I saw Daredevil - The Dark Knight Returns

[thjimmy]

Hi everybody. I just got back from a sneak peek of Daredevil.

The movie was good and the action scenes were great. DD's "sight" was incredible.

There were a lot of fun comic book references that most people didn't seem to understand, but I'm sure you will catch them when you see the movie.

The disturbing thing about DD is that it is a remake of the 1989 classic Batman. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 1st Batman movie. Unfortunately, DD steals plot points and visual references from the DC predecessor. There is also a healthy dose of Spider-Man thrown in.

Bullseye was well-done from start to finish.

All in all, Daredevil was a bit of a let down. The story was weak and the movie had been done before. Hopefully the casual superhero/action/movie fans will be more forgiving than me.

[madmardigan]

Your review was rather confusing...first you praise then film, then you proceed to dog it. Classic example of how things get built up enough in your head and it "lets you down". This very same thing applies to Heroclix with all the people craving a character for FOREVER and then only to start nagging it once they finally get it.

I saw this movie last night and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I didn't take anything in with me and I left satisfied....which is exactly how watching a movie should be.

[Teletran]

I plan to watch that tomorrow.... so... is it good or what?

What do you mean kinda like the Batman movie?

[skeevo666]

(Saw a sneak peek earlier tonight, it's excellent Teletran; even if it blew. I'd go see it again for Kevin Smith's cameo)

thjimmy:

visuals - hmm, takes place in a large city's rooftops at night. kinda hard not to end up with some overlap :D However A LOT of visuals were taken straight from DD covers, something not done by Burton . . .

plot points - again a few similarities, but Batman wasn't physically altered by his origin; Murdock was. Also Bats never duked it out with Vicki Vale

[BullseyeView]

I thought it was pretty faithful to the comic book. People who aren't fans of DD probably will make a lot of comparisons to the Batman film. That's because there are a lot of parallells between the characters' origins and methods. Let's see:

1) Both have psychotic archenemies
2) Both have dorky sidekicks (Robin and Foggy)
3) Both have highly specialized weapons
4) Both started running around in tights because their parents were killed by crooks
5) Both are big on vigilante justice
6) Both are willing to kill when faced with no other option
7) Both are excellent detectives; Batman through training; Daredevil because he's a human crime lab

It may not be a hit because DD is not an iconic character like Spiderman, but I think it defnitely warrants a DVD purchase.

[L337_0|\|3]

I dont know how u guys can compare DD & Batman!
DD is obviously better jus b/c he's marvel!!
(i know ur talkin 'bout the movie kay?)

[JacinB]

Originally posted by L337_0|\|3
I dont know how u guys can compare DD & Batman!
DD is obviously better jus b/c he's marvel!!
(i know ur talkin 'bout the movie kay?)

Sure. DD is better. Ri-i-ight.

Don't get me wrong. I like both characters. But, Daredevil often is an obvious rip off of Batman ... for example, Batman has the Penguin, who is a crime lord with bird-like qualities, DD has the Owl who is, surprise, a crime lord with bird-like qualities.

The difference is, Batman came out 30 years before DD.

At my comic store, they don't call people who so religiously follow Marvel 'zombies', they call them 'twitchers' because when you challenge them with the idea that Marvel is not all powerful, they get 'twitchy'.

That, I have a hard time taking anyone who writes in '1337 5p34k' seriously.

[thjimmy]

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. (And since this is my 1st thread, I really appreciate you taking the time to post.)

I should make it clear I did Like the movie.

I just felt that the movie was too much like the Batman movie. I understand that the characters are similar, but the movies could be different.

For instance:

Bad guy kills dad/ parents in front of son which turns him into vengeful hero.

Leaving the flower on the pavement near/at where parents/dad died.

Psychotic villain being disposed of in a very similar manner.

Standing on a roof with a woman, realizing that evil is afoot, and saying, "I've got to go to work," or "I've got to go now."

There were too many similarities to a very popular movie with the same theme.

[JacinB]

Originally posted by thjimmy
Standing on a roof with a woman, realizing that evil is afoot ...

Evil is a foot?! I've got two of those! That doesn't make me evil, does it?!

[thjimmy]

The Tick would say you are twice as evil since you have 2 feet. You're afoot times 2...

[JacinB]

Originally posted by thjimmy
The Tick would say you are twice as evil since you have 2 feet. You're afoot times 2...

Drat! Someone get me a hatchet!

No, wait ... mathmatically and in English class, we learned that a double negative would be a positive.

Thus, two feet would make someone good. Or in this case, two wrongs do make a right!

