The Daredevil Sucked Thread [Archive]

NorrinRadd

02/17/2003, 00:20

Ok, here's a thread for all the people who thought the Daredevil movie sucked. Here, you don't have to be scared to call BS on this stool sample of a film. Here are some reasons WHY this movie is incredibly lame.

1.) THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE A CHARACTER'S ORIGIN TO MAKE A MOVIE. The way I understood it, DD was blinded by toxic chemicals while pushing another person out of the way them, not by running around the docks like an idiot. Why did this change need to be made? And why did "Battlin'" Jack Murdock have to become Jack "The Devil" Murdoc? It's stupid.

2.) LEATHER IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATING A HERO'S COSTUME FROM COMICS TO FILM. DD looks really weird covered in red leather. I guess they felt a need to make this movie seem more "realistic" than other comic movies. 'Cause you know, in the real world a superhero wears leather.

I can go on and on but I realize it sounds pretty whiny. The idea behind this thread is to enable other folks to vent on what they didn't like about this movie. Even if you liked it as a whole, I'm interested to hear what small things drove you nuts about it. I'm sure there were plenty.

Thanks,
NorrinRadd

PantherPriest

02/17/2003, 00:35

here, here

the movie sucked before it was released

I won't even get into elektra having black hair, and kingpin being white

madmardigan

02/17/2003, 02:56

I think you should get into it.....whats wrong with having a Black Kingpin? Not enough white villians for you?

Before you post I realize he was white in the comic but what white actor would you have preferred for the role? Butterbean?

Ro-gan

02/17/2003, 03:58

Correct me if I am wrong, but Elektra does indeed have black hair. Or are you saying she does and in the movie she didn't? I haven't seen it yet so I won't give my 2 pennies worth of opinions.

Although--

It is a movie and sometimes Holly##### (eerr.. Hollywood) has to make adjustments to a movie so the non-comic book people will go see it.

Also,

Maybe the d***ed liberals out there got their panties in a bunch when they saw a portrayal that if someone were to get doused by chemicals they would develop super powers. This (in their DELUDED opinion) might cause some stupid kid/adult to go and douse himself with chemicals with the crazy idea that he would get super powers. And yes there are that many STUPID people in the world to believe something like this. But IMO, this would just be a good Darwinian moment. "Weeding out the gene pool."

Arakius

02/17/2003, 05:26

my wife liked the movie. Myself, I can look past the changes made in the movie. What I cannot see past is the fact that DD is basically a guy with heightened senses(and radar). The chemical gave him those things, not the ability to leap 30 feet from rooftop to rooftop.

Kingpin and bullseye couldn't have been done better.

Arakius

Dore

02/17/2003, 05:30

Wow, it only took a couple of days for a thread like this to get formed. <Sigh> Oh well, it's inevitable I suppose because different strokes make the world go round. Anyway, I liked the flick, it wasn't the greatest film ever made, but I'd watch it a million times over and over before I'd see one movie starring either Eminem, DMX, Ja Rule, Busta Rhymes, or any other "I gotta be an actor ta get off da streetz" #### rapping idiot. Now that that's out of my system, think about something for a minute. Ok. You just gained superpowers. I'm not talking Superman level powers, I'm talking powers to a level where you can still get hurt. Is the first thing running through your mind is what your spandex costume is gonna look like? Denim jeans provide far more protection to the body than the thickest spandex they make. The leather is for PROTECTION, not for looks or "cool factor". It would be the first thing I would think of when designing a costume. Amazingly, it protects the body from damage. Why do you think motorcycle riders wear all leather clothing? Because it keeps them from losing huge patches of skin if they have to lay the bike over. Another thing is that comic book costumes don't really translate well to the real world. They just look...goofy. They did a pretty good job with the Spidey costume, but for the most part, it doesn't look quite right. Think about it. If you were Wolverine, would YOU go out in public in a yellow and blue spandex costume with a mask that looks like it came off of a Kabuki actor? No, you'd wear either street clothes or some sort of protective gear. At least anyone with half a brain would. Anyway, I'm done ranting. Go back to your DD bashing.

lukebuchanan

02/17/2003, 06:45

Greebo

02/17/2003, 07:45

Hhmmm, to be honest, I think that all this movie did was set the scene for the second installment. I thought it was enjoyable enough although there were loads of things I really didnt like about it. Top of the list I'm afraid is Ben Afleck - I have no idea why I dislike him so much, I'm sure he is a nice guy and I know that the movie probably wouldn't have got made without him - I just wish he wasnt in it.

