Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[TheGuy]

Feels good that Fox is in a tight position.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'd love to see an adaption of the 2 part arc with Spidey and DD in SMTAS.

The two just mesh well. Its a good teamup

 

[The Ironstar]

Imagine Punisher, Daredevil, Heroes for Hire, Daughters of the Dragon, Moon Knight, Shang-Chi and Blade under the same label of Marvel Knights.

Marvel Knights directed by
Guillermo Del Toro!!!

 

[Aztec]

based on what they got a script and zeroing on a director

yes deadline is 2 months away but vaughn was signed on about 2-3 months before he shot first class after singer left project

You can't be serious? You do understand that finishing a script (they only have a draft), hiring a director, finding a crew, costumes, location scouting, hiring a cast (which includes figuring out scheduling), stunt coordination, pre-production, etc. takes WAY more than 2 months for a film like this in the year 2012. Unless they want a direct to YouTube level garbage film, there is no way they are going to be able to get DD in front of cameras by 10/10. The rights are as good as reverted at this point.

Why do you think Marvel waited til now to make them the Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil offer? Because they KNEW that Fox couldn't make the film by now; so Marvel took a shot in the dark.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You can't be serious? You do understand that finishing a script (they only have a draft), hiring a director, finding a crew, costumes, location scouting, hiring a cast (which includes figuring out scheduling), stunt coordination, pre-production, etc. takes WAY more than 2 months for a film like this in the year 2012. Unless they want a direct to YouTube level garbage film, there is no way they are going to be able to get DD in front of cameras by 10/10. The rights are as good as reverted at this point.

Why do you think Marvel waited til now to make them the Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil offer? Because they KNEW that Fox couldn't make the film by now; so Marvel took a shot in the dark.

yeah.... and Vaughn isn't a valid excuse.. everything was planned already before vaughn left for the most part. DareDevil is pretty much starting from scratch

 

[roach]

You can't be serious? You do understand that finishing a script (they only have a draft), hiring a director, finding a crew, costumes, location scouting, hiring a cast (which includes figuring out scheduling), stunt coordination, pre-production, etc. takes WAY more than 2 months for a film like this in the year 2012. Unless they want a direct to YouTube level garbage film, there is no way they are going to be able to get DD in front of cameras by 10/10. The rights are as good as reverted at this point.

Why do you think Marvel waited til now to make them the Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil offer? Because they KNEW that Fox couldn't make the film by now; so Marvel took a shot in the dark.

The Fox/Marvel offer has been refuted

 

[Project862006]

You can't be serious? You do understand that finishing a script (they only have a draft), hiring a director, finding a crew, costumes, location scouting, hiring a cast (which includes figuring out scheduling), stunt coordination, pre-production, etc. takes WAY more than 2 months for a film like this in the year 2012. Unless they want a direct to YouTube level garbage film, there is no way they are going to be able to get DD in front of cameras by 10/10. The rights are as good as reverted at this point.

Why do you think Marvel waited til now to make them the Galactus and Silver Surfer for Daredevil offer? Because they KNEW that Fox couldn't make the film by now; so Marvel took a shot in the dark.

if they could'nt make deadline do you honestly think they would be looking at hiring new director

yes they plan on hiring him for 2 months just for fun till rights go back

they obviously have more than a draft LOL

 

[Project862006]

yeah.... and Vaughn isn't a valid excuse.. everything was planned already before vaughn left for the most part. DareDevil is pretty much starting from scratch

how so?

david slade was on DD for over a year before he departed due to scheduling

they obviously have more than enough work done to start filming if he was on that long

 

[Saitou Hajime]

if they could'nt make deadline do you honestly think they would be looking at hiring new director

yes they plan on hiring him for 2 months just for fun till rights go back

they obviously have more than a draft LOL

Well, it's not like anybody expected Fox to just roll over and die. Their past history of being as ridiculously obstinate as possible pretty much dictates that they drag this thing out to the bitter end.

how so?

david slade was on DD for over a year before he departed due to scheduling

they obviously have more than enough work done to start filming if he was on that long

All Slade's tenure on DD ever told us was that NOTHING was going on. That's why he left in the first place.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

how so?

david slade was on DD for over a year before he departed due to scheduling

they obviously have more than enough work done to start filming if he was on that long

because cast, filming location, complete script, crew, producers, etc were already done when vaughn left.

