three evil Batmen Grant Morrison did shortly after Damian's introduction. Or maybe I'm the one who's blending the two in my mind, and remembering the Knightfall book wrong.

[AquaParade]

Multiple hookers, as I remember it. At once.

I felt like the point it was trying to make was Bane had monstrous appetites. And all the hookers ended up dead.

Actually, it read a lot like a plot point from one of the three evil Batmen Grant Morrison did shortly after Damian's introduction. Or maybe I'm the one who's blending the two in my mind, and remembering the Knightfall book wrong.

It certainly makes me think of that one giant, hooker-smothering Batman from Morrison's run.

Thanks for filling me in Andrew. That's crazy. Novelization sounds like a different animal than the film.

[PizzaPower1985]

Just watched this again and I gotta say, Val Kilmer's performance is incredible. Any time he has to deliver a one-liner or smile, it's awful. But he makes a really good Batman.

From the time the batmobile blasts out of the batcave to meeting Chase and Gordon to the vault rescue to the clash with Harvey and finally to the time he dives in the river as the chopper crashes into the giant eyeball... That is perfect. That is a perfect Batman sequence. The rest of the movie doesnt compare to that!

[CyberCubed]

The biggest problem with this movie was Two-Face. How do you get an actor as talented as Tommy Lee Jones, especially 1995-era Tommy Lee Jones when he was still in his prime...and get such an awful Two-face? They made him a poor mans Joker clone, I don't understand why Two-face was constantly laughing and giggling in the movie. Did the director even know who Two-Face was?

In any other movie Tommy Lee Jones would have pulled off a phenomenal Two-Face. Especially if he got to play both sides as Harvey Dent and Two-Face. I didn't mind Jim Carrey's Riddler which was fine for the most part, but Two-Face was just brutally murdered.

Tommy Lee Jones deserved better.

[Leo656]

Yeah, that was a huge problem with the movie, for me. I mean, the whole movie for me was stacking Big Problems on top of each other. But the ruination of Two-Face was unforgivable. He and Riddler were like Dueling Jokers and it was unbearable.

None of it was Tommy Lee's fault but he was obviously miserable the entire time and I don't blame him. He essentially did that entire movie at gunpoint and you're never gonna get a good performance that way. He just did what he was told but man, what a mess.

[MikeandRaph87]

https://comicbook.com/movies/amp/news/bring-joel-schumachers-batman-forever-to-hbo-max-and-dc-universe/

Maybe we can get it.

[ZariusTwo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdPZWjZXsAQfdIC?format=jpg&name=medium

[Hamato Yoshi]

Yeah, that was a huge problem with the movie, for me. I mean, the whole movie for me was stacking Big Problems on top of each other. But the ruination of Two-Face was unforgivable. He and Riddler were like Dueling Jokers and it was unbearable.

None of it was Tommy Lee's fault but he was obviously miserable the entire time and I don't blame him. He essentially did that entire movie at gunpoint and you're never gonna get a good performance that way. He just did what he was told but man, what a mess.

Tommy Lee was better as a drummer :P

[ZariusTwo]

Val Kilmer is confirmed to appear at DC Fandome

[AquaParade]

Maybe they replaced Keaton with him.

Jk but who knows.

[Leo656]

Are we finally gonna get closure on the "I quit/He was fired" story?! :lol::lol::lol:

They probably don't even know. I've heard at least 8 versions of it, including one where Kilmer himself claimed that he found out by watching TV and seeing that Clooney was signed for the next one. Pretty sure that was just a pithy anecdote for the dirt sheets.

I'm way over the movie. But I never, ever get tired of hearing about what a disaster it was to make it! Hook that sh*t to m'veins. :trazz:

[AquaParade]

By the way Schumacher once said, it sort of sounded like Keaton may have just been negotiating back in the day as well, before he was replaced by Kilmer. Sort of like the Tobey Maguire/Jack Gyllenhaal situation back around SM 2, except with a different outcome.