And, thus, amputees are evil!

[Hack-n-slash]

Psychotic villain being disposed of in a very similar manner.

Assuming you mean bullseye being dropped off a building (I haven't seen the film yet), didn't Daredevil do it in the comics seven years before the original Batman movie?

[BullseyeView]

Hack-n-slash has a valid point, but I think thjimmy is arguing against the lack of originality of Daredevil as a movie that should stand alone as a film.

I and a lot of others it seems look at it as someone who loves the character in the comics would watch the movie.

I think people who don't know Daredevil (not necessarily thjimmy) are going to see it as a Batman ripoff. There are a lot of similarities between the two but I don't think you can stay true to the character in this case without using the same elements the Batman movie used. Several lines and scenes were straight out of Daredevil comics: Before he kills Elektra, Bullseye says, "You're pretty good, but I'm magic". The scene with DD hugging the Church steeple was straight out of the Kevin Smith run. The religious imagery was one thing Batman didn't have; maybe playing up on that even more would have made the film stand out as compared to Batman.

[thjimmy]

BullseyeView correctly noted:

Hack-n-slash has a valid point, but I think thjimmy is arguing against the lack of originality of Daredevil as a movie that should stand alone as a film.

You hit it on the head. A lot of non-comic book folks need to see this movie to make it a success. I am concerned that it will be seen as a "rip-off" by the casual observer and hurt the future of other comic book movies.

He also said:

I don't think you can stay true to the character in this case without using the same elements the Batman movie used. Several lines and scenes were straight out of Daredevil comics: Before he kills Elektra, Bullseye says, "You're pretty good, but I'm magic".

Another excellent point. I was never a Daredevil follower, but who hasn't read DD #181 and the Frank Miller books around it? The Kevin Smith stuff is just as important to those of us that follow the comic lore.

Those direct references (along with the fun insertion of famous contributors) help keep the faithful paying to go see it a second (or third or fourth) time.

I'm just not so sure my wife will go with me to see it the second time.

[sluggo]

I like both Daredevil and Batman characters and right now they are very similiar.

JacinB - yes Batman was around 30 years before Daredevil, but both were very different when they were created. Batman was first created as a dark character, but no where near as dark as he now. Then from the late 50's though to the mid 80's the Batman comics were basically the same as the 60's t.v show. When Daredevil was created he wore yellow and wasn't as a dark character as he now.

The same thing happened to both characters - Frank Miller, and he did make Daredevil a darker character between he gave Batman the same treatment. Daredevil is NOT a rip off of Batman.

"6) Both are willing to kill when faced with no other option" - thats really not true of either character. Daredevil killed ONCE when Bullseye killed Elektra but both characters would rather risk their life to save a villian then let the villian die. Thats one thing I didn't like about both movies. Batman would never kill Jack Napier, Joker or that henchman. And daredevil wouldn't just stand there and let someone be cut in half, then mark the scene with a DD, basically saying hes proud of it.

[Spiritual_Ex]

Not sure I really have anthing constructive to say, but here is my 2 bits.

As a fanboy, comic hero movie I'd give it a B-. It was alright, with some interesting shots, some and some decent action.

As a movie for the masses, it was pretty hurting in my opinion. Perhaps a C-, the good parts were far outweighed by bad writing that created alot of terrible "comic book" dialog, and some lame situations. I mean Kingpin was an exceptionally lame villian in this movie, and the scene in which he fought DD sucked, escpecially the end dialog.

I didn't have alot of expectations, so I wasn't overly disappointed, and if anything, it was good for a few laugh due to the "making fun of" factor that was inherent in it.

[MattMurdock]

Originally posted by JacinB


Sure. DD is better. Ri-i-ight.

Don't get me wrong. I like both characters. But, Daredevil often is an obvious rip off of Batman ... for example, Batman has the Penguin, who is a crime lord with bird-like qualities, DD has the Owl who is, surprise, a crime lord with bird-like qualities.

The difference is, Batman came out 30 years before DD.

At my comic store, they don't call people who so religiously follow Marvel 'zombies', they call them 'twitchers' because when you challenge them with the idea that Marvel is not all powerful, they get 'twitchy'.

That, I have a hard time taking anyone who writes in '1337 5p34k' seriously.


Actually, if you want to get technical the Batman that we know and love today, The Dark Knight persona, was created by Frank Miller AFTER he finished turning Daredevil in to one of the darkest most interesting characters in comic history. It doesn't matter that Batman came out thirty years before Daredevil. That Batman and the Batman we have now are two completely different characters. If you want to say that one is a rip-off of the other remember who REALLY came first!

