Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[hippie_hunter]

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.

But Disney isn't going to put out something as dark as the Nolan Batman films.

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

Someone needs to read Mark Waid's run on Daredevil.

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

Fox didn't have the rights, but ABC Studios was planning on making a Punisher television show and have it air on Fox. ABC Studios has produced plenty of shows that have aired on other networks such as Scrubs on NBC, Cougar Town on TBS, Clone High on MTV, etc.

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

Ummmmmmm.....Marvel Studios has come out a long time ago that the mandated rating was PG-13 and had no plans of making an R-rated film. They just came out last month saying that they'd rather spend the money on a tentpole film than a small niche R-rated film. And the Walt Disney Pictures banner does not do R-rated films.

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.

Again, there has been no Marvel Studios production that has gone under the Marvel Knights banner. And look at how well an R-rated Punisher did in the box office.

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

Disney was not allowed to put the Walt Disney Pictures banner on Avengers and they aren't allowed to for Iron Man 3. Under the deal with Paramount, Disney picked up the distribution rights but Paramount still got the money that they would have made otherwise if they did distribute it and the Paramount logo is supposed to be used for the film. The only credit that Disney was allowed to give themselves was at the end credits where they say that it was distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

The Disney logo is expected to first show up in Thor: the Dark World.

 

[hippie_hunter]

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...

The Dark Knight pretty much pushed the boundaries of what you can do with a PG-13 rating for a comic book movie. And going as dark as the Nolan Batman films just goes against Disney's corporate strategy.

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..

It's basically their way of saying "not gonna happen" without pissing off the fanboys.

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.

Reasons why it doesn't work:

1. Disney's corporate strategy doesn't allow for this sort of thing to occur. It's why they sold off Miramax pictures and why they're considering just flat out abandoning the Touchstone Pictures label. Disney wants to use only a few labels for their products (Disney, ABC, and ESPN) and they aren't going to associate them with R-rated material.

2. The Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group can only handle so much. They also distribute films by Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Marvel Studios, their own live action films like Tron, Alice in Wonderland, Oz: The Great and Powerful, etc., and films by DreamWorks Pictures. They have a pretty full slate to begin with and there is only so much room on the calendar as well with Disney's competitors.

3. R-rated Marvel films under the Marvel Knights banner have been huge bombs. Why would Disney want to invest in a line that hasn't worked?

 

[Mister Marvel]

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...

This! You don't need an R rating to make a great superhero movie. You just need someone who understands the character and makes an adaption that is true to the source material.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

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

Yeah, but it helps. t:

 

[kewlmatto]

I think by aiming for both dark/gritty and PG-13 they end up with a better film overall. It forces them to be creative rather than crass.

I love some of Frank Miller's work in comics, but he is disgustingly crass at times, with no narrative cause to be that way.

 

[chamber-music]

I think Marvel could make a Daredevil movie with a tone like Amazing Spider-Man

 

[Saitou Hajime]

There's this general misconception that Frank Miller's runs on the title were purely grim and gritty, when it was also full of funny and lighter elements. And even when it got really bleak and depressing there was always light at the end of the tunnel, unlike the runs in volume 2.

 

[Project862006]

I think Marvel could make a Daredevil movie with a tone like Amazing Spider-Man

not dark enough for me DD is marvel's batman imo batman begins tone is the way to go

and going by carnahan's wok on Narc and the grey i hope he gets the gig

 

[The Overlord]

But Disney isn't going to put out something as dark as the Nolan Batman films.

Well that's too bad, because that's the best way to go to make a DD movie that is interesting and effective.

Someone needs to read Mark Waid's run on Daredevil.

One little problem, Waid's run builds on previous events in DD's life and uses Marvel lore that the general audience would not know about, you need something more self contained, using DD's rogues gallery instead of borrowing villains from other heroes, which works in comics, but most of those villains are too central to other characters to be the main villain in a DD movie, I would rather see DD fight his own rogues gallery in his own movie.

I do think to make the best DD movie possible, you have to take aspects from the Miller run.

There's this general misconception that Frank Miller's runs on the title were purely grim and gritty, when it was also full of funny and lighter elements. And even when it got really bleak and depressing there was always light at the end of the tunnel, unlike the runs in volume 2.

