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-bat...ed-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]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

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]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

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]

Originally Posted by PizzaPower1985

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.