Daredevil reboot in the near future?

[A Necessary Evil]

True. I don't think it'd ever happen, but I'd like to see McGregor in a Marvel property. I think it would be really awesome if he played the antagonist, I've never seen him do that, AFAIK.

 

[cherokeesam]

Would Ewan McGregor commit to a TV show though? He seems more like a film actor. Maybe it would be better to go with someone less known and less expensive.

I think the days of film actor snobbery towards television are a thing of the past. There's a lot of prominent movie stars who actively campaign for meaty roles on cable and even Internet webseries, or whatever you call this new gray area cropping up around exclusives for Netflix and other apps/sites.

I have no idea how MacGregor personally views television roles, but it's safe to assume that almost nobody in the business looks at TV as a "step down" anymore.

 

[spider-neil]

C Michael Hall is the obvious and only sane choice
And with Dexter over with he is now free.

 

[Loki882]

Mark Strong has committed to a TV show, and Karl Urban, and Sean Bean to the first season of Game of Thrones. If they can commit to a TV show, I don't see why Ewan couldn't if the material is right. Especially since for now at least, it's supposed to be a relatively short series (10-13 episodes).

 

[Slushy]

The only movie I actually regret is Daredevil. It just kills me. I love that story, that character, and the fact that it got ****ed up the way it did stays with me. Maybe that’s part of the motivation to do Batman.

Shame even Ben Affleck hates it.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Huh. An interview a month in advance.

 

[Loki882]

Shame even Ben Affleck hates it.

Especially since the director's cut is actually really good.

 

[flickchick85]

I think people tend to overstate how good that director's cut is, to compensate all the people who overstate how terrible the theatrical cut is. Both were mediocre, imo. There are a few moments that are offensively bad, but mostly it's just alright. And the director's cut is a little better, sure, but still not exactly a great CBM.

 

[Loki882]

I think people tend to overstate how good that director's cut is, to compensate all the people who overstate how terrible the theatrical cut is. Both were mediocre, imo. There are a few moments that are offensively bad, but mostly it's just alright. And the director's cut is a little better, sure, but still not exactly a great CBM.

No, I genuinely believe that the DC is very good, no overstating there. If you don't agree, that's fine, but I stand by my opinion.

 

[Slushy]

Huh. An interview a month in advance.

Yes.

 

[gohei_]

So I was thinking about DD's powers; would you want them to originate from the radioactive exposure alone or should it be something that every man can learn, as according to what Stick tells Matt before he dies?

 

[Quasimod0]

Radioactive exposure, for sure.

But anyway, I just watched daredevil last night. I see how it could make a fantastic tv show. Ben afflleck was actually quite good in the role. He wasn't the problem with that movie.
The makers of this show definitely need to take some hints from Arrow

 

[metaphysician]

Exotic training. Though I wouldn't say *everybody* can learn it. Rather, Matt Murdoch is one of the few people with extreme natural potential; the supersenses are one potential aspect of it. This is why the Chaste showed interest in recruiting him.

 

[KangConquers]

I think people tend to overstate how good that director's cut is, to compensate all the people who overstate how terrible the theatrical cut is. Both were mediocre, imo. There are a few moments that are offensively bad, but mostly it's just alright. And the director's cut is a little better, sure, but still not exactly a great CBM.

Agreed. The Theatrical cut is a C-minus, Director's Cut is a C+. Some people act like it's day and night.

 

[Loki882]

Agreed. The Theatrical cut is a C-minus, Director's Cut is a C+. Some people act like it's day and night.

Because, in their opinion, it is. If you disagree, that's fine.

 

[the gael]

So I was thinking about DD's powers; would you want them to originate from the radioactive exposure alone or should it be something that every man can learn, as according to what Stick tells Matt before he dies?

Excellent question... The radioactive exposure for me. (the power by ninja training is another thing (after the Elektra revision) that I didn't like in Miller's "Man Without Fear")

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Agreed. The Theatrical cut is a C-minus, Director's Cut is a C+. Some people act like it's day and night.

Some people actually really like the ****ing thing, and I'm one of them.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I agree. I wasn't ever too partial to the original cut, but it really is night and day between the two.

 

[the gael]

The DD movie (Director's cut) wasn't a bad movie. It is probably the best non X Men movie from Fox (OK, being better than Elektra or Wolverine Origin isn't hard) It has the cringeworthy playground fight sequence but Affleck was decent (Of course, we could have found better for the role, but he did an ok and honest job. He took the role seriously and we can see that) But it suffered from the theatrical cut imposed by Fox, and, well, it's a movie from the pre Batman Begins years. Things have changed since then and our standart too (And it's normal and all good) I still like the Director's cut, even if I expect a way better DD serie.

 

[fixxxer]

I constantly hear that the Daredevil Director's Cut was appreciably better than the theatrical release... albeit to varying degrees as evidenced by the last few posts. However, can someone explain the tangible differences between the two? I haven't seen the Director's Cut, and only saw the original in theater, what, 10 years back. Needless to say, my reaction was "meh" at the time. Would it be worthwhile for me to watch the Director's Cut?

 

[Juicy J]

I haven't seen the directors cut in ages, but I remember it having a subplot about a murder case that Murdock was involved in in some capacity. It gave the movie a more grounded, gritty feel that was more in touch with the Daredevil character than Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner playing on see-saws (which, unfortunately, was still in the movie). It definitely did improve the film a pretty significant amount in my opinion.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I constantly hear that the Daredevil Director's Cut was appreciably better than the theatrical release... albeit to varying degrees as evidenced by the last few posts. However, can someone explain the tangible differences between the two? I haven't seen the Director's Cut, and only saw the original in theater, what, 10 years back. Needless to say, my reaction was "meh" at the time. Would it be worthwhile for me to watch the Director's Cut?

The biggest difference is the addition of a subplot involving a character named Dante Jackson, who stands accused of murder. After Matt and Foggy take on his case, the subsequent investigation eventually reveals a connection to Kingpin. The inclusion of the subplot and a few more scenes, along with the exclusion of some others, not only makes the film more centered around Matt (and diminishes the focus on Elektra) but it also helps address a major plothole in the theatrical cut's climax (ie the "word's out on the Kingpin" thing). The violence is also increased as well.

Some scenes that come to my mind in how they play differently in the director's cut is the resolution Matt and Elektra's rooftop date, and Matt's relationship with the priest.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Here's an in-depth look at the differences - http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1879

 

[Brian Braddock]

At the end of the day though, BOTH versions still feature the playground scene. Dock points for that. One of the worst, cringe-inducing sequences ever in a comic book movie.

 

[Silvermoth]

I liked the scene where matt could see elektra in the rain though. They get points for that