Wow, this thread really caught on. Since Ive only posted maybe 5 times on this thread (that I started), Im putting everything I have to say on this subject into one monster post.
When I talk about the movie, Im naturally referring to the directors cut, which is basically the movie that Mark Steven Johnson wrote in the first place. The theatrical cut is, as usual, the studios version.
I'll break this up into sections in case youse all want to skim
THE DAREDEVIL MOVIE
Ive heard a lot of people whove said that they wouldve spread out the Elektra-Kingpin-Bullseye arc into at least two films. I thought MSJ did an admirable job (not a perfect one) at coming up with a decent story that fleshed out all of those characters in one film without things feeling crowded. If I was in charge of making it (and had no guarantee of a sequel), I am certain that I wouldve taken a similar all-or-nothing approach and tried to get Kingpin, Elektra, and Bullseye into my movie. But IMO, the director didnt quite succeed with translating all of those characters to the screen.
Plus, when I (finally) read Frank Millers run on the comic, I was surprised with how many little things from the comics are in the movie. (I cant name them now, because I dont have the trades with me.) The fact that MSJ is a lifelong fan of the comics really shows. To me, the Daredevil movie seemed like a love letter to the creators and the fans. If only his skills as a filmmaker matched his love for the character.
THE STORY
It can be a major drag to come up with a cool storyline for a superhero movie, especially when you have to deal with the origin story first. So MSJ chose a storyline that was mostly about Matt Murdock, attorney-at-law. A clever move, since the lawyer aspect of Daredevil is unique among superheroes. But even in the DC, the legal story shouldve been far better. As it is, it would barely pass as a B-story on The Practice. Another small gripe was that in the comics, Nelson & Murdock is a highly reputable legal team, while in the movie they seem to be on the fringes of poverty. If there had been a sequel, maybe they wouldve moved to a better office.
DAREDEVIL
Not many people have said that Ben Affleck was fine as Matt Murdock. Im not about to say he was either. However, I do empathize with MSJs choice to cast him. Hes got the good looks, the height, and the athleticism, everything a good super-hero performer ought to have (I recall reading interviews with him where he said as much). But the truth is that Daredevil is not the superhero for Ben Affleck to play. Maybe hes too recognizable, maybe hes too handsome, maybe slapping that mask on him takes away too much from his arsenal as an actor (maybe). Maybe he looked bad in the costume. I know that with the bad dye job and the shades, he didnt really look like Matt Murdock to me, just Ben Affleck with shades and a bad dye job.
What Im saying is: Yes, Ben Affleck was wrong for the part, but by the time that became clear, it was too late. The same goes for Elektra.
As for how the character was written, the Directors cut is way better at making Matt/DD into a cool and interesting guy as opposed to another Batman knockoff.
ELEKTRA
It wasnt Jennifer Garners performance of Elektra that I disliked so much as how she was written in the first place. The character in MSJs script could be considered a strong and somewhat complex female heroine, but its not the Elektra of the comics. His first mistake was probably throwing out her college relationship with Matt and opting instead for a more traditional meet cute (with a silly-ass fight thrown in). Maybe he decided the movie had enough flashbacks with young Matts origin story, and chose to move their first meeting to the present. The second mistake was making Elektra too normal. This I actually find more aggravating because (and this is on the DVD interviews), Frank Miller came up with Elektra because he was tired of superheroes always wanting normal girlfriends (why is Superman always pining after Lois when he could have Wonder Woman, he asked). Those choices I felt betrayed the character and the translation became a trainwreck. As for Garner, at the time she was cast, she had definitely had the pedigree to play a character like Elektra. But as the character was written too normal, so did Garner play her too normal. Apparently shes supposed to have a storied past (being a mixed martial artist, losing her mother), but none of it really comes through in her performance. And like Affleck, in the end Elektra was probably the wrong superheroine for her to portray.
So yeah, now I think it wouldve been a better idea to save Elektra for the sequel. (Its a nice consolation that Affleck & Garner met on this movie and got hitched and have lived happily ever after so far).
BULLSEYE
As a character, Bullseyes not that deep, so trying to make him any more than a badass killing machine who takes excessive pride in his work (as he is portrayed in the movie) wouldve been a mistake. A lot of thought went into the look of the character (with the gator-skin coat and the forehead scar), so any complaints I might have about Bullseye take a backseat to a billion other larger gripes.
KINGPIN
I give the director a lot of credit on this one, because you have to admit that casting Michael Clarke Duncan has to have been MSJs ballsiest move as director. If youre going to stray that much from the source material with the casting, youd better be damn sure youre casting the best man for the role. I think in this case he certainly was sure. Now, 5 years later, there are probably a number of hefty and intimidating actor/wrestlers who would fit the role better, but at the moment, I cant really name any that can match MCD for acting.
STICK
I was shocked when I learned that Stick wouldnt be in the movie, and appalled when Terrence Stamp was cast as a Stick-like character also named Stick in the Elektra movie. That was one of those ballsy moves by MSJ that didnt really work. Matt ought to have someone to teach him martial arts (especially after his Dad dies.) I suppose he wanted to speed up the origin story, or maybe he was tired of the mysterious miserly mentor who comes out of nowhere. If I was doing it, I wouldve had Stick in there, simply because I dont think I wouldve had any reason to take him out.
THE CG
The biggest complaint seems to be about the special effects and the overuse of CG. If the exact same movie was produced right now, I guarantee the CG would be perfect. Clearly MSJs vision of the movie included plenty of spectacular comic book-style stunts, and since Spider-Man had raised the bar so high, I imagine he felt compelled to deliver on that level. I absolutely agree that the film relied far too heavily on the CG effects, especially for the stunts. Maybe if they had taken more of a Batman-esque approach to the stunts, and kept the CG to a minimum, it wouldve been much better. But I dont think it wouldve been practical to do without it the CG completely.
The effects for the radar-scenes scenes, on the other hand were masterful, especially considering that in the comics there is no visual reference for how that should be shown on screen.
THE VIOLENCE
The Directors cut is essentially R-rated. However, MSJ said in the DC doc that he was surprised that his cut got that rating, which suggests that he was aiming for a PG-13 all along. If I was directing, I suspect I would try to do the same thing to draw in that younger crowd. Even without studio pressure to make a marketable (ie. PG-13) movie, I wonder if MSJ wouldve cut it down or left it as it is in the DC. The theatrical cut still has a few gruesome moments (Elektra getting stabbed, Bullseye shot thru the hands, Daredevil breaks Kingpins legs, Quesadas corpse carted away in pieces, etc.)
Still, I really dont think that it would have to be rated R in order to be a good movie. After all, Batman Begins was PG-13.
Thats pretty much all Ive got right now
The Jennifer Garner choice still perplexes me to this day. It's like casting Jaleel White as Black Panther.
t: 
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/s/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