 

[cherokeesam]

because cast, filming location, complete script, crew, producers, etc were already done when vaughn left.

Really? Slade's DD had a cast attached? Do tell....I hadn't heard.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Really? Slade's DD had a cast attached? Do tell....I hadn't heard.

he didn't. which is the point im making :-P. Project asked why he couldn't compare this to vaughn and how they can push out a film in 2months. I said Vaughn had that all lined up for X3

 

[hippie_hunter]

it'd be the smartest route to take. They already have 2 films with the production label of it (GRSoV and PWZ). Which means the label already exists... might as well keep it around for a studio subcategory

I think the Marvel Knights line is more for films that aren't Marvel Studios productions while making them darker. It kinda goes against the Disney run Marvel Studios.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I think the Marvel Knights line is more for films that aren't Marvel Studios productions while making them darker. It kinda goes against the Disney run Marvel Studios.

except that entire concept is only said by comic fans... i've yet to see marvel studios (who is a separate entity of disney... like the muppets, pixar, and touchtone pictures) say "we will only do "family friendly films, and wont go dark"

MS created the MK logo as a production category for both Ghost rider and Punisher. I highly doubt they did that for no reason... and once GR reverts... the only other studio with a MK property is fox with DD...

with Marvel still being it's own studio, there's really no reason to believe they're never going to do darker films... or else why keep the rights to punisher and blade? sell them and at least you can make a profit.

 

[roach]

except that entire concept is only said by comic fans... i've yet to see marvel studios (who is a separate entity of disney... like the muppets, pixar, and touchtone pictures) say "we will only do "family friendly films, and wont go dark"

MS created the MK logo as a production category for both Ghost rider and Punisher. I highly doubt they did that for no reason... and once GR reverts... the only other studio with a MK property is fox with DD...

with Marvel still being it's own studio, there's really no reason to believe they're never going to do darker films... or else why keep the rights to punisher and blade? sell them and at least you can make a profit.

Who is gonna buy the rights to Punisher and Blade after Punisher did poorly at the BO and Blade couldnt find an audience for his tv show????

Marvel isnt going to go dark because they want everything to tie into their Avengers.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Who is gonna buy the rights to Punisher and Blade after Punisher did poorly at the BO and Blade couldnt find an audience for his tv show????

some one would... even if just to sit on them.

there's truly no reason to believe that just because Disney owns marvel... that nothing will be dark. or R rated...

Disney also owns

-ABC (which has plenty of dark shows and adult situations)
-ESPN
-Touchstone Pictures
-Hollywood Pictures
-Hollywood Records yes "Queen" is on that record label
and Disney also use to own Miramax, which was nothing but mostly R rated films...

 

[hippie_hunter]

except that entire concept is only said by comic fans... i've yet to see marvel studios (who is a separate entity of disney... like the muppets, pixar, and touchtone pictures) say "we will only do "family friendly films, and wont go dark"

Actually Marvel Studios has come out saying that they really don't have any intention of going all that dark. PG-13 is the mandated rating from the studio.

And while Marvel Studios is a separate entity within Disney, their films will be distributed by the Walt Disney Pictures banner which will never go above a PG-13 rating and wants to make movies that have mass appeal as opposed to small niche audiences that most dark movies would end up doing. Disney isn't going to use the Touchstone Pictures banner to release a Marvel film.

MS created the MK logo as a production category for both Ghost rider and Punisher. I highly doubt they did that for no reason... and once GR reverts... the only other studio with a MK property is fox with DD...

Daredevil is not a Marvel Knights property. The Daredevil films were made well before the Marvel Knights label was ever conceived. The Marvel Knights banner was used for smaller scale characters that typically use R-ratings in studios that have licensed the characters. It really isn't meant to be used with the PG-13 Marvel Studios films.

with Marvel still being it's own studio, there's really no reason to believe they're never going to do darker films... or else why keep the rights to punisher and blade? sell them and at least you can make a profit.

Marvel has other intentions for those characters. Take the Punisher for example, ABC Studios is making a god awful television show for Fox with the character. They're not just going to sell the rights to characters anymore when they can probably find some use for them.

some one would... even if just to sit on them.

there's truly no reason to believe that just because Disney owns marvel... that nothing will be dark. or R rated...

