Worst moments in movies

[Herr Logan]

Zev, I should point out a couple things you've done wrong before commending you on your argument and satire.

First, Spider-Man's web-shooters are NOT a dispensible part of the mythos that can be erased for the sake of "realism." It was an unforgivable failure to do this, in more ways than can be mentioned.
Second, it's extremely wrong to equate rape with pickpocketing. It's one thing to say that Daredevil of the comics would not have killed a rapist and that it is illegal, and it's true, but to imply it's wrong to kill such people in principal and without a practical reason given as to its wrongness is ignorant. If there's one thing Quentin described accurately, it's the effects of rape.

Other than that (and whatever I may forgetting at the moment), your argument is sound and intelligent. While Quentin Black is doing a terrible job of defending "Daredevil," almost everything he said about "Spider-Man" is more or less true as well.

Modern forensic science is exactly as advanced as they show it on "CSI." I don't know or care what Paladin has to say about that. The only differences between the capabilities of forensic science and real-world results are the circumstances of the crime scene, the competence and work ethic of investigators and forensic scientists, and the departmental resources at their disposal. That doesn't in any way explain how Daredevil left the biggest evidence trail I've ever seen and had no consequences. If Ben Urich bribed Medical Examiner Kevin Smith in order to make the billy-cane "disappear," that would a start as to explaining it. Even then, a disappearing murder weapon in what should be a high-profile case would bring too much suspicion and wouldn't work smoothly. That's not even considering every other piece of evidence left. Sweat DOES carry DNA. Blood was all over the place. His mask had sweat, hair, and blood on it, and if he left it behind, then he committed legal suicide, especially considering the billy club. If they had made it clear to the audience that Murdock had wiped down his cane perfectly before using it as a billy club, then one could make a case that there were no fingerprints. As it is, gloves don't mean a damn thing. They aren't a valid argument here in the least. Murdock had his hands all over it, and Daredevil was seen using it. They only need Murdock's prints to start looking for Daredevil, they don't need immediate confirmation that the print belonged to a man wearing gloves. Jesus. That plot hole is bigger than the Green Goblin's failure to remove Spider-Man's mask on the rooftop (which was a big-ass failure in the movie), since Gobby is nuts and Murdock works with the legal system and knows all about forensic evidence.

Pretty much all your points are valid, Zev, and you do a good job of backing most of them up. Give us more "5-minute Daredevil", and then do versions of "Spider-Man," "X-Men," and "Hulk." DO IT!!

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Modern forensic science is exactly as advanced as they show it on "CSI." I don't know or care what Paladin has to say about that. The only differences between the capabilities of forensic science and real-world results are the circumstances of the crime scene, the competence and work ethic of investigators and forensic scientists, and the departmental resources at their disposal. That doesn't in any way explain how Daredevil left the biggest evidence trail I've ever seen and had no consequences. If Ben Urich bribed Medical Examiner Kevin Smith in order to make the billy-cane "disappear," that would a start as to explaining it. Even then, a disappearing murder weapon in what should be a high-profile case would bring too much suspicion and wouldn't work smoothly. That's not even considering every other piece of evidence left. Sweat DOES carry DNA. Blood was all over the place. His mask had sweat, hair, and blood on it, and if he left it behind, then he committed legal suicide, especially considering the billy club. If they had made it clear to the audience that Murdock had wiped down his cane perfectly before using it as a billy club, then one could make a case that there were no fingerprints. As it is, gloves don't mean a damn thing. They aren't a valid argument here in the least. Murdock had his hands all over it, and Daredevil was seen using it. They only need Murdock's prints to start looking for Daredevil, they don't need immediate confirmation that the print belonged to a man wearing gloves. Jesus. That plot hole is bigger than the Green Goblin's failure to remove Spider-Man's mask on the rooftop (which was a big-ass failure in the movie), since Gobby is nuts and Murdock works with the legal system and knows all about forensic evidence.

You seemed to be equally misinformed and every point I've made is based in fact/from the source material.

Modern forensics is a far cry from CSI. CSI has far more advanced equipent and computers than any government funded crimelab could afford and the program exaggerates the efficiency of the equipment. Sweat is not a sufficient source of DNA and DNA evidence is not useful unless they have a person to match it to. Usually they would do this via a search with everyone with a criminal record but since Matt doesn't have one their search would come up with nothing. As for the club, fingerprints do not stay on and appear very well with excessive handling. Any fingerprint evidence would have been removed or damaged when DD handled it with his gloves and when Bullseye handled it. It's like a door handle. The only fingerprints that could be extracted from that is the last person to use it which in our case is Bullseye. This is info from someone who has worked in a crimelab.

Did you really think forensics solves 95% of it's cases like it does in CSI?

Matt did leave quite a trail but if you read the comics you would know he is that reckless. He doesn't even keep his identity well. However it would be hard to investigate and would not come up with any repercussions for months.

This isn't a plot hole and isn't comparable to GG not taking off his mask. GG is crazy, not ******ed.

 

[Herr Logan]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
You seemed to be equally misinformed and every point I've made is based in fact/from the source material.