[Dryden]

Now personally i thought that the movie wasn't enough like Tim Burton's Batman. It had hints of it left and right, but never fully commited itself and lost its momentum that way.
The music was the big thing that got me about that. They could have just sat back and let Greme Revelle (Best known as the composer of the scores for The Crow and Spawn) do his thing and fill the movie with good creepy gothy music, maybe throwing in a harsh rock song now and then for the darker scenes. But now, they fill it with pop singles from up and coming bands that paid Regency off.
The only other specific dig i have with the movie was that the comic-creator refrences were just a bit too few. I'm a comic fan but not a DD fan and i'm trying to just get into the movie, but every time they mention Quesada or Kirby it jars me out of the moment.
That's it. Everything else about the movie i really really enjoyed. I thought that all four leads did wonderful jobs, especially Duncan who controlled the screen every time he was in it. The super sense visuals were beautifully done, especially the scene where Matt's in the hospital room. I don't know about you guys, but i was freaking out a bit there too, trying to get a grip on what it was i was seeing.

Okay, i'm done,
Dry

[thjimmy]

Dryden wrote:
The only other specific dig i have with the movie was that the comic-creator refrences were just a bit too few. I'm a comic fan but not a DD fan and i'm trying to just get into the movie, but every time they mention Quesada or Kirby it jars me out of the moment.

I felt differently about this.

Most people won't catch the references, but they made me feel a better connection to the movie.

It was like, "Hey, they took the time to pay a little homage to the giants who made this character what he is."

The references also made me giggle in the movie theater. :)

[bjmc1975]

I actually did have one problem (a different one) with the character references - it's possible I missed them, but I don't recall hearing Bill Everett or Gene Colan mentioned. I feel like they deserved mention over, say, David Mack (not to slight Mack in any way, of course, I just don't feel like he had the same effect on the character).

[Heroclix?]

I thought that the movie just blew. A whole generation of great comics and this is the best that they can come up with? Not to mention my distaste that the Kingpin was the "main" bad guy for Daredevil. I remember the Kingpin being a bigger pain to Spiderman, and due to the fact that the two movies were made by two totally different production companies we will never see Spiderman vs. Kingpin. WARNING!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!







Onto the review. I never remembered Bullseye dying to Daredevil, and certainly not on that large of a fall. Elektra died to her own sai (sort of), like in the comics, but it happened too fast. There was a franchise available here, with MM+EN advancing their relationship despite Elektra becoming a paid assassin (which she never showed a hint of in the movie). And didn't Elektra once get hired to kill Froggy at one point, but sort of fell for him? She never even SPOKE to Froggy. And where were the costumes we all know and love??? Where's Elektra's bandana and Bullseye's blue costume??? After the movie, I went away thinking only 4 things were cool (usually I go away with LOTS more, or the 4 things are more cool than the following)--

1) There was a preview of The Hulk (not really a part of the movie)
2) There was a preview of X-Men 2 (see explanation above)
3) The wierd stuff Bullseye used to kill people with (paper clips, pencils, etc.)
4) Michael Clarke Duncan had the PERFECT voice for the Kingpin.

[EFigaro]

1) There is a reason that Daredevil's comic held the Fall of Kingpin series. They were the arch enemies more so than Spider-Man vs. Kingpin. Spider-Man was an obvious clash with Kingpin given that they were both, you know, in New York, but compared to Daredevil they weren't quite as big a rivals.

2) The movie was 1 hour and 42 minutes. There's only so much you can cover in that time, and Elektra falling for Foggy, no r, would have taken away from the story and needed another hour all on its on. Half hour if they wanted to keep it short.

3) Costumes. As much as I think we all would have liked to have seen Jennifer Garner in the classical Elektra costume, it would have looked silly. Don't even get me started about how silly Collin Farrel would have looked in the Bullseye costume. I'm glad they did what they did with him costume wise. Raver Elektra was a different story, but I'm not sure what I"d put her in.

As far as everyone else...given the time they gave to this movie, I think they did an excellent job. Everyone got into the characters, and I feel portrayed them well. They were all constrained by a silly limit of how much they could do and say, which hurt it in small places, but over all was very true to the comic and looked cool visually.

But I could be wrong.

[phonixinmi]

However, after seeing the movie, I have to admit that the story they used from the comics did not translate well to a feature film, especially for the movie-going masses that are not familiar with DD. If anyone saw "Queen of the ####ed" about 1 year ago, it's another example of a story and characters that suffer the same fate, but that time from a novel instead of a comic.

