DareDevil Movie: Producers fault NOT Mark Steven Johnson

[Ryancara]

I know that this is late (in terms of what everyone is talking about), but I just watched the directors cut of Daredevil today and was blown away! This film did not resemble the 90 minute cartoon that I saw a few years ago. The Directors Cut (9.99 at my local Walmart) features a totally expanded story line that filled in many holes of the theatrical release and made sense (story wise). The Kingpin NOW was really scary as he should be.. Bullseye NOW was truly insane and Matt Murdock NOW really was Daredevil. Yes, it still was/is not perfect, but what an improvement over what was released!

There is a great featurette included on the DVD called "Giving the Devil his Due". It turns out that weeks before the movie's premiere the producers got cold feet and butchered it! They turned a 120 film into a 90 minute rock video.. Mark Steven Johnson (doing his best not to insult his bosses) basically tells a tale where the movie was taken out of his hands and ruined. The producers had no faith in what he delivered and they tried to turn it into a no brain revenge action movie (with a sex scene that was added to appeal to teenagers!). The whole featurette sounded like an apology for what happened.

As a big Daredevil fan who wrote off the theatrical version of the movie as a bad dream I'm sadden at the whole affair. They really had a decent movie on their hands and blew it! I wonder if the same fate awaits Ghost Rider.

 

[Ben Urich]

Yeah the Producers take most of the blame, but MSJ needs to bear some of it, too. The dialogue was weak in places ("That's th C Train!") and the fights were poorly designed and edited.

 

[Joker]

I would actually say it was the studio, not the producers.

 

[The Shape]

Yeah...the D-Cut is different, but not radically different. MSJ still deserves much of the blame, cause even the D-Cut is severely flawed, thought better than the theatrical release.

 

[Ryancara]

Yeah the Producers take most of the blame, but MSJ needs to bear some of it, too. The dialogue was weak in places ("That's th C Train!") and the fights were poorly designed and edited.

Yes, that C train line is worse then the Storm "what happens to a Toad.." line in X men. The CGI is also suspect in a few spots.

 

[Ryancara]

I would actually say it was the studio, not the producers.

...according to the DVD is was one producer who pushed for the 90 minute movie. I forget his name but it was not Avi Arad.

 

[Ryancara]

Yeah...the D-Cut is different, but not radically different. MSJ still deserves much of the blame, cause even the D-Cut is severely flawed, thought better than the theatrical release.

...I wonder if it would have done better had the producers left it alone. It truly cold have been the anti Spiderman movie that it deserved to be.

 

[KenK]

...according to the DVD is was one producer who pushed for the 90 minute movie. I forget his name but it was not Avi Arad.

It was probably Gary Foster.

The thing about the Director's Cut is, it actually has a story, whereas the theatrical version just comes of as a random series of events that relate back to Matt as he's trying to get through this dark period in his life.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

...according to the DVD is was one producer who pushed for the 90 minute movie. I forget his name but it was not Avi Arad.

It was definately Fox, they did the same to X-Men and the Fantastic Four movies as well.

 

[BatB]

Its interesting because when you watch the making of the movie, you have the producer constantly lecturing about pacing. That everythings gotta move that you gotta get people in and out as fast as possible. Now as a film-maker(wannabe) I gotta say that that is complete bull$%it. And honestly the fact that most of hollywood believes that really pi$$e$ me off. But back to the topic at hand. On the D-Cut DVD that same producer is saying that the D-Cut is not the movie that the movie is the release from theatres. But we all can agree that the real movie is the D-Cut, in fact the original original cut of the movie included the love scene and all dat stuff within the D-Cut. Just another case of how audiences get screwed because producers and studios dont know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

Most producers and studios don't have a clue when it comes to story telling, and make their choices based on what is marketable to the audiences. It's unfortunate for the director who have to submit to their demands since they finance the films, but ultimately the story suffers.