Modern forensics is a far cry from CSI. CSI has far more advanced equipent and computers than any government funded crimelab could afford and the program exaggerates the efficiency of the equipment. Sweat is not a sufficient source of DNA and DNA evidence is not useful unless they have a person to match it to. Usually they would do this via a search with everyone with a criminal record but since Matt doesn't have one their search would come up with nothing. As for the club, fingerprints do not stay on and appear very well with excessive handling. Any fingerprint evidence would have been removed or damaged when DD handled it with his gloves and when Bullseye handled it. It's like a door handle. The only fingerprints that could be extracted from that is the last person to use it which in our case is Bullseye. This is info from someone who has worked in a crimelab.

Did you really think forensics solves 95% of it's cases like it does in CSI?

Matt did leave quite a trail but if you read the comics you would know he is that reckless. He doesn't even keep his identity well. However it would be hard to investigate and would not come up with any repercussions for months.

This isn't a plot hole and isn't comparable to GG not taking off his mask. GG is crazy, not ******ed.

"CSI," "Law and Order," and other law programs that show forensics solving parts of criminal cases streamline the processes and use fully equipped labs with competent employees. This is not a good representative sample of realistic law enforcement, granted, but I already said that there were a number of circumstances that reduced the chance that the technology idealy available would get the desired result. The science and technology is as advanced and helpful as it is on "CSI," but that's an ideal portrayal. If a case was a high enough priority, they can solve almost anything. In the Marvel Universe, the ules change, but not with Daredevil, as he only does what a man can do, instead of breaking the rules with telekinesis and molecular transmutation and other such abilities that don't leave a logical pattern. While an urban myth suspect in Hell's Kitchen wouldn't normally be a priority, when a rich businessman gets attacked in a limosine and then punctured by a red club, they are going to follow up on the case with everything they have. There's no question they'd have pressure to solve the case on them.

 

[Quentin Black]

Law and Order and nearly every movie with and investigation of some sort often overlooks the forensics (if it was really like CSI is would be case solved very quickly) so I don't really see what you guys are complaining about.

The priority would be high but as the business man was revealed to be the 'Kingpin' that would skew the case and investigation severely. No CSI lab has that high level of expensive sophisicated software (computer programs that can recreate non existant 3D images of an object from sparce information or obtain a pefect photo likeness from a blurred surveilance image) or obtain results that quickly with that degree of accuracy. The CSI do spot many things that your average person wouldn't but not to the high degree that the people in the show do. The only two bits of evidence that would lead to a substantial lead are the mask and the club. The DNA evidence in the mask would not lead them to anybody, however they could prehaps build a likeness of the top half of the persons face. The club would be smeared with Bullseye's prints but the fact that it could open up in to a full length cane would lead to queries. The men of science are unlikely to believe that a blind man could do what DD does so therefore the cane would not be thought of as a blind man's cane. So they have the top half of someone's face, dead end DNA evidence and a club will a convicted murder's prints all over it that opens up in to a rod. Not exactly great leads, especially with department politics and false information skewing the investigation. What you fail to understand is that cases like DD's are not solved over days or weeks. They are cases where they accumalate masses of evidence over months or years before they lead somewhere.

 

[Herr Logan]

Like I said, what is shown on TV and movies is streamlined and idealized. that doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means that in most cases, it's not likely to work as well.

People have seen Murdock carry that cane around, so if someone besides Urich (who is withholding knowledge) makes the connection, then that would lead investigators to try and get a sample of Murdock's DNA for comparison. This can be done in a huge variety of ways that don't even involve a warrant (not that they need warrants anymore, what with the PATRIOT Act). There is DNA in the mask and in the blood found all over the church. If someone makes the connection between Murdock's cane and the murder weapon in custody (which is not unlikely), then Murdock would be investigated and the connection would be made. This of course ignores the fact that the Kingpin might try to hinder investigations and throw everyone off, but that's beside the point of whether or not forensic science could nail Murdock to the wall. It could, and would under ideal circumstances.

Truthfully, any superhero who had a strong connection with a civilian known to the authorities (Peter Parker, Clark Kent) would be found out. Superman at least keeps his face vibrating constantly while in character so they can't use facial recognition software to match with Clark Kent. Any pictures come out blurry. He is safe from such technology, but not necessarily from voice recognition software. Daredevil, the Batman, and any hero who leaves part of his or her face partially exposed are fair game for facial recognition software and probably voice recognition. DNA samples can be taken from any hero who bleeds or leaves a scrap of costume behind.

This is how it works in the real world. If the case is a priority and there is enough high-level pressure for investigators to close the case, then all that stuff you see on "CSI" may come into play. Department politics and incompetence often screw up even high-priority cases, but that doesn't mean that a vigilante can simply let his guard down. Everything you see on law enforcement shows is a reality, just not necessarily as well-used or widely available. If people had their acts together, there is no way Daredevil would have gone unidentified in the movie or the comics. Yes, he's very sloppy with his identity, but even if he didn't tell every woman he banged who he was, he'd still get found out.

 

[Zev]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
The men of science are unlikely to believe that a blind man could do what DD does so therefore the cane would not be thought of as a blind man's cane.

Unless, of course, said blind man gallivanted around public playgrounds.

And unless Kingpin spilled the beans, in which case they would have to check Murdock's prints and blood against the samples they already have.

And unless the Priest, who can't be very experienced at keeping secrets from the police, happens to let something slip.

And Bullseye only left fingerprints on the BILLY CLUB portion. What happens when they test the parts that fold out to make a rod?