Ummmmm.....yes it is a good reason to state as fact that under the management of the Walt Disney Company, Marvel Studios will never make an R-rated film.

The Walt Disney Pictures banner is never going to be associated with an R-rated movie and Disney has positioned themselves as a brand for people of all ages.

Disney also owns

-ABC (which has plenty of dark shows and adult situations)
-ESPN
-Touchstone Pictures
-Hollywood Pictures
-Hollywood Records yes "Queen" is on that record label
and Disney also use to own Miramax, which was nothing but mostly R rated films...

You're looking at the Disney of yesterday and not the Disney of today. You know why Disney sold off the Miramax label? Because it didn't fit in with their corporate strategy. Disney has all but abandoned the Touchstone Pictures label, using it mostly to only to distribute DreamWorks Pictures films. Disney is currently deciding whether or not to sell Touchstone and if they weren't distributing DreamWorks, I guarantee that label would have already been ditched.

While ABC shows stuff primarily for an adult audience, the stuff they put out is still within the PG-13 territory. And your ESPN mention has almost no relevance.

 

[The Overlord]

Actually Marvel Studios has come out saying that they really don't have any intention of going all that dark. PG-13 is the mandated rating from the studio.

And while Marvel Studios is a separate entity within Disney, their films will be distributed by the Walt Disney Pictures banner which will never go above a PG-13 rating and wants to make movies that have mass appeal as opposed to small niche audiences that most dark movies would end up doing. Disney isn't going to use the Touchstone Pictures banner to release a Marvel film.

Daredevil is not a Marvel Knights property. The Daredevil films were made well before the Marvel Knights label was ever conceived. The Marvel Knights banner was used for smaller scale characters that typically use R-ratings in studios that have licensed the characters. It really isn't meant to be used with the PG-13 Marvel Studios films.

Marvel has other intentions for those characters. Take the Punisher for example, ABC Studios is making a god awful television show for Fox with the character. They're not just going to sell the rights to characters anymore when they can probably find some use for them.


Ummmmm.....yes it is a good reason to state as fact that under the management of the Walt Disney Company, Marvel Studios will never make an R-rated film.

The Walt Disney Pictures banner is never going to be associated with an R-rated movie and Disney has positioned themselves as a brand for people of all ages.

You're looking at the Disney of yesterday and not the Disney of today. You know why Disney sold off the Miramax label? Because it didn't fit in with their corporate strategy. Disney has all but abandoned the Touchstone Pictures label, using it mostly to only to distribute DreamWorks Pictures films. Disney is currently deciding whether or not to sell Touchstone and if they weren't distributing DreamWorks, I guarantee that label would have already been ditched.

While ABC shows stuff primarily for an adult audience, the stuff they put out is still within the PG-13 territory. And your ESPN mention has almost no relevance.

I think Fox passed on the Punisher TV show.

The thing is Daredevil could be dark and still have a PG-13 rating. The recent Batman movies were dark and had a PG-13 rating. The thing is Daredevil works best as a dark character, Silver Age Daredevil hasn't that good, Daredevil only really came into his own in the 80s, when he was given more noir environment.

Trying to make a light hearted DD, would be like trying to make a dark FF movie, it misses the point. I suppose that might be a drawback to Marvel getting the rights back, they may not do anything with DD. Which would be a shame, because there is a lot potential in the character, as this article points out:

http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/socialvoices/blogpost.aspx?post=213aba93-9e28-4f45-ae07-95a6b497243c

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Fox didn't have the punisher rights....

And again.... There's no indication that marvel under Disney won't do an R film

 

[The Overlord]

Fox didn't have the punisher rights....

And again.... There's no indication that marvel under Disney won't do an R film

Marvel was working with Fox to make a Punisher Tv show, but Fox passed on it:

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/05/16/fox-passes-on-the-punisher/

Also when has Disney itself ever released a R rated film under the Dinsey banner?

Plus I don't think DD has to be rated R, you could make a good PG-13 rated DD movie. Most DD stories could be done in PG-13 movie.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Actually Marvel Studios has come out saying that they really don't have any intention of going all that dark. PG-13 is the mandated rating from the studio.

