Daredevil Daredevil General Discussion Thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi everyone! New member, first post!

I don't know if this was already mentioned many months ago. The chemical that blinded Matt is owned by Iron Fist/Danny Rand's company.

I was supposed to insert a set photo from months ago but I think SHH is not allowing me to link that site because it's censoring it. :huh:

Anyway, that was the first easter egg I discovered and I'm an Iron Fist fan as well. :yay:
 
Hi everyone! New member, first post!

I don't know if this was already mentioned many months ago. The chemical that blinded Matt is owned by Iron Fist/Danny Rand's company.

I was supposed to insert a set photo from months ago but I think SHH is not allowing me to link that site because it's censoring it. :huh:

Anyway, that was the first easter egg I discovered and I'm an Iron Fist fan as well. :yay:

Welcome to the hype :)

Where did you get the image from?
Are you trying to hotlink from another site?
It might be best if you upload it somewhere like IMGUR and then use the forum link they provide to post it here.
 
New Info for the first 3 episodes

ovi2jFE.png
 
Last edited:
Interesting! "Rabbit in a Snow Storm" comes from the Fisk/Vanessa art gallery scene shown at NYCC, so we can take it that scene will occur in the third episode. Lots of "strong bloody violence" too!
 
I see they're all around 52 minutes long instead of less than 45 as is the usual time with TV shows these days which have to accommodate all the advertising. I'm glad for the longer run times.
 
I see they're all around 52 minutes long instead of less than 45 as is the usual time with TV shows these days which have to accommodate all the advertising. I'm glad for the longer run times.

I would have been surprising if they were less than 45 since the standard running time dramas on Netfilx and channels like HBO and Showtime are from 50 min to an hour.
 
But seriously, I'm not super into lots of blood and gore and other excessiveness, but I def hope that means the combat will tend less towards fanciful martial arts and more towards the quick and brutal, bone-breaking kind.

I love the sound of snapping thighbones in the morning!
 
New Info for the first 3 episodes

ovi2jFE.png

Judging from the names I feel like ep. 1 &2 will all be about him as a kid. Since each episode is an hour long they may be taking things slowly, giving us all the detail possible. As long as the current DD is involved in some capacity I'm down.

Dunno about Ep.3 yet. Maybe about his blindness.

Here are my thoughts on the titles and directors:
http://otlnews.net/2015/02/18/titles-directors-revealed-for-the-first-three-episodes-of-daredevil/
 
But seriously, I'm not super into lots of blood and gore and other excessiveness, but I def hope that means the combat will tend less towards fanciful martial arts and more towards the quick and brutal, bone-breaking kind.

I love the sound of snapping thighbones in the morning!

Yeah no need to go OTT with Daredevil but it at least means they can better show the effects of the fights both mentally and physically and also pull no punches when it comes to certain things. Ive always considered Daredevil a slightly more "adult" comic book character so hopefully this will be more in fitting with the tone of him than the film was able to pull off.
 
Interesting! "Rabbit in a Snow Storm" comes from the Fisk/Vanessa art gallery scene shown at NYCC, so we can take it that scene will occur in the third episode.

Ah, very cool. I was trying to figure out the significance of that one.

Cut Man is sadly not a reference to the boss in Megman. Instead, it's a boxing term referring to the person who patches up a boxer between rounds of a fight. Might be Night Nurse's introduction or it could be a reference to something in the past. I'm sure it's a metaphor either way.
 
I think it's fitting to aim for a more mature Daredevil, and in that regards, it makes sense to use a more visceral approch of the violence and the action. That said, it doesn't need to be gory or ultra violent either. Daredevil is not the punisher, and while there are many instances in the comics where he's violent and sometimes he loses it, he's not a psycho either. I think there is a fine line to draw in that regard, and I'm optimistic they will.
 
I liken DD to Batman in a lot of ways. He can't just quietly "knock you out" by "pulling punches", he's a real dude who has to take down legit tough guys quickly and efficiently before they can retaliate, often times in groups.

You do that by incapacitating them via broken arms, kneecaps, etc. It doesn't matter how tough you are; once your collarbone is broken, you're out of the picture for six months. And when (if) you finally come back, those memories are still going to be with you.

And if by chance your shinbone was snapped by that wacked out dude in red tights... do you REALLY want to risk running into THAT guy again?
 
I liken DD to Batman in a lot of ways. He can't just quietly "knock you out" by "pulling punches", he's a real dude who has to take down legit tough guys quickly and efficiently before they can retaliate, often times in groups.

You do that by incapacitating them via broken arms, kneecaps, etc. It doesn't matter how tough you are; once your collarbone is broken, you're out of the picture for six months. And when (if) you finally come back, those memories are still going to be with you.

And if by chance your shinbone was snapped by that wacked out dude in red tights... do you REALLY want to risk running into THAT guy again?

I know a lot of people like this take psychotic on Batman. I don't. I'm not saying it's not legit. It just doesn't interest me. And while it does exist, there are also a lot of instances where he just subdue criminal and knock them out without destroying their body.

DD has used this kind of violence several times in the comics too, but more often than not, he won't broke his enemies. I think he's more interesting when he wants not to use this kind of violence, but sometimes can't control himself, because his demons are catching him, instead of just being this kind of psychotic vigilante by habits.
 
I know a lot of people like this take psychotic on Batman. I don't. I'm not saying it's not legit. It just doesn't interest me. And while it does exist, there are also a lot of instances where he just subdue criminal and knock them out without destroying their body.

DD has used this kind of violence several times in the comics too, but more often than not, he won't broke his enemies. I think he's more interesting when he wants not to use this kind of violence, but sometimes can't control himself, because his demons are catching him, instead of just being this kind of psychotic vigilante by habits.