Let's face it, Clark Kent did a better job of covering up his identity with those damn glasses!

And I know that rape is a terrible crime that should have the death penalty attached to it. But it doesn't. So even if Matt had won, the rapist wouldn't have been put to death. He's made himself judge, jury, and executioner. Do you not see ANYTHING wrong with that, Quentin?

Oh, and let's say you're the Kingpin. Congrats, you've convinced the world that you were ECLF and are dead. So, what do you do? You assassinate someone else with the exact same M.O. that you used as the Kingpin! It was all for nothing! Idiot! Idiot! Idiot!

P.S. Herr Logan, we obviously disagree upon the importance of the web-shooters. Ah well, different strokes for different folks. See Quentin, THAT is how you disagree with someone.

NOW I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ANYMORE SO I'M GOING TO RUN HOME TO MY MOMMY! WAHHH!!!

 

[Herr Logan]

Zev: As long as you never again mention or defend the web-shooters issue, things'll be just peachy.

Your posts are intelligent and very entertaining, and thank you for making a thread for "5-minute Daredevil" in preparation for its subsequent epsiodes.

 

[Everyman]

Originally posted by Zev
Very strong bit of casting? It didn't go any further then 'kung-fu chick in movie' equals 'get kung-fu chick from TV'. She isn't Greek at all, she wasn't cold or calculating, she didn't act like Elektra. When was Frank Miller's Elektra EVER motivated by revenge? She was motivated by profit and love and sometimes just plan bloodlust.

I haven,t been on this topic for ages, I want to comment on what you have written Zev. I also tought Daredevil was really weak, to say the least. I am not a Daredevil comic fan, so I don't know much how Elektra is portrayed. In the movie, she was terribly shallow. I think the revenge angle could have bring something to her character, but it was poorly done. Basically we barely meet her and her father, father dies, she gets into costume looking for Daredevil, find him (!!??) and starts a fight with him, discovers DD is Matt Murdoch, believes him when he says he is not the killer, then dies (or does she?). No reason is given as for why she knows martial arts (not how, but why), and the revenge part last as long as five minutes, top. It would have been much better had it been the main focus of the movie, Kingpin could have tempted her to go after DD, and turning her into an assassin with a moral motivation. Forget the silly Bullseye (I don't know what people liked about the character in the movie) and have this "darkside" Elektra fight Daredevil at the end. Now you have something dramatic!

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
Like I said, what is shown on TV and movies is streamlined and idealized. that doesn't mean it isn't possible, it just means that in most cases, it's not likely to work as well.

People have seen Murdock carry that cane around, so if someone besides Urich (who is withholding knowledge) makes the connection, then that would lead investigators to try and get a sample of Murdock's DNA for comparison. This can be done in a huge variety of ways that don't even involve a warrant (not that they need warrants anymore, what with the PATRIOT Act). There is DNA in the mask and in the blood found all over the church. If someone makes the connection between Murdock's cane and the murder weapon in custody (which is not unlikely), then Murdock would be investigated and the connection would be made. This of course ignores the fact that the Kingpin might try to hinder investigations and throw everyone off, but that's beside the point of whether or not forensic science could nail Murdock to the wall. It could, and would under ideal circumstances.

Truthfully, any superhero who had a strong connection with a civilian known to the authorities (Peter Parker, Clark Kent) would be found out. Superman at least keeps his face vibrating constantly while in character so they can't use facial recognition software to match with Clark Kent. Any pictures come out blurry. He is safe from such technology, but not necessarily from voice recognition software. Daredevil, the Batman, and any hero who leaves part of his or her face partially exposed are fair game for facial recognition software and probably voice recognition. DNA samples can be taken from any hero who bleeds or leaves a scrap of costume behind.

This is how it works in the real world. If the case is a priority and there is enough high-level pressure for investigators to close the case, then all that stuff you see on "CSI" may come into play. Department politics and incompetence often screw up even high-priority cases, but that doesn't mean that a vigilante can simply let his guard down. Everything you see on law enforcement shows is a reality, just not necessarily as well-used or widely available. If people had their acts together, there is no way Daredevil would have gone unidentified in the movie or the comics. Yes, he's very sloppy with his identity, but even if he didn't tell every woman he banged who he was, he'd still get found out.

Actually in all cases it doesn't work as well. The equipement for a start is not on a high priority let's order some basis. The equipment is brought with whatever funds they have and that is the extent of their equipment, a nearly no crime lab has as sophisticated and effcient equipment as CSI.

An investigation like this would also take months, not weeks for anything to come to fruition. That is how cases like investigations in a rumour are solved.

Your whole post has just shown the very little wrong there is. DD has always been reckless, the whole Fall of Kingpin saga relvolves around his recklessness so it is not actually out of place in the first place. Secondly this is a rule that if applied means that there are plot holes in the comics as well as every other superhero comic as well as every tv program or film that has involved an investigation. However none of them do get their identity found out (not even the high profile cases like Superman) because it is fiction and nobody except for people like zev needs this explained to them. It's in short a nitpick that applies to more movies than just DD and to only pick on DD is to have duble standards.

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Zev
Unless, of course, said blind man gallivanted around public playgrounds.

And unless Kingpin spilled the beans, in which case they would have to check Murdock's prints and blood against the samples they already have.

And unless the Priest, who can't be very experienced at keeping secrets from the police, happens to let something slip.