If the makers were trying to be true to the comic, they did succeed...visually. I'll also give Affleck credit for playing Matt Murdock & DD very authentically; and Favreau did a near-perfect job as Foggy Nelson.

Where the movie fails, though, is that there wasn't enough time for the character development of Elektra, Kingpin, Nicholas Natchios, and Bullseye. Imo, because of the complexity of these characters in the comic, it's virtually impossible to introduce them all, provide background on them, and integrate them together in an hour and 40 mins. of screen time.

Further, there seemed to be too many "soundtrack" scenes in the movie (especially notable is Elektra's training with the sandbags)and that took away from it's tempo, making it seem somewhat MTV-ish.

Overall, I think that the DD comic and character would've made a much better network TV show than a movie. And that medium would've given the creators more time to introduce and describe the characters, their interactions, and relationships as well as bringing in action elements when appropriate.

As it stands, we get a 2-star movie (out of 4).

[bizarrome]

yes Batman was around 30 years before Daredevil, but both were very different when they were created. Batman was first created as a dark character, but no where near as dark as he now. Then from the late 50's though to the mid 80's the Batman comics were basically the same as the 60's t.v show. When Daredevil was created he wore yellow and wasn't as a dark character as he now.

This is untrue to anyone who lnows anything about comics. If it was the case the series would have died by the end of the sixties. Did you all miss the NEAL ADAMS years? Still considered to be some of the best Batman ever. Also during the biggest part of the Seventies Batman was drawn by Jim Aparho. He is the one that gave the Sleak shadowy look to Bats that we all see people trying to imatate today.

I know there are a lot of Marvel Fans out there. I am one of them. But if Marvel is so darn good, why does DC always beat them in the comics market share and the toy sales figures. Look em up.

I am not saying DC is better even though I like Batman 10 times more than Daredevil, but stop trying to degrade DC characters when Marvel characters should stand on their own.

Oh, by the way. Batman was darker in the forties, which makes him predate being dark to Daredevil by about thirty some years. Batman has several issues where he even carried a side arm. he once shot a ghoul, and he even caused or allowed many thugs and gang leaders to die including allowing Dr. Death to be burned alive. So don't hand me (or anyone else) that ball of yarn that Daredevil was darker first. If you want to play at that game the Shadow has all of you beat because he caused, allowed to happen, or flat out killed almost all of his antogonists way back in the thirties and forties.

Let Daredevil be judged for Daredevil and all the others to be judged for themselves. Gosh why do marvel fans always feel the need to bash DC. It sounds like a bunch of old women trying to make themselves feel better about their screw ups by gossiping about someone else!!!!

[Wulfgar]

Just a quick comment on "the death of Bullseye". I heard some of my students talk about Bullseye's death. I stayed around until after part of the credits and they cut to a scene in a hospital with an individual all bandaged up. There is a fly buzzing around the room and this individual slowing reaches for a needle. Then a cut scene to the hallway where there is security standing at the doors and the buzzing noise stops. They then cut to a picture of the fly pinned against the wall with the needle and the a closeup of the individual where he says "bullseye". So our beloved villain isn't dead, just rather beat up.

[Criosphinx]

Originally posted by Heroclix?
WARNING!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!!







Onto the review. I never remembered Bullseye dying to Daredevil, and certainly not on that large of a fall.


Well, there's a simple explanation to that: Bullseye didn't die. There's a special scene put into the middle of the credits that shows Bullseye in a body cast in a hospital, and a fly's buzzing around his face. You see him reaching for a syringe, and then it switches to the hallway and you hear "Fwip...do-oi-oing", or something like that (sound effects are so hard to do through typing) It zooms in on the fly, which is now impaled against the wall. It then shows Colin Farrell, who painfully says "...bullseye..." So, he's not dead

EDIT: Curses, somebody beat me to it...

[okiedokie]

I took the family (don't worry, the kids are grown) to go see DD on Friday. Overall opinion?

I wouldn't pay to see it again.
My background: I've read two issues of DD in 42 years. I think he's a great character, but it was hard for me to buy books when I was a kid, so I had to take what I could get.

Positives for the flick: Some good visuals. I did like the church setting, the scars around Matt's eyes, the comic references (did anyone notice that Frank Miller was the "Guy with pen in head" according to the credits?), the 'blind ' visuals.