Well its always darkest before the dawn, but it has to get dark before the dawn. Born Again is a dark story, with a somewhat happy ending, but it had to get dark for the happy ending to mean anything. I think DD needs a darker and more serious tone then the other Marvel movies. Heck part the reason I didn't like the Captain America movie, is because I thought the tone was not serious enough and I think Cap should have a more serious tone then say Thor.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

One little problem, Waid's run builds on previous events in DD's life and uses Marvel lore that the general audience would not know about, you need something more self contained, using DD's rogues gallery instead of borrowing villains from other heroes, which works in comics, but most of those villains are too central to other characters to be the main villain in a DD movie, I would rather see DD fight his own rogues gallery in his own movie.

Kesel's run did that, and his tone is comparable to Waid's.

I do think to make the best DD movie possible, you have to take aspects from the Miller run.

But Miller's runs contain elements not foreign to Marvel Studios' films, as well as grim and grit. What some people consider as the "ideal" DD tone seems more reminiscent of Volume 2.

Well its always darkest before the dawn, but it has to get dark before the dawn. Born Again is a dark story, with a somewhat happy ending, but it had to get dark for the happy ending to mean anything. I think DD needs a darker and more serious tone then the other Marvel movies.

But Born Again isn't the norm in DD, which what made it revolutionary to begin with. The problem is that succeeding runs (but mostly Volume 2) have aped BA so much while excluding the other elements that Miller brought to the title that grim and gritty have been flanderized in DD, not unlike dark and edgy being flanderized leading to the Dark Age.

 

[The Overlord]

Kesel's run did that, and his tone is comparable to Waid's.

But Miller's runs contain elements not foreign to Marvel Studios' films, as well as grim and grit. What some people consider as the "ideal" DD tone seems more reminiscent of Volume 2.

But Born Again isn't the norm in DD, which what made it revolutionary to begin with. The problem is that succeeding runs (but mostly Volume 2) have aped BA so much while excluding the other elements that Miller brought to the title that grim and gritty have been flanderized in DD, not unlike dark and edgy being flanderized leading to the Dark Age.

I liked volume 2 though, so I don't see a huge problem in taking elements from it. A good DD movie should take elements from a bunch of different runs, Dark Knight Rises took elements from several different stories. Even Bendis' run had some humor in it, I liked that scene where Stilt-Man quit.

Even the regular Miller run had some pretty dark moments to it, almost every story with Bullseye was pretty grim, DD playing Russian Roulette with him, Bullseye murdering Elektra, Bullseye going insane and killing people at random, usually when he showed up things were not funny. Plus there was that story line with the kids over doing on drugs and the gang lord who is selling the drugs was able to beat the system, sure he got caught doing something else, but it made Matt question the justice system. Not mention Elektra stabbed Urich with sai, put DD's life into a bear trap and had life and death struggle with a ninja assassin. Sure there were funny and cute moments Foggy and Turk and I have no problem having some comic relief to lighten things, but many of the aspects of that run were dark.

 

[Nelson/Murdock]

I wish we could have a moratorium on the word gritty, even if it's not for very long.

And reboot too, seeing as I'm wishing for things I'll never get.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

The Dark Knight pretty much pushed the boundaries of what you can do with a PG-13 rating for a comic book movie. And going as dark as the Nolan Batman films just goes against Disney's corporate strategy.


It's basically their way of saying "not gonna happen" without pissing off the fanboys.


Reasons why it doesn't work:

1. Disney's corporate strategy doesn't allow for this sort of thing to occur. It's why they sold off Miramax pictures and why they're considering just flat out abandoning the Touchstone Pictures label. Disney wants to use only a few labels for their products (Disney, ABC, and ESPN) and they aren't going to associate them with R-rated material.

2. The Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group can only handle so much. They also distribute films by Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Marvel Studios, their own live action films like Tron, Alice in Wonderland, Oz: The Great and Powerful, etc., and films by DreamWorks Pictures. They have a pretty full slate to begin with and there is only so much room on the calendar as well with Disney's competitors.

3. R-rated Marvel films under the Marvel Knights banner have been huge bombs. Why would Disney want to invest in a line that hasn't worked?

But Disney isn't going to put out something as dark as the Nolan Batman films.