And Bullseye only left fingerprints on the BILLY CLUB portion. What happens when they test the parts that fold out to make a rod?

Let's face it, Clark Kent did a better job of covering up his identity with those damn glasses!

And I know that rape is a terrible crime that should have the death penalty attached to it. But it doesn't. So even if Matt had won, the rapist wouldn't have been put to death. He's made himself judge, jury, and executioner. Do you not see ANYTHING wrong with that, Quentin?

Oh, and let's say you're the Kingpin. Congrats, you've convinced the world that you were ECLF and are dead. So, what do you do? You assassinate someone else with the exact same M.O. that you used as the Kingpin! It was all for nothing! Idiot! Idiot! Idiot!

P.S. Herr Logan, we obviously disagree upon the importance of the web-shooters. Ah well, different strokes for different folks. See Quentin, THAT is how you disagree with someone.

NOW I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ANYMORE SO I'M GOING TO RUN HOME TO MY MOMMY! WAHHH!!!

Yes, little kids are going to come forth and prove that a blindman can do martial arts. Get real.

Do you actually understand movies? This was explained very well at the end.

The priest is old, not ******ed.

Yes because blind men all hold their canes by the part which goes on the ground

Yes, there is a whole world wrong with that but that is the whole point of Daredevil! That contrast between good and bad is what makes him interesting. I swear you can't have read any of the comics because it's one of the biggest things about DD.

Natchios didn't have the rose on his body and the way they were assasinated has no similarities.

If you didn't insist on resorting to puerile tactics I would have to state the bloody obvious that loudly. Then again since you have very little argument I suppose the only way you could get a shoe in is to resort to crude poorly done spoofing. I could do that to Spiderman or Hulk but its immature and shows how weak one's arguement is.

Once again you hide the flimsiness of your arguement behind bad insults that you try to describe as satire. Shame.

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Everyman
I haven,t been on this topic for ages, I want to comment on what you have written Zev. I also tought Daredevil was really weak, to say the least. I am not a Daredevil comic fan, so I don't know much how Elektra is portrayed. In the movie, she was terribly shallow. I think the revenge angle could have bring something to her character, but it was poorly done. Basically we barely meet her and her father, father dies, she gets into costume looking for Daredevil, find him (!!??) and starts a fight with him, discovers DD is Matt Murdoch, believes him when he says he is not the killer, then dies (or does she?). No reason is given as for why she knows martial arts (not how, but why), and the revenge part last as long as five minutes, top. It would have been much better had it been the main focus of the movie, Kingpin could have tempted her to go after DD, and turning her into an assassin with a moral motivation. Forget the silly Bullseye (I don't know what people liked about the character in the movie) and have this "darkside" Elektra fight Daredevil at the end. Now you have something dramatic!

I agree that the end was pretty rushed but your suggestion is terrible.

 

[Herr Logan]

I assure you, the very top of the line labs in this country, usually those used by the FBI and the more well-funded police districts, have more or less the same capability to TV crime labs in proportion to how the equipment actually works and how many people use it. It's an ideal. It's real, but not widespread. If I still had a mind for physical science, I'd take a forensics course. For now, what little criminology experience I have has shown me that this kind of science and technology does exist. What they give us in the text books is the highest level of available capability, which is what television and movies use in whatever capacity they choose. That doesn't mean most people can or will use it to their best advantage.

I don't know if Zev is only out to bash "Daredevil," but you're right in the sense that people should not be hypocritical about the flaws in one movie and not another. The problem is, that's what I believe you are doing. You attack "Spider-Man" pretty heavily, but you defend "Daredevil" even for things for which there really is no defense. I've spent more time in the last few years analyzing "Spider-Man" than "Daredevil," and have pointed out far more flaws, mainly because I had more invested in a Spider-Man film and I think it would have been extremely easy to use the basic frame of that movie and make it excellent instead of mediocre (which means "good" in comparison with most comic movies). I love the character of Daredevil, but he can more easily go up and down in entertainment value than Spider-Man. It's far too easy to simply use him as "Batman Lite" (even if that is how he came into existence), and that shrugs off all individuality and most of the entertainment value. I can't easily imagine what would have made a decent Daredevil movie as opposed to the terrible Daredevil movie that was made, but just because it's easier for me to point out extremely obvious ways in which they could have improved "Spider-Man," that doesn't mean I'm going to call "Daredevil" anything other that what it is. I imagine that when the director's cut finally comes out (maybe when my kids are old enough to see "R" rated movies?), one of the many failures of "Daredevil" will be at least partially fixed: the lack of a decent plot. Zev is right to point out the "inexplicable police" at the end, since there was absolutely nothing that would lead them to Fisk with that huge chunk of crime plot missing. Even so, "Spider-Man" will still win overall, and sadly it is mainly because of the special effects which you call shoddy. As horrible as the writing is, they at least got the action at least in the ballpark of accurate. That and they got the costume right.

You're obviously immovable in your viewpoint, and there's nothing I can do about that. It's up to you whether you let your stubbornness hurt you or help you in the future. This board has no consequences, so it doesn't matter for now.

 

[Quentin Black]

You still haven't shown how the forensics vs. identity affects the quality of the film.

