Daredevil Daredevil General Discussion Thread

[Spider-Fan]

IMO, DD shouldn't doesn't need a lot of CGI fx, just a lot of practical ones. It should mostly be an action show with real people doing stunts, with the occasional CG-heavy shot thrown in every now and then. Arrow and AoS would be examples of how that can be underwhelming (though AoS has more VFX that their budget has to be allocated to), but I think something like Strike Back has great production values for the cost ($3M per episode). It just looks so much more cinematic than the other two. If DD can go for something at that level of production value, it'll be a great start.

I just don't see a Netflix show looking like a regular network show (especially not a smaller network like CW). If they could spend $100M on the 1st season of House of Cards, they can at least spend $50-70M on DD (especially with Marvel/Disney backing), and that would still put it at a much higher episode-to-episode budget ratio than AoS or Arrow, since it won't be working on a pilot-to-series model, where they spend a bunch of money on a pilot and then order 12 subsequent cheaper episodes, then 9 more. DD, like all the Netflix shows, will basically be produced like one 13-hour movie. Which, if it does get a $50M+ budget, puts it more in the league of Game of Thrones and other premium cable shows, almost all of which look more cinematic than Arrow or AoS.

And I think the dragons on GoT look great.

These are valid points, but House of Cards was also used by Netflix to help build the Netflix brand name. Not all Netflix shows will get 100mil budget. The 50-70 estimate sounds more reasonable. But I do think more CG in Daredevil will be used than you think will.

As for the dragons in Game of Thrones, they look like CG to me. The textures on the skins of them don't look that authentic, but like I said earlier, I give it a pass because it is a show. Not a movie.

 

[metaphysician]

From what I've heard, the budget for the overall program is 200M, so call it maybe 45M each for the main series, and 20M for the Defenders mini? Of course, that's not actually representative, as a lot of that budget will probably go into shared resources.

 

[Six]

As for the dragons in Game of Thrones, they look like CG to me. The textures on the skins of them don't look that authentic, but like I said earlier, I give it a pass because it is a show. Not a movie.

You know that they don't have actual living breathing dragons because they don't exist, so obviously you're going to assume CG. A better comparison would be the direwolves. Its harder to tell with them because half the time they're really and half the time its CGI. And fur is a lot harder to do than scales in CG.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You know that they don't have actual living breathing dragons because they don't exist, so obviously you're going to assume CG. A better comparison would be the direwolves. Its harder to tell with them because half the time they're really and half the time its CGI. And fur is a lot harder to do than scales in CG.

I agree the dragons look better than the direwolves, but the dragons came to my mind first when I made my original post. The fact they look better than another CG animal doesn't mean they still don't look like CG. Because they do. On a TV budget, dragons are hard to do. Not everyone has Hobbit money. Did I say bad CG ruins Game of Thrones? Don't think I ever did. I think I said it being a show, CG is bound to be worse. Which, it is. I'm well aware fur is harder to do than scales in CG, but that doesn't change my original point.

 

[redhawk23]

Even if its obvious how they did the effects, I wouldn't call the cg for the dragons on Game of Thrones bad.

 

[Six]

I'm really not expecting DD have very much CG in it. It could very well be done with mostly practical effects. What DD villains really need CG? Maybe Bushwacker?

 

[flickchick85]

Honestly, I like the way the dragons on GoT look more than the one in the Hobbit, but then, I thought a lot of the CG in the Hobbit looked subpar. Oh well, different strokes.

Point being, Spider-Fan, all I can say is I hope you're wrong about DD requiring a lot of CGI. With this character, not a lot should be necessary, imo.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Even if its obvious how they did the effects, I wouldn't call the cg for the dragons on Game of Thrones bad.

Compared to other TV dragons, they're much better. But, that isn't the same as saying it looks like a real dragon. GoT has great CG relative to the medium, and my point is even on a high end TV budget (one of the highest on TV) even that has CG issues. So, if they have them, DD is bound to have them. This is why I brought the dragons up.

Honestly, I like the way the dragons on GoT look more than the one in the Hobbit, but then, I thought a lot of the CG in the Hobbit looked subpar. Oh well, different strokes.