Someone needs to read Mark Waid's run on Daredevil.


Fox didn't have the rights, but ABC Studios was planning on making a Punisher television show and have it air on Fox. ABC Studios has produced plenty of shows that have aired on other networks such as Scrubs on NBC, Cougar Town on TBS, Clone High on MTV, etc.



Ummmmmmm.....Marvel Studios has come out a long time ago that the mandated rating was PG-13 and had no plans of making an R-rated film. They just came out last month saying that they'd rather spend the money on a tentpole film than a small niche R-rated film. And the Walt Disney Pictures banner does not do R-rated films.


Again, there has been no Marvel Studios production that has gone under the Marvel Knights banner. And look at how well an R-rated Punisher did in the box office.


Disney was not allowed to put the Walt Disney Pictures banner on Avengers and they aren't allowed to for Iron Man 3. Under the deal with Paramount, Disney picked up the distribution rights but Paramount still got the money that they would have made otherwise if they did distribute it and the Paramount logo is supposed to be used for the film. The only credit that Disney was allowed to give themselves was at the end credits where they say that it was distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

The Disney logo is expected to first show up in Thor: the Dark World.

We will see i guess. I just think they're focused on now, and not later at the moment with that kinda thing. I think it's an incredibly smart move to create a production film for more dark/violent/drama filled characters and it really wouldn't shock me if we eventually get a Marvel Knights label for it.

 

[BlackFox]

It would be great if the Devil did come back, he is an excellent Marvel character that in the right hands would work a treat. Include the Punisher and I would be in!!

 

[Project862006]

DD fans would be very pleased if they saw the things I've seen of late. Very, VERY pleased...

https://***********/carnojoe/status/233033838027210754

seems like he is closer to a deal than expected

 

[Saitou Hajime]

We'll see... this wouldn't be the first time big promises regarding DD were made in Twitter.

 

[Dark Raven]

https://***********/carnojoe/status/233033838027210754

seems like he is closer to a deal than expected

What kind of deal though? A deal to make the movie with Joe Carnahan and Fox (to start filming before Oct 10), a deal to have the deadline extended, or a deal to go back to Marvel?

 

[Project862006]

well he is fox's top choice to direct

and rights still have 2 months and they have a ready script so i think they can make the deadline just hire joe which i think will be announced any day now and then start the casting process

 

[marcvader]

All the casting in two months? Location scouting and sets built as well? In two months no less. I say that's a tall order.

 

[Project862006]

how big do you think DD is lol this is'nt lord of the rings

Born again could be made for like 100 million if not less hell the town was made for like 40 million

and born again storyline is a very intimate tale i doubt it needs more than some city locations for hell's kitchen

 

[Dr Tactics]

how big do you think DD is lol this is'nt lord of the rings

And I hope it wont be like the Blair Witch Project cause that's what we'll get with less the 2 months.. smh. I gotta wonder sometimes if you even believe what's typed from your keyboard

 

[cherokeesam]

And I hope it wont be like the Blair Witch Project cause that's what we'll get with less the 2 months.. smh. I gotta wonder sometimes if you even believe what's typed from your keyboard

How do you know what the 2-month deadline entails? AFAWK, the terms of the contract may dictate only that Fox has to have a working script, a producer and a director (it's already got all of those) by the deadline. As long as DD goes "into production" by that date, they can likely continue to add casting, sets and locations, rewrites, shoots and reshoots for as long as they feel like it.

 

[Project862006]

And I hope it wont be like the Blair Witch Project cause that's what we'll get with less the 2 months.. smh. I gotta wonder sometimes if you even believe what's typed from your keyboard

umm do you not understand the deadline? it does'nt mean they have to finish the movie by oct 10th they just need to get in front of camera's by then to keep the rights they can shoot for 6 months and release it by 2014 if they want

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

https://***********/carnojoe/status/233033838027210754

seems like he is closer to a deal than expected

Oooh... since he says, we would be pleased, that must mean FOX will give the rights up and MS will produce the movie.
No fan in his right mind would want FOX to screw up another CBM.

 

[Project862006]

seeing how well first class turned out which imo was superior than marvel's 2011 outing of cap and thor i want fox to keep it

marvel wont do DD dark and gritty and you know it especially dark gritty,70's frank miller born again