The things I have pointed out all have a defence backed up by the comics or real life. There are things I would like to see improved but to attack DD simply becuase you didn't get it or enjoy it when it is actually one of the most faithful comic movies is wrong. As a fan I can see how nearly every part connects back to the comics. Fair enough if you don't like the comics/story it is based but don't start nit picking or making bull up. The story is solid and it works more as a character film with bits of very good action rather than just a mediocre CGI fest like Spidey. There are one or two plot holes (largely due to the studio) but none of these really affect the story as with a little common sense and intelligence from the audience they are actually very easily explained.

I'm immovable when you start pointing out the forensics of the film to be the biggest plot holes in years yet fail to follow up with a decent explanation as to why. So many other films over look forensics and the character of the comics is that reckless. Even in real life an investigation would last for months/years and there would be no immediate consequences.

This sound bite from Roeper and Ebert best summarises my view on Daredevil.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click...itic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=844393

 

[Everyman]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
I agree that the end was pretty rushed but your suggestion is terrible.

How is it terrible? It would have worked better than cramming into five minutes the whole revenge story, that wasn't much of a story, more a videoclip really.

 

[Herr Logan]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
You still haven't shown how the forensics vs. identity affects the quality of the film.

The things I have pointed out all have a defence backed up by the comics or real life. There are things I would like to see improved but to attack DD simply becuase you didn't get it or enjoy it when it is actually one of the most faithful comic movies is wrong. As a fan I can see how nearly every part connects back to the comics. Fair enough if you don't like the comics/story it is based but don't start nit picking or making bull up. The story is solid and it works more as a character film with bits of very good action rather than just a mediocre CGI fest like Spidey. There are one or two plot holes (largely due to the studio) but none of these really affect the story as with a little common sense and intelligence from the audience they are actually very easily explained.

I'm immovable when you start pointing out the forensics of the film to be the biggest plot holes in years yet fail to follow up with a decent explanation as to why. So many other films over look forensics and the character of the comics is that reckless. Even in real life an investigation would last for months/years and there would be no immediate consequences.

This sound bite from Roeper and Ebert best summarises my view on Daredevil.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click...itic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=844393

It's fair enough to say that the forensics issue doesn't make "Daredevil" a terrible movie. I will also concede that "Daredevil" is probably more faithful to its source material than most other Marvel films. However, the story was missing huge chunks that left a completely nonsensical and illogical story (yes, even by comic book standards) and was therefore a failure. Not only that, the whole thing was filmed, directed and mostly written badly. While it may have been slightly more truthfullu adapated than other Marvel films, it was extremely shallow. Intelligence and common sense do not make a person accept this story, it makes them skeptical and judgemental. While movies such as "HULK" attempted to be "deep" and came off extremely shallow, "Daredevil" was merely shallow and badly produced. If "Spider-Man" had been been more true to its characters, it would have been as good as it gets. "Daredevil" shouldn't have tried cramming all those characters in there and leaving them all flat and ridiculous cardboard cut-outs. I really wanted the movie to be good, but they cheated me and every other Daredevil fan. I intend to rent to director's cut, but I'm pretty sure there won't be much redemption there, even with the full plot that would make the rest of it make more sense.
The argument for forensics is a moot point. Even if Daredevil had covered his tracks, it would not have left this a decent film. Ebert and Roeper don't carry any water with me. They're just movie critics, and Ebert has admitted he just likes being contrary. "Daredevil" was done poorly in almost every way that counts, and "Hulk", while filmed and edited failry well, was a failure in story, writing, its pretentiousness, and failthfulness to the comic. These two movies may not see sequels. Even with all the morons out there who praise stupid films, "Hulk 2" only recently got the greenlight, which will probably host a whole new cast, and "Daredevil 2 " still may not hit theaters. How the hell they thought "X-Men" was good enough to see its superior-but-still-mediocre sequel in the first place, I can't imagine. People are stupid. "Spider-Man" is going for 6 films because it has the most potential. Even in the first film, you could see that if they really wanted to, they could make a great film if they just built on the decent cast, good effects, and rich character background. They have the talent, but they make terrible decisions. It's clear from watching "Daredevil" that the filmmakers chose badly and didn't have the talent.

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Everyman
How is it terrible? It would have worked better than cramming into five minutes the whole revenge story, that wasn't much of a story, more a videoclip really.

No it isn't and an hour is spent on the main story (which although rushed isn't a terrible thing). She didn't need to have lots on how she wanted revenge because her goal was virtually achieved when she stabbed DD. You miss key moments of DD history and a DD Elektra fight wouldn't be a conclusive one as DD wouldn't kill her and he can't die in her own film. Elektra doesn't get 'tempted' in to an assasin by Kingpin either and her transformation and alienation is not immediate.

