Daredevil Daredevil General Discussion Thread - Part 8

[Spider-Fan]

Because it's more marketable. More marketability = more money. The Netflix Daredevil as it is now -- is not marketable to families and the usual consumers of the MCU. Daredevil being more comic booky is not necessarily a bad thing in my book. The Frank Miller version is not the only version of Daredevil out there.

No, but it is the best. Shouldn't we always strive to make the best version of the character? Daredevil can easily just be expanded upon. Rebuilding the foundation is not necessary.

I find preserving the best version of the character more important than simply seeing him shake hands with Spider-Man. I want the version doing that to be the best version, not a version that has me wishing it was the other version. It'd be like if Andrew Garfield were now Spider-Man in an Avengers movie. I would just be wanting Tom Holland.

 

[jmc]

A serious gamble for the house of mouse which owns Star Wars, MARVEL, Pixar, Indiana Jones (pretty sure), and a lot more?

Not at all. Hypotheticals:

'Cars: The Series'!

'Toy Story: The Series'!

(for the above, just look to Dreamworks Television, examples above greedy for sure since it won't equate the film content - profitable? Heck, yeah.)

'Obi-Wan: The Movie'

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Give content to Disney Channel - OR have people pay a lot more money? (no doubt in my mind one question that they thought of is can we make more money putting towards Disney Channel or ABC or a streaming service? Which way can we make more money?)

No doubt about it - it starts off costing less than Netflix to pull people in the first year, then it gradually gets a lot more expensive from there as the content starts to pour in from brands that people are known to pay hand-over-fist for. We are talking about the now top film studio after-all, it just garbled up Fox.

Universal or Sony would be dead in the water. House of Mouse? They've been the top dog since the 70s, they know what they're doing.

I really don't think you understand how challenging this is even for Disney and how much they are risking on this streaming service. And just for your information they've not been the top dog ever since the 70's, on more than one occasion over the last 40 years the company has faltered seriously. I suggest reading the Disney Wars to see this. They are not too big to fail.

 

[DyeLorean]

What bothers me the most is that everyone are excellent in their roles, specially Cox as Murdock/DD and D'Onofrio as Kingpin. It would be such a shame to not see them again.

 

[Pennywise]

The TV/Film division animosity is something I didn't know, but I guess it isn't totally surprising.

The thought of this makes me sad! I guess we’ll find out in a few years!

 

[Pennywise]

I really thought Cox deserved an Emmy for this season! Was some of his best acting yet!

 

[Kuwolski]

What bothers me the most is that everyone are excellent in their roles, specially Cox as Murdock/DD and D'Onofrio as Kingpin. It would be such a shame to not see them again.

Absolutely. Vinny D will always be the king.

 

[AResistor]

I really don't think you understand how challenging this is even for Disney and how much they are risking on this streaming service. And just for your information they've not been the top dog ever since the 70's, on more than one occasion over the last 40 years the company has faltered seriously. I suggest reading the Disney Wars to see this. They are not too big to fail.

History: company has faltered when Walt Disney was alive, it keeps on faltering and soaring to the top. That's their M.O.

Challenge for ordinary people? Heck yeah. I nor you could ever do it.

For Disney and the expertise they can hire with their money and brands? Nah. They, undoubtably, already have a lot of the top dogs at Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime among their employees by buying them out.

 

[flickchick85]

While I'm not in favor of any type of reboot here, I do have to chime in - my favorite version of Daredevil in the comics was Mark Waid's, not Frank Miller's. It IS possible for DD to be good and not-so-R-rated.

 

[righthooksrus86]

So, that's why out of all of the Star Wars tales they could have chose to make into series first they went with:

Mandalorian
Cassian

Out of all of the characters they have, if they wanted to go kid friendly - there's so many more family friendly subjects to focus on.

First MARVEL - Loki (the villain) as well as Falcon & Hawkeye... not exactly Disney Channel fare.

There's going to be - like on Netflix - the full and child restricted modes; so no watering down necessary.

Im willing to bet those shows arent gonna be as dark and gritty as the Marvel/Netflix shows lol ill bet a good amount of money too. They'll be pg-13 at best.

 

[AResistor]

Im willing to bet those shows arent gonna be as dark and gritty as the Marvel/Netflix shows lol ill bet a good amount of money too. They'll be pg-13 at best.

So you consider the MCU to be watered-down, gotcha. Yeah these will be MCU oriented and a lot more in-tune with MCU storylines as seen from the cast and shows they have lined up.