Point being, Spider-Fan, all I can say is I hope you're wrong about DD requiring a lot of CGI. With this character, not a lot should be necessary, imo.

The CG on Smaug was great. But, I do agree Hobbit had subpar CG elsewhere. Clearly Smaug was a greater point of emphasis for the production.

DD doesn't largely fight powered characters, but you have to remember, many of Bullseye's objects will be CG, or have elements to their fighting that will need CG. Much of the acrobatics will end up as CG as well, I am sure (wirework on TV to the level DD would need for his acrobatics isn't practical...so likely much of the roof jumping and such will end up CG). Also, the radar sense could even require CG (depending on how it is done). Sure, the hand to hand fighting can be done with acrobatics and wirework, but few TV shows invest in high end wirework.

 

[Six]

But, that isn't the same as saying it looks like a real dragon

 

[Gr0oT]

To be fair it would be easy enough to imagine what a 'real' dragon would look like by referencing any number of lizards and even large scale dinosaur replicas.

Also House of Card didn't got 100 million for one season but for both.

 

[flickchick85]

To me, this:

Looks no more fake than this:

Less shadowy and dramatic, sure, but they look about equal to me on the "how CGI'ed does this look" scale. *shrugs*

Also, I really hope they don't use too much CGI on the general acrobatics. DD doesn't even have Spider-Man's strength and agility, and they used plenty of practical stuntwork when Spidey was jumping around in TASM.

 

[Gr0oT]

Nothing can look worse than that scene where DD and Bullseye are fighting on the organ.

 

[Spider-Fan]

To me, this:

Spoiler

Looks no more fake than this:

Spoiler

Less shadowy and dramatic, sure, but they look about equal to me on the "how CGI'ed does this look" scale. *shrugs*

Also, I really hope they don't use too much CGI on the general acrobatics. DD doesn't even have Spider-Man's strength and agility, and they used plenty of practical stuntwork when Spidey was jumping around in TASM.

It's more apparent when they're moving. Smaug's movements are cleaner. But once again, I expect that since the Hobbit had a FAR higher budget and more time to do the effects work than GoT does. That's just the nature of TV.

TASM also had more money for more advanced wirework and such than DD will. It's not even just about affording equipment when it comes to a show, but how long will they have for post on it? Granted, Netflix puts the whole season out at once, so all the episodes are done at same time, so they don't deal with some of the time crunch AoS will be dealing with. But, if it is a 45 min show, and there are 13 episodes, then it will be 585 mins. Even if the effects work is more minimal than a film, they just won't have as much time to make them clean.

Nothing can look worse than that scene where DD and Bullseye are fighting on the organ.

LOL! That is very true

 

[T"Challa]

IMO, DD shouldn't doesn't need a lot of CGI fx, just a lot of practical ones. It should mostly be an action show with real people doing stunts, with the occasional CG-heavy shot thrown in every now and then. Arrow and AoS would be examples of how that can be underwhelming (though AoS has more VFX that their budget has to be allocated to), but I think something like Strike Back has great production values for the cost ($3M per episode). It just looks so much more cinematic than the other two. If DD can go for something at that level of production value, it'll be a great start.

Strike Back only costs $3M per episode? thats really surprising. That show looks pretty cinematic. It looks really expensive so I always wondered how they kept the show running because not a lot of people watch it.

 

[H.U.S.T.L.E.]

I know it's just personal opinion, but I don't understand why some people are so hung up on whether this show has a "cinematic" look or not. When it comes down to it, all that matters to me is a solid, capable cast, a great story and some cool action shots. Frankly, I don't really see why "cinematic" is made to be such a big deal around here in the first place. I guess it's because I'm not a student of the genre so much and I generally watch movies & TV to be entertained and not for production values. I can't really speak to some of the shows people have mentioned here like Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Mad Men or True Detective, since none of them have really clicked with me. I gave each of them a shot, and the stories they tell just don't resonate with me - sure, they look nice I guess but that isn't enough to keep me around.

And to clarify, I don't mean to say those shows are bad by any means, they just haven't entertained me personally. Different strokes I guess.