Negatives: Matt Murdock sleeps around. I don't know if he did it in the comics, don't care. I don't want my heroes having casual sex. It also appeared that Matt was a practicing Catholic (He was in Confession) and I remember that fornication is still a sin.
Lousy CG rat at the start, lousy CG rose at the end. Bullseye was WAY too violent and the murders were way too casual for my taste. Bullseye can jump across roofs?? And lastly, I HATE HATE HATE HATE MTV type fight scenes. I never get the feeling that the people are fighting. If you want to know how to photograph a fight, watch The Mask of Zorro or some old (don't laugh) Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly movies. If the audience can see the whole figure, they can appreciate what is happening. To me, anything else is a cop-out and screams "We couldn't make it look convincing!!"

Total feeling: 4 out of 10. It just didn't get me excited, wish for another, want to find back issues, want to watch it again, study the film for small nuances, etc.

Previews:
X2
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Willard (With Crispin Glover eewwww)
Hulk teaser
Chris Rock for Prez
Steve Martin/Queen Latifa flick
4 commercials

[L337_0|\|3]

[COLOR=crimson]Suck it up if you've only read 2 issues in 42 yrs.!!
Your opinion doesn't matter if ur not a complete DD fan. I thought it was great. (So wat if he sleeps around!):mad:

[BiggNate]

I thought that there were many positives for this film. I think Affleck did an admirable job. Colin Farrell did an awesome job as did Michael Clarke Duncan. But neither of them had enough to do. I certainly needed to get more out of Kingpin and I really felt Bullseye was on the screen for too short a time. Another problem that I had was that it was less of an origin movie for Daredevil than for Elektra. It was almost as if we came in halfway through the Daredevil story. But as I said, there were many positives. Pantoliano was good as Urich. I thought the fight scenes were pretty good.

Overall a 2 and a half our of 4 stars.


Nate


More Bullseye!!!:)

[sluggo]

"I never remembered Bullseye dying to Daredevil, and certainly not on that large of a fall" - if you mean in the comics, no Bullseye didn't die in the end (he came back) but at the time he appeared he had died.

"Elektra died to her own sai (sort of), like in the comics, but it happened too fast. There was a franchise available here, with MM+EN advancing their relationship despite Elektra becoming a paid assassin (which she never showed a hint of in the movie). And didn't Elektra once get hired to kill Froggy at one point, but sort of fell for him? She never even SPOKE to Froggy" - This is MUCH later on in Elektras story. Its only one movie, you can't go over all of their historys is one movie. Its very possible in Daredevil 2 (or 3 if they make that many) they will use Elektra as an assassin and use that storyline, but the movie is susposed to the best time she even considers "putting on a costume". Thats like complaining that Wolverine didn't lose and get his adamantium back in the first X-Men movie.

"And where were the costumes we all know and love??? Where's Elektra's bandana and Bullseye's blue costume???" - Would havn't looked stupid in the movie. Neither is the type of character to wear a costume.

"bizarrome" - I'm also guessing you think Bob Kane created batman. If you look back at the older batman comics (30's - 50's) he was kinda dark (like Batman Forever), but no where near as dark as he is these days. And in the 60's through the mid/late 80's the comics were very much like the 60's tv show(like Batman and Robin). When both characters (DD and Batman) were created both were very different then they are now, Stan Lee didn't rip Batman off when he created Daredevil because Daredevil was much different, and Batman wasn't the same character he is today. Frank Miller (the guy who Bullseye killed with the pencils I remember right) created both characters as they are more or less, today and he happened to do daredevil first. I don't think he ripped himself off, he just thought it would work for both characters.

And I'm also not a "DC hating Marvel fan boy" I do like Marvel more then DC (I can't stand the concept of "hyper time") but I do read Batman.

[flakbait]

first off, i liked the movie a great deal, and I made a lot of these points over at the WizKids forum, but I'll say em again.

what's all this comparison to Batman? the film had far more to do with the Crow than Burton's butchering of Batman. and rightfully so.

""Matt Murdock sleeps around. I don't know if he did it in the comics, don't care. I don't want my heroes having casual sex. It also appeared that Matt was a practicing Catholic (He was in Confession) and I remember that fornication is still a sin.""
------I think DD gets more tail in the comics than any other hero alive, though most of them end up dead or severely beaten. and the movie didn't give me the impression that he was a practicing catholic, just that he was raised semi-catholic and knew the priest, probably from childhood. besides, a guy who lets someone get runover by a train probably isn't too concerned with sin.

