Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[Hunter Rider]

That is really cool.

 

[KenK]

Carnahan's Daredevil would be the shot in the arm this genre needs post Avengers and Nolan. Oh well.

Can we say "Hyperbole"?

 

[Suzanne78]

That was pretty badass.

 

[Dark Raven]

Carnahan's Daredevil would be the shot in the arm this genre needs post Avengers and Nolan. Oh well.

But instead of that, Fox has shot themselves in the foot.

That video was pretty cool btw.

 

[Chewy]

Neat.

 

[roach]

wow

 

[spideyboy_1111]

as cool as the video is.. and while i like the 70s look... the film also comes off like Grindhouse... which isn't exactly a good thing.....

I actually want DD set in modern day.. but i like the idea of Hell's Kitchen being a dilapidated part of NYC that still very much has alot of 70s architecture and lights and such. They style can still feel 70's without having cheesey disco music playing in the background and such...

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I really hope FOX announces the release date for DD this year so the FOX haters can start vacating this thread.

Wishful fanboy dreaming ("I consider FF and DD to be in development hell and hope their rights return to MS soon.")

It's such a relief to know the DD reboot will be a FOX film.

You'll get it in the summer of 2015 ("When is this reboot going to get released? I want more daredevil!").

Time ain't "ticking". What a load.
And Slade hasn't wandered off anywhere. He's twittering about the movie for Christ's sake.
There's TONS of interest from FOX regarding this film.

There has never been any lack of interest on the studio's part towards rebooting DD & The FF. If there was, they'd be back at Marvel and both films wouldn't have writers and directors working on them. Its just common sense.

I guess Nostradamus here thought he had the Delorean, when in fact is was more like Sliders.

 

[PWN3R]

[YT]_j5rb3R5iWs&[/YT]

Now this is just flat out sexy as hell. I'm through the roof that DD is back with Marvel, but this would have been an interesting risk.

 

[Saint]

I'd watch the crap out of that. I want DD back at Marvel, but if I were Marvel I'd pay attention to this and start talking to this guy.

They can put that on the list right above talking to Thomas Jane about Punisher.

 

[Punisher_MAX]

i dont want DD set in the 70's...i want all the MCU movies to be set within the same time.

 

[Chewy]

They can put that on the list right above talking to Thomas Jane about Punisher.

So second to last, then?

 

[TheVileOne]

Um, no. A pitch is just that --- a pitch. It's not a property. It's just some guy saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if....." If they bought a *treatment* with Carnahan's story, that's a property.

As for Marvel getting DD back into the fold: it's pretty much all over but the cryin' (or shoutin'). And I'm personally glad as hell that Marvel gets him (and, presumably, Elektra and all associated characters with). But I'm really hoping Marvel starts moving on these "Marvel Knights" characters soon, because there's enormous potential there, either as television properties or as smaller budget feature films that could be managed by a Marvel Studio subsidiary. We know now that Marvel owns Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Blade, Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra, Moon Knight, Cloak & Dagger, Mockingbird, Jessica Jones, and plenty more "street level" heroes; I'd hate to see these guys wasted while Marvel concentrates solely on 2-3 big budget tentpoles with the A & B-listers in the larger "four color" universe.

Studios can buy and copyright pitches just so you know.

 

[TheVileOne]

Latest from Variety:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057848

'Daredevil' falling back to Marvel
No extension for Fox; Carnahan's take 'up in smoke'
By RACHEL ABRAMS, VARIETY STAFF
With its extension request rejected, 20th Century Fox will have no choice but to allow the rights to "Daredevil" to go back to Marvel, marking the second major character to revert back to the superhero shingle since Disney bought it in 2009.
Under the current terms of the agreement, Fox has to put the pic into production by Oct. 10. But late Monday night, Joe Carnahan, Fox's pick to direct the film, indicated that the actioner wasn't happening at the studio.

"Think my idea for a certain retro, red-suited, Serpico-styled superhero went up in smoke today kids," Carnahan tweeted, followed by "We shall see. Time is NOT on anyone's side."

Marvel will regain control of the character sometime after the October deadline passes, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

The Punisher, which had been at Lionsgate, marked the first character to revert to Marvel since its 2009 sale to Disney. The Mouse House cannot exploit characters including Spider-Man, Venom, Ghost Rider, the X-Men, Wolverine, Fantastic Four, the Silver Surfer, Elektra and Deadpool because the those characters were already licensed to other studios. Rights-holders that can prove films are in active development retain those rights in perpetuity.

Marvel began fully financing its own slate of projects in 2005, beginning with "The Incredible Hulk" and "Iron Man." Before that, Marvel licensed its characters out to other studios, with vampire hunter Blade the first to get the bigscreen treatment by New Line in 1998.

Marvel licensed Spider-Man to Sony in 1999, while Thor had once been set up at Sony before Paramount picked up the rights in 2006.

Contact Rachel Abrams at [email protected]

Writer says a lot of things that don't make sense. She says Paramount had the rights to Thor and that Marvel can't exploit Elektra. Umm doesn't Elektra count as part of Daredevil? Terrible writer.