 

[Six]

I'd take a Daredevil series with the cinematography of a show like True Detective over the cinematography of Arrow, any day. If you're apathetic towards quality, well then I guess thats a good thing. I'd love to be easily impressed.

 

[Marvel Spider]

They shot True Detective on film, which added to the grittiness of the visuals. I'm thinking that this will probably be shot digitally, but there are plenty of digitally shot stuff out there that looks great (House of Cards), so it'll probably be fine.

 

[flickchick85]

It's more apparent when they're moving. Smaug's movements are cleaner. But once again, I expect that since the Hobbit had a FAR higher budget and more time to do the effects work than GoT does. That's just the nature of TV.

TASM also had more money for more advanced wirework and such than DD will. It's not even just about affording equipment when it comes to a show, but how long will they have for post on it? Granted, Netflix puts the whole season out at once, so all the episodes are done at same time, so they don't deal with some of the time crunch AoS will be dealing with. But, if it is a 45 min show, and there are 13 episodes, then it will be 585 mins. Even if the effects work is more minimal than a film, they just won't have as much time to make them clean.

That's a really GOOD picture of Smaug, though. There are moments in the film where he looks super-fake to me. As I said, GoT's dragons are up to snuff with any movie dragons as far as I'm concerned, so we'll just have to agree to disagree there.

As for the practical stuff, I'm mostly referring to the rooftop chase/street work in TASM, which was achieved almost entirely without wires and using real parkour-focused stuntmen. That's all DD should need for the majority of their rooftop jumping, and similar types of swinging rigs to the ones used on Arrow should be sufficient enough for the rest. I just think you're severely underestimating what's possible with the Netflix series model in terms of production value/aesthetic.

Strike Back only costs $3M per episode? thats really surprising. That show looks pretty cinematic. It looks really expensive so I always wondered how they kept the show running because not a lot of people watch it.

Yep, according to these articles:
http://ondemandweekly.com/blog/article/8_things_you_need_to_know_about_cinemaxs_strike_back/
http://www.tvguide.com/news/strike-explodes-cinemax-1036490.aspx

And I agree, it looks great. $3M per episode on this show would only be $39M for the entire season, and I'm guessing Marvel/Netflix are gonna be willing to spend a little more than that on this one, as DD will likely be the "flagship" title of the Netflix series, being the most recognizable hero and the first one out of the gate. I'm not sure how much Arrow costs to produce, but I know when Supernatural's budget was at it's highest it hit around $2M per episode. I'm guessing Arrow costs a little more than that, but not much, because the CW is a constantly struggling "netlet" that just can't afford any higher for any show. Marvel and Netflix both can, so as far as I'm concerned, this show has no excuse NOT to look better.

 

[the gael]

There is no need of much CGI for the action scenes. Daredevil is a "realistic" fighter, so practically all of the action sequences may be done by traditional "stuntmen work" (parkour, choregraphed fight, ...)

BUT, that being said, Daredevil will need a lot of CGI, much more than Luke Cage, for exemple, because of the radar sense (luckily, it doesn't need hyper defined CGI because it's a radar, not the vision), but the show will need it.

If you don't use the radar sense heavily in all of the episodes, then you have another Batman or green arrow. The super senses is what make Daredevil.

I'm not expecting a Daredevil show to be as cheap as Luke Cage indestructible skin or Danny Rand Iron Fist (that being said, the city of Kunlun for Iron Fist may be very expensive on itself), because of the radar sense.

And yes, I would love to see a more "cinematic" show, to see the grittiness and the highly dangerous place of Hell's kitchen.

Since "Agent of SHIELD" has not be really well received, DD has to be the "Iron Man" of the Marvel live shows, so they have to make it great.

And yes, Daredevil need to have a great theme tune, the one from the movie wasn't very memorable (compare it to the awesome one from the Flash show from the 90's, it's not really great)

 

[fixxxer]

^

Agreed with all of that, but the RADAR CGI will be extremely cheap and easy to execute. Basically take a regular camera shot from Daredevil's POV, and just run a couple of filters over it to get the typical RADAR look.