 

[jmc]

It makes sense for them to start building slowly with less content and established brands. This is more about them taking control of their destiny then competing with Netlix off the bat. It will take them years to get Netflix's subscription numbers, but I doubt they want to chase them like Netflix is either, investing massive amounts of money based on a theoretical subscriber base which may or may not come, or at the ratio they would like with new competition on the horizon.

There was a pretty good economic article posted in the Misc Forums about just how difficult it's going to be for Disney and just how much they are behind compares to Amazon and Netflix. WB are in the same position too. Much like the old music companies who didn't embrace digital downloads when they became popular Disney, WB and other studios are the old guard of TV and movies when it comes to streaming, and like those old music companies coming at this well behind the ones pioneering it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

So you consider the MCU to be watered-down, gotcha. Yeah these will be MCU oriented and a lot more in-tune with MCU storylines as seen from the cast and shows they have lined up.

The MCU doesn't water down the characters they use, but they also have not explored overtly dark characters. Someone like The Punisher in a PG-13 environment has many limitations given the MCUs overall tone. Someone like Iron Man can thrive there and not feel watered down. Punisher and Daredevil we have seen thrive in more adult themed content. The only MCU film to try a tone we'd maybe see for them was TWS, but even that feels too light for someone like the Punisher for example. That is the point. The MCU is not watered down, but it has the potential to limit more adult/edgy characters if you don't break that PG-13 formula a bit..

 

[AResistor]

It makes sense for them to start building slowly with less content and established brands. This is more about them taking control of their destiny then competing with Netlix off the bat. It will take them years to get Netflix's subscription numbers, but I doubt they want to chase them like Netflix is either, investing massive amounts of money based on a theoretical subscriber base which may or may not come, or at the ratio they would like with new competition on the horizon.

Gotta take into account Disney has - without a doubt bought out many of the top dogs at Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu. Not the top top ones - but the ones looking for a higher salary and advancement. This is house of mouse and they're clearly already rolling around in money.

Their aim right now is using established brands to dangle carrots. Otherwise they wouldn't be making Mandalorian, Cassian, Loki, Scarlet Witch, as well as Falcon & Winter Soldier. Their model seems to be drawing in the fanbases they know they have who'll pay hand-over-fist for exclusive content. I wouldn't be surprised if Cars becomes a TV show.

 

[jmc]

History: company has faltered when Walt Disney was alive, it keeps on faltering and soaring to the top. That's their M.O.

Challenge for ordinary people? Heck yeah. I nor you could ever do it.

For Disney and the expertise they can hire with their money and brands? Nah. They, undoubtably, already have a lot of the top dogs at Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime among their employees by buying them out.

Mate, it's far more complex and nuanced that what you're making it out to be. The music companies thought they could replicate what happened during the digital music revolution and never made a dent. It's not just the money or the expertise, it's the fact Disney, WB and others studios are so far behind the eight ball in terms of content and innovation that puts them at a risk of failing.

 

[Marvolo]

The TV/Film division animosity is something I didn't know, but I guess it isn't totally surprising.

Tbe only thing I regret is we are losing the Daredevil cast. I really liked that whole cast. The rest of the Marvel shows can be left in a trash heap for all I care. Jessica Jones was an absolute slog in season 2 and the characters in that show are toxic. Luke Cage was just there and the less said about Iron Fist the better.

As for making Daredevil more kid friendly, I'm not overly thrilled about that. I'm sick of this notion that every marvel property needs to be family friendly and have the same tone and rating as the MCU. The brutality of Daredevil is part of what interested me. PG-13 Daredevil interests me onlybslighlty more than a pg-13 Deadpool which is to say not much at all. I have absolutely zero interest in a
PG-13 Punisher.

 

[AResistor]

Mate, it's far more complex and nuanced that what you're making it out to be. The music companies thought they could replicate what happened during the digital music revolution and never made a dent. It's not just the money or the expertise, it's the fact Disney, WB and others studios are so far behind the eight ball in terms of content and innovation that puts them at a risk of failing.

As said, if you and I did it - yeah.

From who Disney has at their disposal to hire? Nah.

I'm not underestimating it - I just know who they can hire.

 

[jmc]

As said, if you and I did it - yeah.

From who Disney has at their disposal to hire? Nah.

I'm not underestimating it - I just know who they can hire.

