Who owns Batman Forever Special Edition DVD?

[Guyper1]

The original Batman Forever had like over 40 minutes of deleted scenes. Does the additional scenes feature in the DVD include all of them? If not, how long?

 

[Whack Arnolds]

Uhh, this is the only release thus far that has included any deleted scenes.

 

[Guyper1]

No, I mean I know that he had cut over 40 minutes for Batman Forever, so is the entire deleted scenes included in the special edition?

 

[fabman]

No, 15 mins. approx.

 

[D'Artagnan]

There are not 40 mins missing. Maybe 25, tops. Most of the deleted material is on the new DVD.

 

[captain_jimbo]

It would be pretty cool to see the extra scenes though.

 

[fabman]

No, Joel Schumacher's original working print was 150+ mins. long! Warner Bros. Pictures thought it shouldn't be longer than 120 mins.

 

[Elongated_Yen7]

I got the new disc.. its only got like 10 minutes.. I heard that some of the stuff that wasn't on the DVD is darker though..

 

[fabman]

Yeah, on the DVD there are only 15 mins. deleted scenes. But the original workprint was 40mins. longer and was differently cut. Not only the order changed, it was cut differently with other frames etc.

 

[The Chairman]

The stuff they included on the special edition was crap, withthe exception of the giant bat sequence.

 

[LongDong]

There is supposed to be a directors cut coming out of this film. I hope they do, for all intents and purposes this was the best film of the original 4 movies.

 

[El Payaso]

for all intents and purposes this was the best film of the original 4 movies.

No question about it.

 

[Two-Face]

Highly doubt cos we got SEs of each four films.

 

[Bat Attack]

Highly doubt cos we got SEs of each four films.

Yeah, I think that the anthology was the hurrah for the old batman franchise.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Originally Posted by LongDong
for all intents and purposes this was the best film of the original 4 movies.

No question about it.

haha. Sorry, but i actually laughed out loud at this.

 

[LongDong]

No question about it.

Sure the nipples, groin and butt shots were lame but the rest of the movie was much better than the previous one (returns) and a little better than bat89 plus Kilmer was a way better Batman.

 

[LongDong]

haha. Sorry, but i actually laughed out loud at this.

Wish I was so easily amused. I really do

 

[The Chairman]

Sure the nipples, groin and butt shots were lame but the rest of the movie was much better than the previous one (returns) and a little better than bat89 plus Kilmer was a way better Batman.

Um, no. Sorry.

 

[Two-Face]

Sure the nipples, groin and butt shots were lame but the rest of the movie was much better than the previous one (returns) and a little better than bat89 plus Kilmer was a way better Batman.

Forever better then Returns and B89? Sorry I don't think so but I agree that Val Kilmer was better Bruce Wayne/Batman.

 

[batlovescatDC]

Michael Keaton was a great Batman, and an alright Bruce. Val Kilmer was a great Bruce, and an alright Batman. George Clooney sucked ass at both. Christian Bale pulled both roles of PERFECLTY.

 

[El Payaso]

Sure the nipples, groin and butt shots were lame but the rest of the movie was much better than the previous one (returns) and a little better than bat89 plus Kilmer was a way better Batman.

What exactly? The villiains were worse (two-face anyone), the city was worse, the acting was worse, the humour was worse, the story was worse, Robin was... there. Let's say we can debate and contrast opinions on Kilmer. He was good but a little stiffy (and not because of the rubber suit).

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

Wish I was so easily amused. I really do

Thats only because i dont take anything seriously on the SHH boards anymore.


I think if it maintained the Elfman score i may be able to tolerate the movie a bit more. Goldenthals music is just way to corny for me.

 

[El Payaso]

I forgot... the music was worse...

 

[The Chairman]

Val Kilmer was better Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Unless you're basing your opinion solely on looks, then you're wrong. Kilmer was flacid, uncharismatic and simply a pain to watch onscreen.

 

[Two-Face]

Unless you're basing your opinion solely on looks, then you're wrong. Kilmer was flacid, uncharismatic and simply a pain to watch onscreen.

Sure he hadthe looks and can act too. I liked his Batman and Bruce voice different from each other unlike Clooney who had same voice as Bruce/Batman. Uncharismatic?? No flacid?? Yes.