Daredevil reboot: official discussion thread - Part 2

[Vaportrail]

Why did you have a Fox logo at the beginning still? Or why didn't you have a Fox logo with a big strikethrough over it? Or the Marvel Studios logo smashing through the Fox logo?

Haha, just didn't strike me to be that vindictive I guess.

 

[Mr. Dent]

^thats how i feel we could of had a 70's serpico/taxi driver dark toned DD with crime lords,riots,maybe even son sam killer

now we may have DD reduced to stark's lawyer in a tiny cameo or if they reboot it it may be like 8 more years away

marvel has

thor 2
cap 2
avengers 2
im 3
GOTG
Ant Man

and even black panther and doctor stranger

DD wont be touched for a long time

I recall Kevin Feige talking about ideas they had for rebooting DD after Fox lost the rights a while ago. I think it's a property they're definitely interested in getting out the door. If by a "long time" you mean 4-5 years, then I'd agree. That said, Marvel really has to figure out how to get these individual films out faster. They've got so many films on the back-burner I can't see how they'll get them all out and still tie them all into the Avengers, or rather, why they would need to tie them all into the Avengers. Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Blade, Punisher, Runaways, and now DD. If they want to get all these movies out in a timely fashion while still producing movies of the established heroes they introduced in phases 1 and 2 they should seriously start thinking about contracticing some of these productions out to other studios. It's either that or Disney pumps enough resources into Marvel Studios where it will become a studio as big as 20th Century Fox but focusing only on putting out superhero movies.

 

[Hypestyle]

hopefully in a few months-- or sooner-- there will be a statement from Joe, Kevin, Axel, etc., that confirms that the Daredevil-verse is back under Marvel control. On a side note, once this happens, theoretically Marvel/Disney can now license the Kingpin and/or the other Marvel Mob bosses to the Columbia Spider-Man films, which have never dealt with the Mob yet..

 

[The_Shadow]

I was thinking about actors who could be the next DD. Matthew Fox would be a good pick in my book.

 

[Jordacar]

I'd love to see Philip Winchester play a superhero. DD might be a good fit.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

About Joe Carnahan's sizzle reel (and I know I'm late in talking about it, but...I want to), I thought it was kind of cool, but it didn't make me any more interested in seeing a new Daredevil than I was before, which is to say I'm not opposed, but I'm not excited either. Carnahan seemed like a good choice, though, but apparently it's not going to happen. I just don't feel any particular desire to see a new Daredevil movie any time soon. And as for going darker or grittier, say what you will about Mark Steven Johnson's movie, none of its problems have to do with it not being dark or gritty enough. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[KangConquers]

. And as for going darker or grittier, say what you will about Mark Steven Johnson's movie, none of its problems have to do with it not being dark or gritty enough. That's what I think, anyway.

There are plenty of dark and gritty movies that suck; people forget that. Punisher: War Zone was "dark and gritty", and it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

 

[Transcended]

There are plenty of dark and gritty movies that suck; people forget that. Punisher: War Zone was "dark and gritty", and it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

This. I'm not sure why people are convinced that "darker" is always better. I've heard a lot of complaints recently about the Marvel Studios films being "too family-friendly" - people even wishing DD didn't go back to them for that reason. I'm not sure what they're smoking. Iron Man was a great movie because it served the character; it had the appropriate tone for the story it was telling. It didn't need to be ultra-violent or dark to be great. In too many cases, I've seen the obsession with a film's setting or tone take priority over the story itself.

Each one of Marvel's films has succeeded at being character-driven, not tone-driven. I want that for Daredevil. I want to the focus to be on capturing who he is as a character, not grafting him into a certain type of movie. Which is why I wasn't a fan of Carnahan's sizzle reel. He even stated in an interview that he wasn't interested in doing a DD film until he pictured him in a 70s setting. If you can't get excited about a character until you graft him into a certain type of movie that appeals to you... I don't trust you.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

This. I'm not sure why people are convinced that "darker" is always better. I've heard a lot of complaints recently about the Marvel Studios films being "too family-friendly" - people even wishing DD didn't go back to them for that reason. I'm not sure what they're smoking. Iron Man was a great movie because it served the character; it had the appropriate tone for the story it was telling. It didn't need to be ultra-violent or dark to be great. In too many cases, I've seen the obsession with a film's setting or tone take priority over the story itself.