 

[Quentin Black]

Originally posted by Herr Logan
It's fair enough to say that the forensics issue doesn't make "Daredevil" a terrible movie. I will also concede that "Daredevil" is probably more faithful to its source material than most other Marvel films. However, the story was missing huge chunks that left a completely nonsensical and illogical story (yes, even by comic book standards) and was therefore a failure. Not only that, the whole thing was filmed, directed and mostly written badly. While it may have been slightly more truthfullu adapated than other Marvel films, it was extremely shallow. Intelligence and common sense do not make a person accept this story, it makes them skeptical and judgemental. While movies such as "HULK" attempted to be "deep" and came off extremely shallow, "Daredevil" was merely shallow and badly produced. If "Spider-Man" had been been more true to its characters, it would have been as good as it gets. "Daredevil" shouldn't have tried cramming all those characters in there and leaving them all flat and ridiculous cardboard cut-outs. I really wanted the movie to be good, but they cheated me and every other Daredevil fan. I intend to rent to director's cut, but I'm pretty sure there won't be much redemption there, even with the full plot that would make the rest of it make more sense.
The argument for forensics is a moot point. Even if Daredevil had covered his tracks, it would not have left this a decent film. Ebert and Roeper don't carry any water with me. They're just movie critics, and Ebert has admitted he just likes being contrary. "Daredevil" was done poorly in almost every way that counts, and "Hulk", while filmed and edited failry well, was a failure in story, writing, its pretentiousness, and failthfulness to the comic. These two movies may not see sequels. Even with all the morons out there who praise stupid films, "Hulk 2" only recently got the greenlight, which will probably host a whole new cast, and "Daredevil 2 " still may not hit theaters. How the hell they thought "X-Men" was good enough to see its superior-but-still-mediocre sequel in the first place, I can't imagine. People are stupid. "Spider-Man" is going for 6 films because it has the most potential. Even in the first film, you could see that if they really wanted to, they could make a great film if they just built on the decent cast, good effects, and rich character background. They have the talent, but they make terrible decisions. It's clear from watching "Daredevil" that the filmmakers chose badly and didn't have the talent.

I didn't like X-men all that much either and I agree that comic films don't match up to regular films unless you're a fan. However DD, along with Crow is one of the best you get. The story contains a maximum of two plot holes that were the result of the studios trigger happy editor. The writing is solid with one or two bad lines (which nearly all comic movies have) and the characters are close to the spirit of the comics. The casting is done very well and with each character you know what motivates them and their feelings. The cast had great chemistry and there was great development of Matt's character, the main focus of the film. Granted it could have been even better with more screen time but the characters came out strong. The director also made some great innovations to the world of DD.

 

[Master Blaster]

In my opinion there has never been a more terrible moment in Comic Book movies than "Batman & Robin"! It is definitely the worst Comic Movie Ever!

Not only that, But Mike "MST3K" Nelson best desribes the film as "It's not the worst movie ever. No, indeed. It's the worst thing ever. Yes, it's the single worst thing that we as human beings have ever produced in recorded history. (There may have been a viler clay tablet somewhere in prehistory, but we mustn't spend time speculating on that.) Batman & Robin is an act of cold cynicism, reckless incompetence, and unbridled hate. It is a story filled with hints of fetishism and pederasty, displayed with a bald-faced contempt for its audience. But hey, that George Clooney is easy on the eyes, I'll tell you that for free!"

The film is not only a slap in the face of the creators of the comic and its fans, but a slap in the face of good film making and story telling!

 

[Quentin Black]

lol

 

[Nightwing: Endgame]

Zev... u are an ASS

 

[Zev]

Originally posted by RaginCajun
Zev... u are an ASS

Well, you sure put me in my place.

Herr Logan, I am not ONLY out to bash Daredevil. This is the Worst Moments in comic book movies thread and it has covered Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, etc. Heck, even Swamp Thing and Rocketeer are eligible.

Quentin Black, you're trying to justify a Stock Villain, as Jabootu.com would put it. A character who, merely by who he is and what he represents, we root against. The Rapist might as well be a Nazi or a Child Molestor for all the impact he has. Hell, he could even be a Vampire. Look at him, all smug about his rape. Don't you want to see him get taken down? How can you hate us for showing a rapist getting killed? It's both a crutch and a shield. We don't know anything about him, only that he committed a rape and that he's unrepentant.

[That's the shield]. By invoking the spectre of [rape], they get some armor against criticism. Since the villain is so vile, how can a movie which shows a [rapist] getting his comeuppance be subjected to ridicule? Well, good intentions do not necessarily make a good movie. A bad movie that tells us Nazi Germany was a bad thing is still a bad movie, however noble its theme.

From Jabootu's Bad Movie Dimension

I know, I know, he's a small character and we don't have time to get into what makes him tick, but what about the major villains? Why does Kingpin want power so much that he's willing to kill for it? Was he improvished and helpless as a child and swore he would do whatever it took to become on top? Does he love anyone? Does he regret having to hurt people? How does he justify his actions? He might as well be the head of Evil Inc., trying to put an untested medicine on the market. And this is used as a crutch to justify a Stock Hero, in this case a Crimefighter, Daredevil. His father was killed by the villain, now he wants revenge. And just like every revenge story ever, at the end he decides 'it's just not worth it' (you know he wanted to say it). The only reason Kingpin doesn't pull a gun, forcing Daredevil to kill him, is because they need Kingpin to pollute the world with Daredevil 2: This Time We're Doing Born Again Without Karen Page. From the makers of Daredevil: Daredevil, Kingpin, Bullseye + The Elektra Sage In Five Minutes Or Less!

How do we know Bullseye is evil? Why, he has a big disfiguring scar on his head and kills people every five minutes (not a good thing in a profession that's supposed to be low-key)! And his character? Well, he seems really proud about his uncanny accuracy, but why is he so psychotic? How did he get his power? He's the Stock Psychopath.