That irrationailty aside, the film was OK, not great by any means and it felt kind of insubstantial - to be honest, I probably didnt much care who lost in the end.

I do think the sequal (assuming it's made) will be loads better - the characters are all set, we know where we are and we can hopefully get straight to the meaty plot.

DD's jumping about the city was a bit absurd, as were his overnight marshal arts skills, but I guess I should allow some poetic licence - this is after all a film about a superhero.

On balance, I wouldn't be too fussed about seeing it again, but I'm glad I saw it in the first place.

Ro-gan

02/17/2003, 07:59

Dore

Couldn't agree with you more on all counts/points you raised. Bravo!

Once again, I didn't see the movie...

But is it possible his martial arts skills were a result of his radar sense. You know, being able to knock bullets out of the air like he does in the comic because his radar sense allows him to see them. This also makes him a great fighter because his radar is "sensing" punches and such enabling him to dodge and deflect stuff. OR was he actually doing martial arts moves? In that case if he had no prior knowledge of martial arts then it would be far fetched. BUT he did know boxing. At least in the comics he did.

Greebo

02/17/2003, 09:10

It seemed to me that he went straight from being blinded to winning a fight with some old antagonists by jumping off walls and generally being all Bruce Lee. He certainly hadn't aged any or undergone any specific training to develop these skills, but like I say, this is a movie about a superhero and suspension of disbelief should go with the teritory. However, I think you can tell if something's overdone in a superhero movie if it still makes you go "Eh? how the hell did that happen?!?" I think its a direction and storytelling issue.

TheTick

02/17/2003, 09:37

They did show Matt training himself on the rooftops, and his dad was a boxer. They never said how much time lapsed between Matt being blinded and his first fight with the bullys, but it was about the same amount of time that it took for his dad to get back into fighting shape.

SciFiGuy

02/17/2003, 11:45

the film was alright and somewhat entertaining.......but DD let someone DIE. That isn't right. The same scenario in his book was there when Bullseye was on train-tracks and he picked him up to go to court. The movie became un-daredevilish after that.

I somewhat disagree with that. True DD did let one of his targets die. He also dropped several lines during the movie about revenge not being the answer to Elektra, based on his experience of letting bad guys die in the name of revenge. DD also seemed to have an internal battle with this, killing for revenge made him no better than those he was fighting. He had to convince himself that he was "not the bad guy." In the end, he proved it by letting the police take care of Kingpin, and not killing him. This also gave some character growth.

I liked the flick a lot. My only problem with it was that some of the fight scenes were filmed with the camera to close to the action, and a little too dark to really see all of the action. We also sat a little too close to the screen, so that didn't help.

I'll definately buy the DVD!!

hoffmandu

02/17/2003, 11:57

It totally sucked. It was like an hour and a half and they tried to cram way to much into it. Oh yeah, and whats with the sex scene.

Greebo

02/17/2003, 12:03

sex scene? what about the dance/fight scene in the playground? sex scene was great if you like 1970's porn. ;)

hoffmandu

02/17/2003, 15:24

And lets not forget Kingpin, the main bad guy, only had like 12 minutes of screen time and even less dialogue......laaaaaaammmmmmmmme!

AltemReilly

02/18/2003, 10:32

I somewhat disagree with that. True DD did let one of his targets die. He also dropped several lines during the movie about revenge not being the answer to Elektra, based on his experience of letting bad guys die in the name of revenge. DD also seemed to have an internal battle with this, killing for revenge made him no better than those he was fighting. He had to convince himself that he was "not the bad guy." In the end, he proved it by letting the police take care of Kingpin, and not killing him. This also gave some character growth.

This was somewhere where the story differed from the comics.

As far as I know, in the ret-conned version of DD's origin (The Man Without Fear miniseries) he did kill someone accidentally early in his career, but with a few exceptions has not intentionally tried to kill anyone.

The movie was trying to show a progression from a more revenge driven and violent person to one who still goes out and does what needs to be done, but is doing it more for the right reasons than just revenge. This was shown with the first character who he actually killed (or let die, depending on your point of view) to his last conflict with the Kingpin where he has him helpless and then decides not to beat him to death and instead lets the police come and take him. Of course, there's the situation with him throwing Bullseye out of the Church, which was pretty clearly an intention to kill - that fits the story in the comics - DD trying to kill Bullseye was one of the few exceptions that I was referring to above).*

It's a good way to do it, in terms of a progression of the character. It just felt really fast the way it was done, but I think the DD at the end of the movie was much more similar to the DD of the comics than he was at the beginning of the movie.