Each one of Marvel's films has succeeded at being character-driven, not tone-driven. I want that for Daredevil. I want to the focus to be on capturing who he is as a character, not grafting him into a certain type of movie. Which is why I wasn't a fan of Carnahan's sizzle reel. He even stated in an interview that he wasn't interested in doing a DD film until he pictured him in a 70s setting. If you can't get excited about a character until you graft him into a certain type of movie that appeals to you... I don't trust you.

good point

 

[Project862006]

This. I'm not sure why people are convinced that "darker" is always better. I've heard a lot of complaints recently about the Marvel Studios films being "too family-friendly" - people even wishing DD didn't go back to them for that reason. I'm not sure what they're smoking. Iron Man was a great movie because it served the character; it had the appropriate tone for the story it was telling. It didn't need to be ultra-violent or dark to be great. In too many cases, I've seen the obsession with a film's setting or tone take priority over the story itself.

Each one of Marvel's films has succeeded at being character-driven, not tone-driven. I want that for Daredevil. I want to the focus to be on capturing who he is as a character, not grafting him into a certain type of movie. Which is why I wasn't a fan of Carnahan's sizzle reel. He even stated in an interview that he wasn't interested in doing a DD film until he pictured him in a 70s setting. If you can't get excited about a character until you graft him into a certain type of movie that appeals to you... I don't trust you.

so you are not anticipating MOS

cause that exactly what snyder did aswell he turned down the offer before a new take was brought upon him

 

[Transcended]

so you are not anticipating MOS

cause that exactly what snyder did aswell he turned down the offer before a new take was brought upon him

Oh, I'm anticipating MOS. But I'm definitely worried about Snyder. However, I don't know his reasons for turning down the first "take" so I can't judge. It may have been out of respect for the character, not indifference. That whole process was so slapdash it's hard to make sense of it.

But so far Man of Steel doesn't look like it's trying to be dark; it looks like it's trying to be honest. That's what I want: character-driven movies. Hopefully MOS lives up to the promise shown in the teaser.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

are people really "anticipated" or "excited" for MOS? I mean.. I'm hoping it's awesome and rejuvenates supes.. but i'm also really horrified it wont at the same time....

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I don't mean to speak for Snyder - or for Carnahan; I hadn't heard that Carnahan only became into the idea of doing a DD movie once the '70s crime drama approach clicked for him - but it didn't seem to me that he was uninterested in Superman until he seized a certain tone. If his mind was changed, it seemed to be because he found a take on the character that worked for him and that he thought he could take on, not just a certain take on a tone. But I'm going by vague recollections of things I've read in interviews.

 

[spidergeek232]

I thought Carahan's NC-17 Daredevil video was pretty good! I think it would be cool to see a Daredevil film set in 1973. But since that won't happen, here's what should happen.

-Retell the origin (I'm sure a lot of people haven't seen Daredevil before.)
-Modern time (obviously.)
-Take inspiration from the John Romita Jr. 'The Man Without Fear'.
-Have the Kingpin as the only enemy in this film.

 

[metaphysician]

I thought Carahan's NC-17 Daredevil video was pretty good! I think it would be cool to see a Daredevil film set in 1973. But since that won't happen, here's what should happen.

-Retell the origin (I'm sure a lot of people haven't seen Daredevil before.)
-Modern time (obviously.)
-Take inspiration from the John Romita Jr. 'The Man Without Fear'.
-Have the Kingpin as the only enemy in this film.

Sounds like a decent idea, though you might need some kind of Dragon to be the villain in the field. An ordinary lead mobster wouldn't be a horrible idea, though, you'd just need to make the physical challenges of the movie less about singular super-skilled opponents, and more about clever usage of mooks and heavy weapons.