Even in the supposedly cartoony Spider-Man, we see Green Goblin's origin and motivation. He talks to himself. We see he's crazy. We know why he's crazy. He interacts with his son and the hero, in both his civilian and superhero persona.

Which brings me to another point. Did you know that, as originally scripted, Spider-Man was to feature both Green Goblin AND Dr. Octopus? It's true. They cut Dr. Octopus out because they knew they couldn't do him justice and tell Spider-Man's origin and Green Goblin's story. Not to mention subplot characters like Mary-Jane and Aunt May or Ben Urich and Foggy. Daredevil has to include both Kingpin and Bullseye, which is forgivable. Two villains have been done well in Batman Returns, but there it was a natural fit, a complimentary fit that benefitted all three characters, not the increasingly-forced teamings of the later installments. But it can still be done well, as Bullseye's insanity and Kingpin's intelligence make them obvious foils for each other. Then, they add Elektra, so now we have THREE villains, THREE story arcs. What is her relationship to Kingpin? To Bullseye? Hell, to Foggy? Can you name another movie with three villains?

I think you can just make out classic villain Bane next to Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy. If they kept doing that series instead of wisely rebooting it, our children would be watching Batman & Robin & Batgirl & Batwoman & Nightwing & Azrael: Catman Strikes Back!

And what if ECLF had KEPT the rose? What about the fact that Kingpin plans to kill his entire family (funny how Matt escaped this fate when Kingpin killed Jack Murdock)? Surely Ben Urich wouldn't be the only one pointing out that maybe reports of Kingpin's demise were greatly exaggerated.

P.S. Mike Nelson was right. But then, isn't he always?

 

[Quentin Black]

This is coming from a guy who pretends to be a fan.

It's not about how evil the rapist is. Rape is an unforgivable act. However we are not meant to cheer DD on, that is the point (taken from the comics). He does have his violent past and as DD he is violent and breaks the law all the time to take revenge on those he thinks deserve it. It's that contrast between good and bad which makes him interesting. Where is this idea from? The comics.

The motivation is perfectly clear. He's after power and business. He calculates and all his actions are out of self presevation and in his business intrests. Yes his past wasn't gone in to in much detail but at this point it is not necessary, just as the past of GG wasn't went in to. It's an intoduction to a long rocky realtionship between the two characters. He is how he is in the Elektra saga. The business criminal pulling all the strings. It is their crossing in the Elektra saga which is the beginning of their future battles (where the characters get more development) just liek it is in the film.

Have you even read the comics? Obviously not since you would know that Bullseye's power and pshycoticness is never explained. He's a mystery and his motivation starts of as money. It then becomes a personal vendetta as DD is the first person he has come across where his powers are not effective. Were does this idea come from...oh the comics.

She has no link to Bullseye, Foggy or Kingpin (other than her father) so it's not necessary to cover that. The relationships she does have are covered.

Technically there are three bad guys in Returns since Max Shrek plays quite a role.

What is Natchios going to keep the flower for? To look pretty? You're grasping at straws mate.

You do realise that Fisk was the Kingpin back then? He killed who he was told to kill and that was it. Doesn't point after point of just showing how little you actually understand of the comics and the movie just get embarassing?

Knowing how American media works I wouldn't be that surprised but I'm sure he's not the only one. However he's evidently the only one with an active intrest in these types of rumours.

Note to self: learn to ignore stupid posts

 

[Zev]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
Note to self: learn to ignore stupid posts

Then how will you reference yourself?

Also, how come one of Fisk's employees doesn't recognize that being given rose equals impending doom? Or does he pick and choose his mementos?

Kingpin was not just motivated by "self presevation and business intrests", there was also the small matter of his wife (remember that bit of Frank Miller characterization? Sure as hell wasn't in the movie, giving us the cliched crime lord. There've been Bond villains with more motivation then Movie Kingpin), his complex relationship with Daredevil and trying to corrupt him, etc.

I know Kingpin was just a thug back then (apparently you don't, or is that just ANOTHER typo), but if that's his trademark (as Ben Urich says)... oh, forget it. It's obviously just a stupid excuse for Bullseye to want to kill Elektra. Speaking of which, why did he look for her on a ROOFTOP, of all places?

Yes, we are supposed to cheer DD on. That's the point of the fight scene, the quip, etc. The rapist is a stock villain and he falls like a domino, perfectly cliched, perfectly boring. And Daredevil does NOT take revenge in general (especially not on generic thugs), he brings people to justice. He's NOT the Punisher, which is why he doesn't kill people. You could count on one hand the amount of times he's gone after someone for revenge.

Kingpin and Bullseye's feuds with Daredevil were already documented prior to the Elektra Saga (and need I mention that both Bullseye and Kingpin were introduced without origins by, shall we say, 'lesser talents' then Frank Miller. That's why in MWF we get an 'origin' of Kingpin, but don't go into mugh detail, keeping him mysterious.) So, for the length of the movie it's like we're watching an origin story with Bullseye and Kingpin, then for the last act we suddenly have Elektra.

You're the pretender if you think the Elektra saga was the introduction to either Kingpin or Bullseye. It's like saying Grant Morrision invented Magneto in New X-Men 14-something because that was the first time that particular writer wrote him.

Oh, and Max Shrek wasn't exactly a major villain. Where was his fight scene with Batman? Would you believe Elektra, Bullseye, AND Kingpin all have fights with Daredevil IN A ROW?