""Bullseye was WAY too violent and the murders were way too casual for my taste."""
-------*sigh* how can a psychotic madman be too violent and casual about murder? its what he does. and yes, he can jump across roofs, just like DD and Elektra. thats simply the physics of it, if you cant accept it why read comics or see movies at all?

i thought the action scenes were done very well. we don't get any clear views of him as he works over thugs, but then, they never get a good view of him either. what this movie does very effectively is make me scared of DD, at least at the beginning. after the bar fight and subway scene, i looked just like the kid he scares later. this is what Burton's over-hyped Batman failed to do. "Oh nooo! Here comes that guy in the heavy suit! He's slowly headed this way!!"

at no point in the movie did I think the dialogue was terrible. in fact, at a number of spots it was quite good. none of this "Same thing that happens to everything else" stuff.

why would we want the movie to be more like Batman? do we want a hero that indiscriminantly slaughters criminals and never feels a bit of remorse for it? do we want a hero that gets his bum kicked by a couple of random thugs, and then decides to let himself get pulled over the edge of a building? do we want a hero who doesn't make his gadgets strong enough to pull himself and a passenger to safety?

Daredevil is actually one of the best superhero movies made. the villians didn't overshadow the hero (Batman again), the villain wasn't a freaking joke (Superman) the directing style was consistant (a Spider-Man problem), and the filmmakers didn't burden themselves with too many characters to develop (X-Men). Daredevil blatantly stole a number of images and plot points, but did so from the right sources, and did so very effectively.

[Drashia]

the priest catholic part, I felt, was his way of trying to justify what he is doing is as good. When the child is afraid of him, it's at that moment he realises what the priest had told him to be true.

I thought he was a very interesting character.

Are they making an Elektra movie as well?

On another note... the X2 sequel... pretty sweet.

[bizarrome]

Bob kane in my opinion stole the idea from somone else's submission he happened to see called the Raven and on the back was scribbeled alternate names Batman and Nightwing. Bill finger was the writing genius behind the early Batman's and Jerry Robinson was a great collaborator. Robinson came up with the initial idea for the Joker. Bob Kane was just the guy who made the first suggestion, but took credit for it all ala Stan Lee and Spiderman, but at least Stan now will share credit where it is due. (After all, Bob wanted him to have wings attached to his arms but Bill suggested the famous Bat shaped cape.) As for Batman being campy through the Seventies and early to mid-eighties you are wrong. I have nearly the entire run from issue 200 through 298 and the corresponding Detectives and there was a great deal of detective work done in them and some serious portrail of the villains. Many people are murdered and get killed because of these villains. Also many of the Batman: The Animated series stories that got rave reviews from fans and non-fans came straight from the books of this time period. (1968 - 1985) If you ask me the books of the late eighties were the worst. Show me where #### Grayson got phsyced out by Two-Face in the old days. Show me where an eight to ten year old Jason Todd could break lose the lug-nuts on the batmobile tires to steal them. For crying out loud Batman would at least have had hub locks. The Killer Croc murdering a teenaged Jason Todd's Parents in issue #526 of detective was a much more solid story. I could go on like this for hours.

Frank Miller did a lot for the Daredevil series and many liked his Dark Knight Returns saga, and I admit it had potential. But Batman is a thinker, and the logic of exiting the Bat-Tank to wrestle in the mudd with a wacko surrounded by hundreds of his followers many armed to the teeth is stupid. This takes Macho over logic. And creates a scene where we all go... BS!

I liked Daredevil before Frank Miller, During Frank Miller, and even some after Frank Miller. But Batman has been the way he is during the late thirties, forties, fifties, early and late sixties, seventies, eighties, and ninties, and in the 21st century. The only thing different is the art. And I prefer the smooth shadowy look Jim Aparo and Creepy Neal Adams Covers over any I have seen from any other artist in the last twenty years.

It boils down to this. Frank Miller did a lot for Daredevil. I agree. He raised issues and revitilized to the fore-front concepts of the Dark Knight. But please don't confuse some great bronze age stuff with the campy sixties books, because it just isn't so. Frank Miller is good, but Batman was already the Dark Knight and he played out gobs of hard hitting detective stories before Miller. Frank's portrail had an impact as to how gritty the art worked became, but he didn't recreate Batman the way he did Daredevil.

Again, let Daredevil stand as he is and give credit if and where it is due and leave the Batman to the same. Again, compared to the Shadow, they all look like a bunch of cheap rip-offs, which they are if you are considering hard-hitting drama. And that also leads to the point that every other character outside of Superman is just another rip-off costumed copy. So if they are similar so what, I have similar likes, tastes, ideas, and history of a lot of people, but my life is no rip-off of theirs. It stands on it's own, and so does Batman and Daredevil.

[bizarrome]

I have nearly the entire run from issue 200 through 298 and the corresponding Detectives and there was a great deal of detective work done in them and some serious portrail of the villains.

I ment to type 200 through 398... My apologies...