I don't see it as psychotic so much as "how costumed vigilantes manage to keep doing what they do at night"

Once your average hood is on the street for a few months and realizes that however terrifying Batman may be, he hasn't killed anyone, he doesn't have much left to fear besides spending six months in traction. And as anyone who has suffered a major broken bone will tell you, it is not a fun thing.

So if you have a choice between "staying home and playing videogames" and "robbing a liquor store and maybe getting your jaw fractured and spending the next ten weeks eating thru a straw"... maybe that's the thought process a costumed vigilante likes to make sure basic hoods are thinking about every evening.

So I kinda feel like you're trying to paint Batman or DD as crazy sadists who get off on hurting people while I'm viewing them as... realists. Crazy realists who dress up in costumes, but do the things they do to get the job done, not because they enjoy inflicting pain on people.
 
"Into the Ring" will probably be an episode revolving around Matt and his father. "Rabbit in a Snowstorm" will probably do with the painting, but I do wonder if the scene with Matt at the museum will happen there?


Ah, very cool. I was trying to figure out the significance of that one.

Cut Man is sadly not a reference to the boss in Megman. Instead, it's a boxing term referring to the person who patches up a boxer between rounds of a fight. Might be Night Nurse's introduction or it could be a reference to something in the past. I'm sure it's a metaphor either way.

It might be both. Maybe showing Jack as too tired and exhausted to fight, leading to his eventual death. Then flash forward to present day with Daredevil getting help from Claire Temple.
 
I don't see it as psychotic so much as "how costumed vigilantes manage to keep doing what they do at night"

Once your average hood is on the street for a few months and realizes that however terrifying Batman may be, he hasn't killed anyone, he doesn't have much left to fear besides spending six months in traction. And as anyone who has suffered a major broken bone will tell you, it is not a fun thing.

So if you have a choice between "staying home and playing videogames" and "robbing a liquor store and maybe getting your jaw fractured and spending the next ten weeks eating thru a straw"... maybe that's the thought process a costumed vigilante likes to make sure basic hoods are thinking about every evening.

So I kinda feel like you're trying to paint Batman or DD as crazy sadists who get off on hurting people while I'm viewing them as... realists. Crazy realists who dress up in costumes, but do the things they do to get the job done, not because they enjoy inflicting pain on people.

it's more a matter of trying to apply real life psychology to comic book characters. What you say does make sense, but to an extent. If we really ask "how costumed vigilantes manage to keep doing what they do at night", the answer is: they don't. They can only do it because it's a fictionnal world. If it was real, they would have been unmasked during one of their first outing, not to mention probably killed.

To me, it doesn't make sense not to embrace the silliness of the concept of superheroes and vigilante. I'm not saying you can't write it to make it mature and credible. I'm not saying you can't have a mature tone, nor a dark tone. I'm not saying you have to use a silly tone either. But there is only so much you can do without making it silly by trying to hard to make it realistic and mature. Even the dark knight trilogy, while made to be credible, and aiming for a nature tone, is silly by nature.

Also, you're right a dude who breaks bones to make a point is the very definition of a sadist to me.
 
it's more a matter of trying to apply real life psychology to comic book characters. What you say does make sense, but to an extent. If we really ask "how costumed vigilantes manage to keep doing what they do at night", the answer is: they don't. They can only do it because it's a fictionnal world. If it was real, they would have been unmasked during one of their first outing, not to mention probably killed.

To me, it doesn't make sense not to embrace the silliness of the concept of superheroes and vigilante. I'm not saying you can't write it to make it mature and credible. I'm not saying you can't have a mature tone, nor a dark tone. I'm not saying you have to use a silly tone either. But there is only so much you can do without making it silly by trying to hard to make it realistic and mature. Even the dark knight trilogy, while made to be credible, and aiming for a nature tone, is silly by nature.

Also, you're right a dude who breaks bones to make a point is the very definition of a sadist to me.

There is a difference between necessity and enjoyment.
 
There is a difference between necessity and enjoyment.

I have a hard time understanding how breaking bones is a necessity. Most heroes get the job done without doing that. We're talking Daredevil here, not the punisher. He's been at odds with Castle all the time, because he believes in justice. Daredevil is someone who fights his demons most of the time, and who can have violent tendencies sometimes, but that doesn't mean he does unleash such violence all the time.

For instance, during Brubaker's arc, you can argue about what he did to Ox in order to get answers, but he didn't torture the dude, nor did he really hurt him. He got the job done by letting him believe he did, because he didn't want to really torture him.

Even when written by Miller, he wasn't breaking bones or destroying his opponents.

Bendis did show him being more violent, but it was also stated he had a breakdown during that time, which is why he carved Bullseye for instance. And even during that time, you didn't see him break kingpin's legs or this kind of stuff.
 
When he was written by Miller, he was throwing people through windows, though. Miller always emphasized that he was a guy who lived in a rough world and, to keep people scared of him, he had to be rough too. He isn't a sadist who enjoys it, but that doesn't mean he isn't physical. He isn't the Punisher, though, because Frank Castle would kill the person.
 
When he was written by Miller, he was throwing people through windows, though. Miller always emphasized that he was a guy who lived in a rough world and, to keep people scared of him, he had to be rough too. He isn't a sadist who enjoys it, but that doesn't mean he isn't physical. He isn't the Punisher, though, because Frank Castle would kill the person.

indeed, Josie's window has been smashed several times. But you could argue it kinda happened during the fight, it wasn't necessarily DD's goal to throw the dude through the window. It's obvious his enemy are beaten badly after a fight, that doesn't mean he destroy them. Even whe he lost it during born again, he didn't become Bone-breaker-man. There are more evidence of him not destroying his enemies than there are of him breaking them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"