Oh, and why does Elektra learn kung-fu? To defend herself? Then why does she have bodyguards? How many heiresses in the world have that much self-defense training? Or did I miss Paris Hilton jumping from rooftop to rooftop and throwing sais?

 

[Quentin Black]

Wow, witty. I know you are but what am I

Hmmmm, yes Natchios was just hanging around at the party. Of course he recognised what it meant, why the hell do you think he was in such a hurry to leave the city? My god, you must have trouble following films.

Note most of the character depth of Kingpin develops after the Elektra saga, their first meeting. His wife is superflous for an introduction. I mean if we really wanted to be picky we should talk about Gwen Stacy or Beast.

They're all trained at tracking people and if one of them is on the roofs the others are going to join them quickly. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The quip is not meant for us to cheer him on. Do you not get anything? You feel pleasure from the victory but you feel disgust when you see what is going to happen, especially when DD is gloating. He started off doing the things he did for the wrong reasons and came very close to becoming a full blown bad guy, something that Frank Miller stated. He pretty much exists in the grey and it is the contrast between black and white which makes him interesting. The end of Hardcore shows that.

Having problems reading now? I never said it was the introduction of Bullseye for a start and it is the introduction of Kingpin in to Daredevil's life. Before that he was a B villian for Spidey with little fleshed out character (as admitted by the creator and people who used him). He moved to DD, got introduced in the Elektra saga and starting getting all this character development, especially in 3 key DD TPBs, afterwards. Obviosuly as a pretender you wouldn't know much about this.

You don't really need to show a fight for him to be a major villian. You still need just as much character put in there. Reminds me of Hardcore, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Paris Hilton's father doesn't happen to be connected to a deadly criminal. Why wouldn't she have bodyguards? It's not like Natchios can't afford them. She knew kung-fu in the comics yet still had bodyguards. Why would Prince Nassem, lightweight boxing champion have bodyguards?

Nitpicking? Grasping for straws? Run out of decent points?

 

[Zev]

Originally posted by Quentin Black
Wow, witty. I know you are but what am I

Hmmmm, yes Natchios was just hanging around at the party. Of course he recognised what it meant, why the hell do you think he was in such a hurry to leave the city? My god, you must have trouble following films.

Note most of the character depth of Kingpin develops after the Elektra saga, their first meeting. His wife is superflous for an introduction. I mean if we really wanted to be picky we should talk about Gwen Stacy or Beast.

They're all trained at tracking people and if one of them is on the roofs the others are going to join them quickly. Not a hard concept to grasp.

The quip is not meant for us to cheer him on. Do you not get anything? You feel pleasure from the victory but you feel disgust when you see what is going to happen, especially when DD is gloating. He started off doing the things he did for the wrong reasons and came very close to becoming a full blown bad guy, something that Frank Miller stated. He pretty much exists in the grey and it is the contrast between black and white which makes him interesting. The end of Hardcore shows that.

Having problems reading now? I never said it was the introduction of Bullseye for a start and it is the introduction of Kingpin in to Daredevil's life. Before that he was a B villian for Spidey with little fleshed out character (as admitted by the creator and people who used him). He moved to DD, got introduced in the Elektra saga and starting getting all this character development, especially in 3 key DD TPBs, afterwards. Obviosuly as a pretender you wouldn't know much about this.

You don't really need to show a fight for him to be a major villian. You still need just as much character put in there. Reminds me of Hardcore, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Paris Hilton's father doesn't happen to be connected to a deadly criminal. Why wouldn't she have bodyguards? It's not like Natchios can't afford them. She knew kung-fu in the comics yet still had bodyguards. Why would Prince Nassem, lightweight boxing champion have bodyguards?

Nitpicking? Grasping for straws? Run out of decent points?

Elektra's trained at tracking people? Do they throw that in at self-defense training? I would also like to know how many self-defense courses train you to use in sais. Making this even more ridiculous is that the Elektra spin-off is going to have Stick and the Hand.

Bullseye and Kingpin WERE already introduced prior to the Elektra Saga. As were Daredevil, Foggy, etc. Sure, they were fleshed out, but that's because of Frank Miller's skills as a writer, not because of an essential need to be linked to Elektra. Kingpin's wife 'dying' and him becoming the Kingpin of Crime once again barely had anything to do with Elektra. In fact, Frank Miller's first Bullseye issue DIDN'T EVEN FEATURE ELEKTRA!

If MSJ really wanted to do the Elektra Saga justice, the first Daredevil movie wouldn't even have featured her.

The Elektra Saga was 14 issues (not counting her resurrection), over a year's worth of comics. It featured things like Elektra being an assassin, Elektra becoming Kingpin's right-hand man (replacing Bullseye), and Kingpin's wife. How this had anything to do with what we GOT in the movie is anyone's guess. I keep thinking MSJ was very drowsy when he heard about the Elektra saga.

"So, Elektra's father was killed, driving her to be this kung-fu assassin..."

MSJ falls asleep, then awakes with a start.

"So then he went after Daredevil, but couldn't kill him because he was her love, Matt Murdock, and then Bullseye killed her."

Hmmm, if the new Catwoman movie is CINO (Catwoman In Name Only), that must make Daredevil Elektra Saga In Name Only (ESINO). Glad we've got that cleared up.