If I remember correctly, all the stuff that was cut out was due to having a pg-13 rating. right? I'm sure if they kept the rating an R rating, the box office would have still been in the 100 milion range AND it would have been a better story.

 

[Savage]

Yup. It was Gary Foster. Aaall his doing...And he's working on Ghost Rider...*sssssiiiigh*

And I liked the C-Train line.

 

[Max J Power]

While I wouldn't say I was blown away by the director's cut, it was considerably better than the theatrical verison.

 

[The Kid]

the DC makes the theatrical look like poop. I'm glad I got to see the real version of daredevil.

we'd definitely be talking about its sequel right now if the dc was what was released in theaters.

 

[antariksh]

the DC makes the theatrical look like poop. I'm glad I got to see the real version of daredevil.

we'd definitely be talking about its sequel right now if the dc was what was released in theaters.

Hopefully the same happens when F4 DC is released.

 

[marcvader]

Although I bought both copies and believe the DC is better, I think that Daredevil should have been so much better. If only it could have had the fights and action of Spiderman and the seriousness and faithfulness of a V for Vendetta. If only...

 

[Ryancara]

It was probably Gary Foster.

The thing about the Director's Cut is, it actually has a story, whereas the theatrical version just comes of as a random series of events that relate back to Matt as he's trying to get through this dark period in his life.

...the directors cut felt like a comic book read. It was very Marvel. The 90 minute theatrical cut felt (to me) like a direct to DVD movie effort.

 

[Ryancara]

It was definately Fox, they did the same to X-Men and the Fantastic Four movies as well.

..do you know if there ever will be Directors Cuts to those films?

 

[Ryancara]

Its interesting because when you watch the making of the movie, you have the producer constantly lecturing about pacing. That everythings gotta move that you gotta get people in and out as fast as possible. Now as a film-maker(wannabe) I gotta say that that is complete bull$%it. And honestly the fact that most of hollywood believes that really pi$$e$ me off. But back to the topic at hand. On the D-Cut DVD that same producer is saying that the D-Cut is not the movie that the movie is the release from theatres. But we all can agree that the real movie is the D-Cut, in fact the original original cut of the movie included the love scene and all dat stuff within the D-Cut. Just another case of how audiences get screwed because producers and studios dont know what the hell they're talking about.

You hit it on the head! I really believe that the producers feel/felt that we are stupid.... that our attention spans can't handle something over 90 minutes!

 

[Ryancara]

Most producers and studios don't have a clue when it comes to story telling, and make their choices based on what is marketable to the audiences. It's unfortunate for the director who have to submit to their demands since they finance the films, but ultimately the story suffers.

If I remember correctly, all the stuff that was cut out was due to having a pg-13 rating. right? I'm sure if they kept the rating an R rating, the box office would have still been in the 100 milion range AND it would have been a better story.

..it worked for the first Blade film. Imagine if they turned Blade into a 90 minute PG 13 movie?

 

[Kurt Wagner]

..it worked for the first Blade film. Imagine if they turned Blade into a 90 minute PG 13 movie?

I can't imagine Blade without an R rating... how the heck can you have a vampire movie without the blood and gore?

I don't know how the size of the fanbase compares between Daredevil and Blade fans, but I suspect that DareDevil is more well know and the studio and producers were trying to find a middle ground and help bring in more of an audience outside the fans. In the end, the integrity of the story and characters get compromised.

I'm so glad that they didn't do that for Blade. But it's too bad for the DareDevil franchise because I think that could have been big... like X-Men, if they did it right.

 

[Dr. Fate]

Can you imagine if Daredevil was directed by Tim Burton?

 

[_BB_]

Can you imagine if Daredevil was directed by Tim Burton?

nonono.....can you imagine ANY film if it were to be remade and directed by Tim Burton

 

[Kurt Wagner]

nonono.....can you imagine ANY film if it were to be remade and directed by Tim Burton

um yeah... Planet of the Apes... which was an inferior remake

 

[skorponok]

Burton isn't the right kind of director for Daredevil...