I've never much looked into that, but I found it interesting after mostly hearing that Keaton was over it because of the lousy script and Burton's departure.

[Leo656]

No, no, I meant how Kilmer got fired.

Although the Keaton story has its own numerous twists and turns. But it's nowhere near as sordid as all the Kilmer stories. One "legend" from back in the day was that at first they wouldn't let Keaton out of the role, or were making it difficult to leave, so he purposely asked for an "outrageous" sum of money just so they'd let him go, then they turned around and paid Carrey even more than Keaton asked for.

Who knows if THAT's true but that was one of the most persistently-reported stories back in the day, and it sounds like something WB would do.

But no, even the most severe Keaton stories aren't as salacious as the Kilmer stuff. I think Joel "officially" said that as far as Kilmer, "He sort of quit and we sort of fired him". But for years and years, the story going around was that Val turned on some tabloid show on TV one day and saw that they hired Clooney for the next one, but up to that point Val was waiting to get called back and didn't understand why he hadn't been contacted yet, and that's how he found out. I kinda hope that one is true. :lol:

[AquaParade]

No, no, I meant how Kilmer got fired.

Although the Keaton story has its own numerous twists and turns. But it's nowhere near as sordid as all the Kilmer stories. One "legend" from back in the day was that at first they wouldn't let Keaton out of the role, or were making it difficult to leave, so he purposely asked for an "outrageous" sum of money just so they'd let him go, then they turned around and paid Carrey even more than Keaton asked for.

Who knows if THAT's true but that was one of the most persistently-reported stories back in the day, and it sounds like something WB would do.

But no, even the most severe Keaton stories aren't as salacious as the Kilmer stuff. I think Joel "officially" said that as far as Kilmer, "He sort of quit and we sort of fired him". But for years and years, the story going around was that Val turned on some tabloid show on TV one day and saw that they hired Clooney for the next one, but up to that point Val was waiting to get called back and didn't understand why he hadn't been contacted yet, and that's how he found out. I kinda hope that one is true. :lol:

I get you meant something else. I knew I should have been more clear but I'm lazy today.

[Leo656]

It's fun to read about how badly WB screwed Robin Williams out of playing the Riddler. What a bunch of jagoffs.

[MikeandRaph87]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/batman-forever-schumacher-cut-alternate-164437627.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Considering this is my favorite Batman film I am still anxious to see this cut. Take away the neon and dive deeper into Bruce's 'I killed them" that was left on the cutting room floor and I would be quite happy. All that would be left to complain is Riddler's overly ridiculous onesie and Two Face not written with an actual duality.

I know people prefer Nolan's Harvey Dent, but with him as Two Face for five minutes and not accommodating for Ledger's untimely passing leaving Harvey alive, we still have not gotten a proper Two Face, though I did like what was done with the Batman (1966) script.

What I would do to have a copy of my favorite Bat film.... It's not perfect, but the tone is just right for me and it has my favorite hero and villain.

[Andrew NDB]

Considering this is my favorite Batman film

https://media.tenor.com/ApxHzxWHhgAAAAAC/spit-take-laughing.gif

[ZariusTwo]

Kevin Smith is going to screen it on July 1st to fans attending a Clerks series marathon

https://www.superherohype.com/movies/538246-batman-forever-schumacher-cut-screening-teased-by-kevin-smith

[ZariusTwo]

There was a more widespread public screening planned, but Warner Bros have issued a cease and desist

https://www.avclub.com/batman-forever-schumacher-cut-screening

[IMJ]

Nothing is going to make this a good Batman movie. Just the sensibility of how this one was filmed and so on - it's in the DNA of the movie that not even a "Director's Full Vision" cut can honestly do much for it. Let's face it....

[Andrew NDB]

Nothing is going to make this a good Batman movie. Just the sensibility of how this one was filmed and so on - it's in the DNA of the movie that not even a "Director's Full Vision" cut can honestly do much for it. Let's face it....

Correct. About the only thing that would improve the movie is cutting more stuff out of it, not adding more stuff back in.