 

[Vaportrail]

Only Kingpin?
That's actually something I give the '03 Daredevil credit for, is it's ability to hangle three of the character's major antagonists in one film rather effectively. We didn't really get to know much about Kingpin or Bullseye, but we definitely knew who they were and their place in things.

I'd want to see Daredevil's proper origin with Stick, the ninjas, the whole deal. Kingpin's such a big deal, I'd even say give him the TDK/Joker treatment and hang onto him for when things get really serious. Mention him, keep him in the world, but I don't think a hero should immediately face off with their arch-nemesis.

And beyond that, what should the movie really be about? That's the real question I rarely see asked here. It's always 'It should be this villain!', but if we keep aiming for the simple 'this hero vs. this villain' formula, we're just going to keep getting the same stuff shoved at us.
I want a story about Matt Murdock and the things that make him who he is.

 

[jf300]

I'm currently watching the original Daredevil and there's something really gut-wrenching and horrific about Elektra's death. It's not sad or upsetting, there's something that just makes me feel sick.

Maybe it's too gratuitous and slow, but something about it makes it completely shocking and, in my opinion, not suitable for a comic-book film.

 

[mjbull23]

Only Kingpin?
That's actually something I give the '03 Daredevil credit for, is it's ability to hangle three of the character's major antagonists in one film rather effectively. We didn't really get to know much about Kingpin or Bullseye, but we definitely knew who they were and their place in things.

I'd want to see Daredevil's proper origin with Stick, the ninjas, the whole deal. Kingpin's such a big deal, I'd even say give him the TDK/Joker treatment and hang onto him for when things get really serious. Mention him, keep him in the world, but I don't think a hero should immediately face off with their arch-nemesis.

And beyond that, what should the movie really be about? That's the real question I rarely see asked here. It's always 'It should be this villain!', but if we keep aiming for the simple 'this hero vs. this villain' formula, we're just going to keep getting the same stuff shoved at us.
I want a story about Matt Murdock and the things that make him who he is.

Perhaps give the costume a proper redesign as well. In particular his mask which looked really off in the 03 movie.

 

[Brian2887]

I desperately want Daredevil developed as a tv show. Marvel wanted to do an AKA Jessica Jones show to get a look at the underbelly of the world of costumed vigilantes and villains. Daredevil can do that even more effectively, and with a more widely-known lead.

I could easily picture arcs featuring some of the characters Marvel has in their stable: Punisher, Luke Cage & Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, etc. Maybe even some Avengers cameos, as long as they're not shoe-horned in.

A serious crime drama set in the Marvel Universe and featuring some super heroics would be a phenomenal show, if well-done.

 

[marcvader]

I want more of this.

 

[Raiden]

I want more of this.

Sorry, but the playground scene was one of the worst scenes in the movie. I hope they won't do it again.

 

[Jordacar]

I desperately want Daredevil developed as a tv show. Marvel wanted to do an AKA Jessica Jones show to get a look at the underbelly of the world of costumed vigilantes and villains. Daredevil can do that even more effectively, and with a more widely-known lead.

I could easily picture arcs featuring some of the characters Marvel has in their stable: Punisher, Luke Cage & Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, etc. Maybe even some Avengers cameos, as long as they're not shoe-horned in.

A serious crime drama set in the Marvel Universe and featuring some super heroics would be a phenomenal show, if well-done.

This, please. t:

 

[Sardaukar]

Sorry, but the playground scene was one of the worst scenes in the movie. I hope they won't do it again.

Agreed, it's something that might work in a comic book but not in a comic book movie.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

It could've worked. That kind of flirtation-through-fighting scene could've worked out, and I don't even entirely know why it doesn't. Something about the tone of it the way it ended up just...yeah, it's not good.

 

[jacobed]

Also it had Matt Murdock a blind man doing flips and what not effortlessly. It's just stupid