 

[cherokeesam]

I love how people insist on holding to this belief that just because Disney's involved Marvel couldn't do a dark and gritty Daredevil movie. Disney owns a number of other film production companies (Miramax, Hollywood, Touchstone), all of which have produced R-Rated films. The problem a lot of you guys seem to have is that you believe dark and gritty MUST equal R-Rated. Were any of Nolan's Batfilms rated R?

And even Disney themselves have put out some flicks folks would consider "dark". The Black Hole was bleak as hell!!

If Marvel as a studio wanted to do something dark and edgy with Daredevil, I doubt Disney would have any real issue, assuming they kept the budget low enough, which wouldn't be all that difficult with a character like Daredevil.

Amen.

Not to mention the fact that people who think ABC doesn't put out TV shows that Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver wouldn't dare let the kiddies watch are deluding themselves.

Marvel Knights doesn't have to be R-rated fare. (That's the territory of Marvel MAX, anyway, not Marvel Knights.) It only has to be PG-13. Neither Marvel, ABC nor Disney would have any problem with that.

 

[cherokeesam]

Studios can buy and copyright pitches just so you know.

Since when? You sure as hell couldn't when I was pitching screenplays on up to '05 or so.

Latest from Variety:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057848



Writer says a lot of things that don't make sense. She says Paramount had the rights to Thor and that Marvel can't exploit Elektra. Umm doesn't Elektra count as part of Daredevil? Terrible writer.

Yeah, if Daredevil belonged to Fox, so did Elektra. Same studio, same distributor, etc.

 

[Sawyer]

I love how people insist on holding to this belief that just because Disney's involved Marvel couldn't do a dark and gritty Daredevil movie. Disney owns a number of other film production companies (Miramax, Hollywood, Touchstone), all of which have produced R-Rated films. The problem a lot of you guys seem to have is that you believe dark and gritty MUST equal R-Rated. Were any of Nolan's Batfilms rated R?

And even Disney themselves have put out some flicks folks would consider "dark". The Black Hole was bleak as hell!!

If Marvel as a studio wanted to do something dark and edgy with Daredevil, I doubt Disney would have any real issue, assuming they kept the budget low enough, which wouldn't be all that difficult with a character like Daredevil.

That's why I roll my eyes in the thread talking about the possibility of a Batman TV series. There are people in there who absolutely insist that only a network like HBO could do it.

He's not Punisher. Batman doesn't need the HBO/Rated R treatment to work. And neither does DD.

 

[TheVileOne]

Why don't we worry about what they do with Daredevil when that becomes a reality? Rights haven't even officially reverted yet.

I think Carnahan's idea sounds neat but IMHO would Fox have even committed to that?

Just remember guys this was not far off from what Johnson's take was supposed to be when this started in 2002. It was supposed to be a dark and gritty crime film that was supposed to look and be shot like Se7en. Instead they turned it into this weird romantic comedy with bad Spider-Man-esque visual FX and the gritty parts were muddled in bad writing and the filmmakers were un-willing to commit to that style. A style we'd basically see Nolan commit to with the Batman movies.

 

[TheVileOne]

Since when? You sure as hell couldn't when I was pitching screenplays on up to '05 or so.

If it's written down or presented in a fixed medium or they paid him to do a pitch of the property for them than they can copyright it.

Yeah, if Daredevil belonged to Fox, so did Elektra. Same studio, same distributor, etc.

She's saying Elektra still belongs to Fox essentially.

 

[MadVillainy]

I actually want DD set in modern day.. but i like the idea of Hell's Kitchen being a dilapidated part of NYC that still very much has alot of 70s architecture and lights and such. They style can still feel 70's without having cheesey disco music playing in the background and such...

This x1000

That's why I roll my eyes in the thread talking about the possibility of a Batman TV series. There are people in there who absolutely insist that only a network like HBO could do it.

He's not Punisher. Batman doesn't need the HBO/Rated R treatment to work. And neither does DD.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

If it's written down or presented in a fixed medium or they paid him to do a pitch of the property for them than they can copyright it.



She's saying Elektra still belongs to Fox essentially.

she's wrong though.. elektra was part of the DD deal.. which is why the rights were up this year, and not a few years ago

 

[TheVileOne]

she's wrong though.. elektra was part of the DD deal.. which is why the rights were up this year, and not a few years ago

This is why I hate Variety. They are a pay wall site and they write all this erroneous, inaccurate BS where the writers clearly don't do their research or check their facts.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm actually happy that project didn't get off the grounds. Really don't understand the whole 70s aspect. For Punisher? It would DEFINITELY work. But Daredevil? I just can't take him seriously while hearing "super fly."

 

[Punisher_MAX]

im in the minority but...i actually liked the DD movie...i mean i groaned at some parts but i think they were on the right track. i havent seen the Director's Cut so...i hear that one is way better...whats different?

 

[A Necessary Evil]

As glad as I am about this news...we still won't be getting a DD movie anytime soon.