*Speaking of which, I'm curious how this will pan out in the current DD/Bullseye limited series being written by Kevin Smith. Of course, we've only seen one issue in like 4 months, so it's going to be a long wait I think.

wrfKingpin

02/18/2003, 10:47

I do think that one good reason the first guy was killed and Kingpin was spared was because the first guy had been acquited of his charges, meaning he'd already slipped from the cracks of Justice. Him not killing Kingpin was him giving the Judicial System it's chance at justice. Technically, Daredevil didn't push the guy on the tracks, so Daredevil was just choosing not to save the scum bucket... not actually killing him. I think it panned out perfectly, in my humble opinion.

CFGenesis

02/18/2003, 11:09

All of your reasons for disliking the movie are petty and ridiculous. The movie was entertaining, the origin was pretty close considering they had to compact a lot of info into a 10 minute origin sequence, and criticizing the costume or the color of Elektra's hair or Kingpi's skin is really narrow-minded. If Daredevil "sucked" because of that, then the following superhero movies all sucked also:

Superman: The Movie - Lex Luthor in the comics was Superman's contemporary. He had even been written as a friend to young Clark Kent before the lab accident that turned him bald. He also did not have a comic relief sidekick named "Otis".

Superman II - At no point in the comics does Superman gain the ability to take the "S" from the chest of his costume and turn it into a big sticky-weblike thing to throw and ensnare his enemy. He also does not have the ability to create multiple holograms of himself to play "hide & seek".

Batman - The Joker did not kill Bruce Wayne's parents. The Joker was not a thug named Jack Napier. Harvey Dent was not black.

X-Men - Rogue did not run away from home and join right up with the X-Men. Wolverine was not rescued by Storm and Cyclops and brought to Xavier's school for the first time.

Spider-Man - Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider, not a genetically engineered spider. Peter crafted his web shooters, they were not organic. The Green Goblin didn't capture Mary Jane and throw her off the bridge, he did that to Gwen Stacy.

If these are the kinds of plot deviations that in your opinions cause a superhero movie to "suck", then perhaps you shouldn't go see any more, because they ALL change things from the source material. Why did Matt Murdock get blinded while running around on the docks rather than while saving an old man crossing the street? Maybe they wanted to tie his discovery of his father's involvement with organized crime to his accident, rather than it just being an unrelated, arbitrary event like in the comic. Why did they change his name from Battlin' Jack Murdock to Jack "the Devil" Murdock? Maybe they wanted more of a connection between Matt's father and his need to "avenge" his fate by becoming a vigilante. Personally, I always thought that it was rather weak in the comics that he got the name "daredevil" from the neighborhood bullies. You people need to get a grip and realize that Daredevil was a very well done movie and will bring a lot of deserved attention onto one of comic's more interesting but lesser known heroes.

Dennis2099

02/18/2003, 11:53

The movie wasnt as bad as some people are making it out to be, yeah there are changes...What movie isnt going to have changes especially comming from a comic book? That is the nature of the beast. I thought that the costume looked awesome and is way more realistic than going out in spandex as well. I found the fact that they had to give Ben Affleck risers in his boots to make him look taller a bit funny. But all in all it was an entertaining movie, and thats what they are supposed to be, entertaining. If they had followed everything from the comic book and didnt change anything and made the costume spandex could you imagine how much money they would have lost on it? Movie making is a business and making a movie that would only be interesting to hardcore DD fans would have been commercial suicide. They had to do things a little differently to get more of a spectrum of people into the theater to see it. I personally think they did a good job of keeping everyone happy, the common folk, and comic folk. I do agree that the story was much too crammed but they had to do introductions for everyone and that is a hassle and takes time to do. Now that character setup is done the next movie will be better for sure. The one big qualm i have with the movie is the Computer generated stuff is a little too dectecable. But Colin Farrell stole every scene he was in, and if you stay through the credits you get a treat too...

PantherPriest

02/18/2003, 12:11

When i see a comic movie I want the characters to look and act like their counterparts exactly. This is why I absolutely loved JJJ. dd was not a redhead, and therefore when ever I saw aflack I didn't see murdock like wise with elektra.