[Teletran]

Here's my take on Daredevil: (some spoilers)

1. I think it's a very good film. I'd be happy to watch it again.

2. Unlike Spidey, I don't think kids should be allowed to watch it. It's way too dark relative to Spiderman. There's a love scene (which I think the relationship developed too fast) and there's lot of killing in a bloody way. In Spidey, there was disintegration and stuff but nothing gory like getting cut in half by a train or dying from paper clips, peanuts, and the like... kids might imitate these stuff.

3. Daredevil gets beaten up bad.. then suddenly fights just as if he were fresh... but he's human only. I forgave such tactics with other superpowered guys like Spidey maybe because of enhanced healing compared to a normal person's but DD shouldn't recover that easily.

4. Daredevil gets immobilized by Elektra's sai attack for the whole duration Bullseye cuts Elektra up... then DD suddenly goes strong leaping away and fighting very well. I know this is a MOVIE but it could have been done more realistcally.

5. Kingpin went down a bit too quickly for me. I know DD busted his knee caps but it was done so quick it didn't have that super dramatic effect that it could have been.

6. DD leaps about and swings around a bit too fast... again, he's human and not superhuman like Spidey. Yes I know he's gymnast level but the development and shots were a bit too quick for me.

7. DD DOES NOT KILL. Anyone who reads his comics should know that he believes the justice system works. He only pummels the bad guys. Elektra is the one who kills and that's why they can prolong their relationship because of this major difference. (aside from DD getting involved in Elektra's dad's kidnapping scenario and in getting involved, the dad got hit by crossfire... so Elektra blamed DD for that event as well)

8. Well.... since the movie makers had to put in everything in one movie, then I can forgive the quick pace. Also, I see that the movie wants to give the lesson that being vigilante and killing people does not make a good guy. "I'm not the bad guy" is the lesson as seen in the Kingpin fight.

9. Overall, I'm okay with this film. It's not ultra-faithful to DD's personality in comics but it's a very good film nonetheless which I'd be happy to watch again.

Cheers!

[thjimmy]

bizarrome wrote:

But if Marvel is so darn good, why does DC always beat them in the comics market share and the toy sales figures. Look em up.

I didn't realize this was true right now. Is there a convenient reference we can use to verify these figures?


And bizarrome also wrote:

I am not saying DC is better even though I like Batman 10 times more than Daredevil, but stop trying to degrade DC characters when Marvel characters should stand on their own.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not trying to put DC or Batman down at all. I liked the 1989 Batmnan movie and I am dissapointed that DD is so similar.

I know there have been discussions about the evolution of the 2 characters, but that can be said about any character that has been around 30+ years. If a character never grew or changed they would probably lose popularity.

[JoFo]

I enjoyed the movie very much. I'd give it 3 of 4 stars. Only a few small things I didn't like.

- It was a bit too short. Some scenes could have been expanded (like the DD vs. Kingpin fight. More on Kingpin in a bit.).

- Bullseye can slit a throat with a playing card, but a metal collection plate just bounces off of DD's throat. Yes, I realize that DD's neck is protected more because of the collar of his costume, but still, the way that Bullseye was portrayed through the rest of the film, Matt should've became the headless devil. (Inconsistency bugs me.)

- Kingpin didn't come off as the tough guy he is. It should take more than a few kicks and a low blow (according to someone on this thread, it was a shot to the kneecaps, but that's not what I saw) to take the guy down.

I thought that pretty much everything else was great though. I especially like how they did his radar-sense and how DD realizes only at the end that killing isn't the way to go.

[Darkhawk_76]

:)

[bizarrome]

I was simply responding to a post by MattMurdock. A post in which he stated that Frank Miller created the Dark Knight as he is today after he recreated Daredevil... I like both characters and want this movie to be killer, but I didn't bring up the subject and I am just tierd of people who don't have their facts straight spouten off about the history of characters when they don't know half of what they are talking about just because they like one character over another. After all opinions are like @.s.s.holes, everyone has one and most of en stink.

As far as the markert share reports you will have to find the stock market reports on your own. I have a friend that gets a magazine that shows them on a monthly basis, but I think they might be in the comic book market place magazine market reports. or the alter ego magazine. I will try to find a good reference for you. (and yes I have seen these reports.)

[Iron Man 49]

Bullseye killed me. All the comic refrences were great. When he said Romita, and Kirby...i started thinking Iron Man. Great namedrops. STAN LEE MADE A CAMEO! So did Kevin Smith GREAT MOVIE!

[SingleJohn]

I'd just like to note that both Batman and DD killed the enemy while fighting in a church (in the movies).