And while Marvel Studios is a separate entity within Disney, their films will be distributed by the Walt Disney Pictures banner which will never go above a PG-13 rating and wants to make movies that have mass appeal as opposed to small niche audiences that most dark movies would end up doing. Disney isn't going to use the Touchstone Pictures banner to release a Marvel film.

Daredevil is not a Marvel Knights property. The Daredevil films were made well before the Marvel Knights label was ever conceived. The Marvel Knights banner was used for smaller scale characters that typically use R-ratings in studios that have licensed the characters. It really isn't meant to be used with the PG-13 Marvel Studios films.

Marvel has other intentions for those characters. Take the Punisher for example, ABC Studios is making a god awful television show for Fox with the character. They're not just going to sell the rights to characters anymore when they can probably find some use for them.


Ummmmm.....yes it is a good reason to state as fact that under the management of the Walt Disney Company, Marvel Studios will never make an R-rated film.

The Walt Disney Pictures banner is never going to be associated with an R-rated movie and Disney has positioned themselves as a brand for people of all ages.

You're looking at the Disney of yesterday and not the Disney of today. You know why Disney sold off the Miramax label? Because it didn't fit in with their corporate strategy. Disney has all but abandoned the Touchstone Pictures label, using it mostly to only to distribute DreamWorks Pictures films. Disney is currently deciding whether or not to sell Touchsto
ne and if they weren't distributing DreamWorks, I guarantee that label would have already been ditched.

While ABC shows stuff primarily for an adult audience, the stuff they put out is still within the PG-13 territory. And your ESPN mention has almost no relevance.

The marvel knights label would be a second house specifically for such things. And not follow the same rules as main stream marvel. Characters like punisher will bring in more money with an R than pg13.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Marvel was working with Fox to make a Punisher Tv show, but Fox passed on it:

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/05/16/fox-passes-on-the-punisher/

Also when has Disney itself ever released a R rated film under the Dinsey banner?

Plus I don't think DD has to be rated R, you could make a good PG-13 rated DD movie. Most DD stories could be done in PG-13 movie.

And where did the Disney castle or the name Disney show up in the before credits of avengers? its pretty simple... Disney would back the Disney logo off the marvel knights films

 

[spideymouse]

Fox didn't have the punisher rights....

And again.... There's no indication that marvel under Disney won't do an R film

Well... there's this...

16:21 Talks about the possibility of doing smaller characters in smaller budget films that could be rated R. He says they discuss it, but to get through all the noise of all the other films that are released they have to spend a lot of money. If they’re spending that money, they’re gonna want to spend it on a tentpole film.

Unless they 1) get a lot more money, 2) get a bigger staff to support more smaller budget films, or 3) believe an R-rated film can be a tentpole film. I don't think that inherently they are against making R-rated movies as any type of family-friendly philosophy, it's more that they are all about making profits from their films, and right now it does not look like they believe R-rated films will be profitable at this point in their young history as a movie studio.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You also don't need a R rating to tell a proper "Dark and Gritty" themed film... look at the Nolan films... especially "The Dark Knight"

you don't need Boobs, Gore, or "F-Words" all over the place to make a good film...

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Well... there's this...
Unless they 1) get a lot more money, 2) get a bigger staff to support more smaller budget films, or 3) believe an R-rated film can be a tentpole film. I don't think that inherently they are against making R-rated movies as any type of family-friendly philosophy, it's more that they are all about making profits from their films, and right now it does not look like they believe R-rated films will be profitable at this point in their young history as a movie studio.

see that doesn't make sense to me... why do they "HAVE" to spend alot of money? We already know they're making smaller lower budget films (Ant-Man) why would the R rating suddenly need to be more of an expense? that part has me puzzled. the smaller films are already not going to be considered a tentpole film...

and i'm not talking persay about "right now" clearly there's no current room for the MK characters..

but after Avengers 2 when hopefully the studio has made quite a profit.. why not expand? I think from a logical standpoint it makes perfect sense. Call the production studio "Marvel Knights" make it the "touchstone pictures" of the Marvel studios.. and gear those films towards more of an adult crowd. Don't put disney's name on anything besides maybe the end credits, and just let it breath and do it's own thing.