And although batman and superman man were good movies, they sucked as comic book movies. I hated luthor, absolutedly hated him, hackman good, lines bad, flight scenes good, Batman was better, but I want bats to move like he does in comics

MCD had the kingpin walk and motions DOWN. It was astounding to see him represent kingpin so well, however he can't change his voice, especially one that deep. Though very sweet and intimidating, mcd's voice ruined the kingpin,

And bullseye, though cool, needed to be crazier.

what's narrowminded is not seeing the implications in a white hero beating the #### out of black villian

But please, as I've said end this now, it will get us nowhere

AltemReilly

02/18/2003, 13:33

organized crime to his accident, rather than it just being an unrelated, arbitrary event like in the comic. Why did they change his name from Battlin' Jack Murdock to Jack "the Devil" Murdock? Maybe they wanted more of a connection between Matt's father and his need to "avenge" his fate by becoming a vigilante. Personally, I always thought that it was rather weak in the comics that he got the name "daredevil" from the neighborhood bullies.

The other "devil" connection in the comics was a short stint by Matt's father as a wrestler in order to make more money as his boxing career faded.

I forget his 'name', but it was something like the Red Devil or maybe just the Devil... He had the full Devil face mask and a tail as part of his costume.

I think the way they did it in the movie was fine. Combining both sides of it into one plot having him have the devil theme as a boxer worked perfectly in terms of the movie. It was short and to the point and didn't require any unnecessary time to explain which was needed elsewhere to develop the main plot & characters.

Of course I'm also one of those insane people who not only wasn't offended by the organic web shooters, but actually liked the concept.

USAgent

02/18/2003, 13:45

Can't you people just simply sit back and enjoy a movie for the simple fact that its a movie about a cool character that i personally have loved since i was a kid. I hear the same bs about Spider-Man, ew his suit looked wierd, he didnt have the web shooters, its supposed to be Gwen Stacey. If you think you can do it any better i'd love to see you do it, make it in budget, with time constrants and don't forget you have to watch out for content and the likeability factor. If they made comic book movies just for the fans they would never have good special effects or talented actors or even make it to video, just shut up sit down eat yer fraggin popcorn and if you don't like it within the first 30 minutes leave, no ones forcing you to stay. Let someone that might be abe to actual keep an open mind about a movie that first of all is based on a drokkin comic book character that doesnt exist, second of all has been changed by so many different writers and artists over the years i can't even count, so to have one guy come along and put him in red leather is a crime BS, remeber that cool looking picture from the live action hero clix thin, yeah thats what yer daredevil would look like, yippie the red pervo. I heard the same complaints from people in X-men, just shut up and watch the movie is it possible for one second to forget your a total comic geek (including myself in saying that) and just enjoy a movie.

uuoolly

02/18/2003, 14:33

I enjoyed the movie very much, I loved all the "strait off cover/panel" shots done throughout the film. And even though it changed some small details or ommitted some of the character's backgrounds, it did so in a way that could be made sense of. It had lots of inside jokes/easter eggs for comic/DD fans like:

The rapist, Jose Quesada, is named after the President of Marvel Comics and the penciller on Kevin Smith's "Guardian Devil" story for Daredevil.

Kevin Smith's cameo as Dr. [Jack 'King'] Kirby.

The fighters that Jack Murdock has faced before: [Frank] Miller, [Brian Michael] Bendis, [David] Mack - all influential scribes for DD.

The last fight of Jack Murdock's career was with John Romita - he needs no introduction.

The only issue I had with the film was that it was to short, and therefore seemed a bit rushed. I know they cut out a bunch to get the PG rating, so maybe the DVD with the longer director's cut(which has already been announced) will address some of the pacing issues.

I did enjoy it more than Spiderman, but that might be because I'm a Spidey fanboy.

ultimatemark

02/18/2003, 15:15

smittrain

02/18/2003, 15:40

Absolutely one of the 10 worst movies that I have ever seen. It seemed that Hollywood just opened up the big book of cliches for that movie.

That had to be some of the worst writing ,"This ones for you Dad", "I'm not the bad guy"...and acting (how much can one man brood. I get it Affleck your charachter is tortured) that has ever been put to film.
But At least I got to see the x-men2 trailer

AltemReilly

02/18/2003, 17:12

I enjoyed the movie as well. However, I thought there were some things that needed to be explained. I don't sit in a movie and nitpick and I'm not a huge DD fan, so some of these may be obvious to fans:
1) How does getting radar sense allow you to leap 30ft in the air? How about jumping 3 or 4 stories and landing on your feet, unhurt?