[Iron Man 49]

Alot of people missed this. Over 3/4's of my theater had left, but after the credits, Bullseye appeared in a hospital bed and took out a fly with a needle. BULLSEYE. wonderful. He's alive, here comes the sequal.

[Captain_lint]

Ok, here goes.
I like Batman. I like Daredevil. I think the Daredevil movie stays as true to the charachter as possible for a movie adaptation of a comic aside from a few nitpicky things that are really meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
The original Batman movie on the other hand...well... I THINK TIM BURTON SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE FACE!!!!!
ok...i feel better...my oppoligies to the Burton fans.
Burton has butchered everything that was good in my childhood..He ruined The legand of sleepy hollow, Planet of the apes, and of course Batman. Now, i dont feel like I'm talking out of my butt here. He changed the stories of these classics to suit himself and to make a buck and i feel that that shows a great disrespect to the original artists who created them.
But back to the issue...Batman. HE"S A DETECTIVE NOT A NINJA!!!
Yes, he kicks butt from the shadows but his appeal from the start was his mind.(hence Detective Comics) People have said that If they were to do him as a detective, noone would want to see it, but i disagree. If noone wants to see an intellectual mystery, then how do you explain the success of movies like Silence Of The Lambs? So the solution is to make a hardcore drama like that with some Batman butt kicking...I'd see that in a heartbeat.
But to compare the Daredevil movie(Done correctly and true to the story) and the Batman movie(mindless action flick) is no contest.... DD all the way.


Flame away.

[Captain_lint]

Can you immagine how unstoppable DD and Bats would be if they could be a team up in a regular series??

[mixmastermike]

Well, my friends and I had a pretty common review of the movie. We thought the actors did a fine job, specificall mcd and cf. We weren't to hip to the idea of DD killing a dude on the tracks. I don''t think bullseye's dead because in the comic he was in a body cast for a while after the Elektra junk. I thought that a few of the fight scenes reeked of rancid cheese(the park scene. c'mon). Over all I was entertained, but next time get someone who has an IQ higher than there age to write the script. Speaking of which, I think the director wrote it.(I could be wrong.) oh well, it's a just a movie. I thought they did a good job. They can always do better.

[okiedokie]

L337 wrote:
Your opinion doesn't matter if ur not a complete DD fan


Well,,, news to me. I don't remember anyone filling out a questionairre prior to entering the theater to see if they had read any DD books. I'll have to double check, maybe I can get my money back since I wasn't supposed to see it.

The reason my opinion counts? I paid to see the movie & I did watch it.

Flakbait: I know the Joker is a psycho as well, but there seemed to be a reason for his murders (at least in the movie). Bullseye killing the yakking Grandma was too much for me. You also said if I can't accept the physics of folks jumping across roofs, why go to movies or read comics at all?
I was unaware that Bullseye was the athletic equivalent of DD & Elektra. My mistake. I thought he was a normal guy with perfect aim.

Thanks for the update on DD. At least I can save my money by not buying the books, and if there is another movie :rolleyes: I can save my money by not going to that one.

[Hack-n-slash]

------I think DD gets more tail in the comics than any other hero alive, though most of them end up dead or severely beaten.

What about Tony Stark? He's pretty ... busy ... as well. :D

-------*sigh* how can a psychotic madman be too violent and casual about murder? its what he does. and yes, he can jump across roofs, just like DD and Elektra. thats simply the physics of it, if you cant accept it why read comics or see movies at all?

Count me in for a vote that everyone was too "bouncy".

Vaulting? Sure. Swing-lines? Sure.
Dropping ten stories to land feet-first on a scaffolding?!?

[AltemReilly]

Flakbait: I know the Joker is a psycho as well, but there seemed to be a reason for his murders (at least in the movie). Bullseye killing the yakking Grandma was too much for me.

I actually liked this. If he hadn't had a convenient way of making it look totally like an accident maybe not. But the Bullseye of the comics has been shown to be a pretty ruthless guy who does what he does as much for the sport (or challenge) of it as for the money. I think the character of the movie and this scene in particular fit that well. Plus it was funny, IMO, so there you go. ;)

You also said if I can't accept the physics of folks jumping across roofs, why go to movies or read comics at all?
I was unaware that Bullseye was the athletic equivalent of DD & Elektra. My mistake. I thought he was a normal guy with perfect aim.

I would say that he's been shown in the comics to be their equal, or if not equal at least comparable, in that regard. He did fight Elektra to the death and walk away after all, and in the comic that scene had just as much close in fighting as it did ranged.