It's not just about the money or who they hire, it's about what they can actually offer as a service. Less options in terms of content and innovation is not going to be enough to entice some people no matter how strong the brand is. You're looking at this far too simplistically.

 

[Lilbaz]

Mate, it's far more complex and nuanced that what you're making it out to be. The music companies thought they could replicate what happened during the digital music revolution and never made a dent. It's not just the money or the expertise, it's the fact Disney, WB and others studios are so far behind the eight ball in terms of content and innovation that puts them at a risk of failing.

Content? They have everything that fox, disney, marvel and pixar has ever made or will make, has netflix or amazon made as much?
All the stuff they have made will be pulled from netflix and amazon aswell.
Yes disney are well behind but that doesn't mean they can't catch up.

 

[AResistor]

It's not just about the money or who they hire, it's about what they can actually offer as a service. Less options in terms of content and innovation is not going to be enough to entice some people no matter how strong the brand is. You're looking at this far too simplistically.

Offer as a service: exclusive Disney family shows, exclusive Disney films, exclusive Star Wars shows and films with film cast, exclusive MARVEL shows and films with film cast, Disney library, Fox library.

Nah, I'm looking at Disney and knowing how many families pay hand-over-fist for Disney merchandise already.

Not to mention Disney has a whole universe building with Star Wars linking films, comics, books, and now TV shows to boot (and I'm trying to keep up with all of it - yikes!), so they got the Star Wars fans hook ball and chain already as well.

 

[Pennywise]

Marvel Studios and Marvel TV really both seem very stubborn to work with each other. Even Agents of Shield gets no acknowledgement.

 

[jmc]

Content? They have everything that fox, disney, marvel and pixar has ever made or will make, has netflix or amazon made as much?
All the stuff they have made will be pulled from netflix and amazon aswell.
Yes disney are well behind but that doesn't mean they can't catch up.

New content my friend. Netflix has spent literally billions over the last few years in purchasing and creating original content. There's so much new stuff to choose from every month it's almost overwhelming.

 

[Kuwolski]

There was a pretty good economic article posted in the Misc Forums about just how difficult it's going to be for Disney and just how much they are behind compares to Amazon and Netflix. WB are in the same position too. Much like the old music companies who didn't embrace digital downloads when they became popular Disney, WB and other studios are the old guard of TV and movies when it comes to streaming, and like those old music companies coming at this well behind the ones pioneering it.

Absolutely, which is why I said it's about taking control of their destiny. My point was it's not about competing with Netlfix, it's about putting themselves in position to have complete control of their content distribution in the future. And they aren't just in the streaming game, with Disney+ and Hulu, it's also about traditional cable for them at the moment, with ABC, FX, Disney channels. etc, Shows created by those entities will gain profits from traditional network means as well as through subscriptions. Cable TV still generates a ton more revenue per year then any streaming service today. It's a gamble but they have a massive safety net with everything else they do. Disney vs Netflix makes for good headlines, but from what I read about Netflx they are also taking a massive gamble by significantly outspending their subscription base for original content. Like you said, nobody is too big to fail. Will be interesting to see it all unfold.

 

[AResistor]

New content my friend. Netflix has spent literally billion over the last few years in purchasing and creating original content. There's so much new stuff to choose from every month it's almost overwhelming.

New original content without brand name power except for a few.

There is a reason why studios run on IP notoriety these days.

New content all the time doesn't necessarily equate with quality or viewers.

If anything this "new content all the time" is saturating the heck out of them. With eyes in too many places at once, hard to really take care and nurture any single one of them with the same level of finesse.

 

[AResistor]

Marvel Studios and Marvel TV really both seem very stubborn to work with each other. Even Agents of Shield gets no acknowledgement.

One thing that's already standing out - want to see what Winter Soldier and Falcon were up to when these films were taking place? Well, just hop on over to Disney streaming when the MCU becomes a much larger and involved universe. Due to the shows they're green-lighting that are connected to the MCU in a strong fashion, they're already looking to set it apart from the other superhero content on the market since now it will be tied to the films and it'll also most likely involve the same cast.

Heck, I'd be surprised if RDJ or Evans doesn't make a cameo in the first year just to increase all eyes on Disney.

Greedy f-ers, but I don't blame them.

 

[Manasrepublic]

Really sad news. The acting talent involved in general on this show is pretty stellar! Disappointed to hear about no season 4. I was itching to see a comeback match of Daredevil beating on Bullseye in costume badly!