Well, it doesn't. This is comic book reality, which is a little jarring to see on the big screen.

Alternate answer: the same way that Spiderman can punch a regular guy hard enough to push him back 20 feet and he suffers no more than a black eye.

2) How does getting radar sense allow you to dodge/see bullets and shuriken?

This one's easier. ;) Because the rader sense (combined with his other enhanced senses) allows him to track the objects more quickly and more accurately than a normal person with normal vision could.

EDIT: One addition to support the above. There was one (possibly more, one particular one that I remember) issue where he had Shuriken launched at them, and in addition to tracking them with his radar, he could also get a feel for where they were going by feeling the air that they were pushing forward.

PantherPriest

02/19/2003, 03:24

A movie can be a good movie experience and a lot of fun, and suck hard at the same time. I had a good time at the theater that night, when I saw fat smith I cracked up, as well as all the refrences to daredevil writers, and the oscar goes out to "man at crossing."

But they've got to get the characters right for me to call it "good" movie.

x-men was close to phenomonal character wise, better than spiderman in every way except plot. In xmen they got just about everybody down pat. Magneto could've been more menacing in the suit, and mystique...well we won't go there, but wolvie cyke, prof, sabertooth etc. were perfect. It was a great movie experience

But since they messed up so much stuff I will still complain, especially about storm. OH good lord WHY! Therefore I will never be able to give either movie full credit cuz they messed up two of my favorite characters wilson fisk, and orroro munroe. (speaking of storm, what issue did we see her parents?)

Spiderman on the other hand had jj and uncle ben and aunt may
the entire cast was perfect except toby mcguire, I just don't like him.

musicjoeuk

02/19/2003, 09:33

I thought the movie was great, BUT I've never read a Daredevil comic, so I have no idea what it should have been like. Sure I know whats his outfit should look like, but the Leather looked ok to me. King Pin and Bullseye were superb, who cares that he's black? (Although, when Judge Dredd came out I could not believe (amgost allt he other stuff that was wrong) that they made Chief Judge Silver white when he should've been black).

Anyway, DD let a bad guy die, so thats cool for me, gave the movie a bit of a darker edge, like the first 2 batman movies. He didn't kill King Pin, because "I'm not the bad guy" and cos he's probally needed in a spiderman movie sometime soon is he not? how cool if they used the same guy? (Michael Clark Duncan?)

anyway, also good to see Stan Lee in a cameo, and the end bit midway thru the credits where (hope you all saw this bit) Bullseye is in the hospital having survived, and on the subject of survival shoudl we assume that somehow, Elektra survived too? (the Braille goodluck charm?)

oh, and how come House of Pain Top of the Mornin' to Ya ain't on the soundtrack?

Joe

musicjoeuk

02/19/2003, 09:33

oops, sorry, posted twice.

XocgX

02/19/2003, 09:54

Guys, NO comic book will translate PERFECTLY to film...NONE!

A guy in red spandex will look incredibly stupid. even joe quesada admitted that the way they draw shadows, etc isn't realistic. a bright red costume becomes maroon all of a sudden.

Bullseye was as good as can be for budget and realism. Not to mention time (I would have loved a scene where he killed like 5 guys in one throw....perhaps DD2)

Kingpin being black, who cares? Who else could have done it?!

Now Jennifer Garner doesn't look greek exactly (mind you Jennifer Aniston is Greek) but she did a rocking job.

The director is a LONGTIME DD fan....like a lifelong fan. He commented on the letting the guy die scene (I was waiting for DD to save him....) but he mentioned that the DD we know from the comics is who Matt becomes at the end of the movie.

I think Ben was PERFECT as DD and did an amazing Matt. He's a bigtime DD fan as well (even wrote the intro to the Kevin Smith DD book).

The comics we all love have around 40 years of backstory that a 2 hour movie COULDN"T. I am anxiously awaiting the David Hayter (X-Men, voice of Solid Snake) scripted Watchmen movie, but I know they can't make it perfectly...but I SACRIFICE perfection for the chance to see what I can only read.

we SUSPEND our DISBELIEF, and we are entertained....

10 virtual bucks to anyone who knows where they line is from ;-)

TheFallenOne

02/19/2003, 10:04

Originally posted by XocgX

Kingpin being black, who cares? Who else could have done it?!

what is with people? do you really think that there arent any "big white people in the world? come on. go watch WWE there are tons of big white people. sheesh. freakin rascist

Greebo

02/19/2003, 10:06

we SUSPEND our DISBELIEF, and we are entertained....