 

[metaphysician]

^

Agreed with all of that, but the RADAR CGI will be extremely cheap and easy to execute. Basically take a regular camera shot from Daredevil's POV, and just run a couple of filters over it to get the typical RADAR look.

That's my guess, too.

However, don't think this makes the show cheap to do. Yeah, the majority of the effects would be stuntwork. However, *good* stuntwork costs.

 

[The Overlord]

There is no need of much CGI for the action scenes. Daredevil is a "realistic" fighter, so practically all of the action sequences may be done by traditional "stuntmen work" (parkour, choregraphed fight, ...)

BUT, that being said, Daredevil will need a lot of CGI, much more than Luke Cage, for exemple, because of the radar sense (luckily, it doesn't need hyper defined CGI because it's a radar, not the vision), but the show will need it.

If you don't use the radar sense heavily in all of the episodes, then you have another Batman or green arrow. The super senses is what make Daredevil.

I'm not expecting a Daredevil show to be as cheap as Luke Cage indestructible skin or Danny Rand Iron Fist (that being said, the city of Kunlun for Iron Fist may be very expensive on itself), because of the radar sense.

And yes, I would love to see a more "cinematic" show, to see the grittiness and the highly dangerous place of Hell's kitchen.

Since "Agent of SHIELD" has not be really well received, DD has to be the "Iron Man" of the Marvel live shows, so they have to make it great.

And yes, Daredevil need to have a great theme tune, the one from the movie wasn't very memorable (compare it to the awesome one from the Flash show from the 90's, it's not really great)

Really the amount of CGI required will depend on the villains they use. Most of the main DD enemies don't require a lot of CGI, maybe some of the things Bullseye throws, but that should not be too costly.

I think some of the B-list villains would require a fair amount of CGI, like Mr. Hyde, Bushwacker and Stilt-Man. Stilt-Man is too expensive and is the type of joke villain that could easly be replaced with other less expensive options (Matador, Leap-Frog or Turk) and while I like Bushwacker and Mr. Hyde, if they don't appear I wouldn't be too broken up about it.

 

[Dark Raven]

For Bushwacker, they can simply find a random gardener who frequently beats the shrubbery.

 

[fixxxer]

That's my guess, too.

However, don't think this makes the show cheap to do. Yeah, the majority of the effects would be stuntwork. However, *good* stuntwork costs.

I was talking only about the RADAR CGI effects being pretty cheap. I expect the show itself to be quite expensive, but not unreasonably so, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[the gael]

Really the amount of CGI required will depend on the villains they use. Most of the main DD enemies don't require a lot of CGI, maybe some of the things Bullseye throws, but that should not be too costly.

I think some of the B-list villains would require a fair amount of CGI, like Mr. Hyde, Bushwacker and Stilt-Man. Stilt-Man is too expensive and is the type of joke villain that could easly be replaced with other less expensive options (Matador, Leap-Frog or Turk) and while I like Bushwacker and Mr. Hyde, if they don't appear I wouldn't be too broken up about it.

You are right, Stiltman is probably the most expensive villain to do.... and one of the most ridiculous one ! I think it they should stay away from Him, Matador or Leap Frog. They are goofy villains that may detract from the general tone (I'm sure DD should have gritty and threatening foes, and I have yet to find Leap Frog or Stiltman scary or threatening) Turk, on the other, would work just fine.

Mister Hide can be tricky to do on budget. Bushwacker is a very interesting concept (the fanatic religious in "crusade" with a bionic arm). But, yes, his arm would require a lot of CGI.

As for the other foes... the owl may probably done by traditional methods, but his power of flight may require CGI.

Bullseye doesn't require CGI, same for the Kingpin. Killgrave just need... a good purple make-up ! Typhoid Mary requires CGI for her pyrokinetic powers. Deathstalker, well, camera trick may do 90 % of the job (very easy to do) with CGI to complete when he cross the walls (not a very heavy and costly job) Mister Fear / Cranston... that's interesting. He will require a lot of CGI for his hallucinogenic gaz.

As for the Gladiator... I don't know