Rush, Mystic Rythms.

Do i win? ;)

AltemReilly

02/19/2003, 10:13

A guy in red spandex will look incredibly stupid.

Bullseye was as good as can be for budget and realism. Not to mention time (I would have loved a scene where he killed like 5 guys in one throw....perhaps DD2)

Kingpin being black, who cares? Who else could have done it?!

Agree with all of these points. Another point someone made (I don't remember if it was on one of these boards, or one of the many others that I read) is that leather actually makes a lot of sense for someone who does what DD does. It offers a great deal more protection than Spandex or even regular street clothes would.

As far as Kingpin... I am *SO* sick of hearing this complaint. Duncan was perfect, he had the size, he had the attitude. He was a perfect Kingpin, IMO, the only flaw with the character wasn't his fault: he needed more screen time.

I also heavily agree that Bullseye was incredibly cool. Colin gave him the perfect attitude... As far as his costume goes - it wouldn't have made any sense for him to have one that was similar to the one in the comics.

The director is a LONGTIME DD fan....like a lifelong fan. He commented on the letting the guy die scene (I was waiting for DD to save him....) but he mentioned that the DD we know from the comics is who Matt becomes at the end of the movie.

This is something I'm surprised not more people caught on to. We are seeing a progression of Matt as a revenge driven person to being more like he is in the comics. I think it was a little fast - but it was still clear, to me anyway.

One scene from the film differed from the novel, and I'm not sure how it was in the original screenplay. The guy that DD beats when his kid is watching... In the novel instead of catching him outside roughing up a stranger - and then following him to his own house, he actually catches him in his own house beating the kid... DD intervenes, proceeds to savagely beat the guy and the rest of the scene pretty much plays out like it did in the film. I think the added touch of having DD first save the kid and then have the kid be terrified of him is a nice little touch that would have been a better springboard for Matt's evolution.

I think Ben was PERFECT as DD and did an amazing Matt. He's a bigtime DD fan as well (even wrote the intro to the Kevin Smith DD book).

I agree here too. I think Ben did a fine job as both Matt and DD. I think we'll get to see him explore more of the character if there is a sequel. I'm curious how he'd handle the slightly less revenge-driven DD that we had at the end of the film.

cephusdog

02/19/2003, 10:27

Originally posted by ro_gan

Also,

Maybe the d***ed liberals out there got their panties in a bunch when they saw a portrayal that if someone were to get doused by chemicals they would develop super powers. This (in their DELUDED opinion) might cause some stupid kid/adult to go and douse himself with chemicals with the crazy idea that he would get super powers. And yes there are that many STUPID people in the world to believe something like this. But IMO, this would just be a good Darwinian moment. "Weeding out the gene pool."

Is this a political forum now? I thought this was the gaming community's opinions of DD The Movie, not taking jabs at the Left or Right. Believe me, a whole new thread could be started on those issues-I don't think a Heroclix forum is the place for that. Go see Rush on your need to purge...

musicjoeuk

02/19/2003, 10:32

Mystic Rythms.

Joe

musicjoeuk

02/19/2003, 10:34

Rush

Joe

Annihillus

02/19/2003, 10:54

I think that they definately left room for a sequel, withElektra, Bullseye and Kingpin still being alive. Heck, Bullseye might even have a costume in the sequel; he did complain to Kingpin the he "wanted a bloody costume". Overall, the movie was fine. Kingpin+Bullseye were great, and Affleck was better than I thought.

Melkoloran

02/19/2003, 11:05

Affleck and Garner were fine, Duncan and Farrell were excellent.

I enjoyed the flick, but I did have some issues with it. I didn't like the changing of the origin or letting Quesada die on the rails, regardless of whether or not they were trying to show a transformation in the DD character. The pacing, especially in the early part of the movie was choppy. The fight scene in the bar was WAY too dark. You could hardly tell wtf was going on. The love angle between Elektra and DD felt forced.

I thought Duncan as the Kingpin was a stroke of genius.

I'm extremely glad that Bullseye did not have a costume. His costume from the comics would have looked ridiculous onscreen.

I have no problem with the leaping in the air 30 feet. It's a comic movie, for the love. People complain about DD jumping long distances but have no issue with Cyclops shooting beams out of his eyes. C'mon now.

Thank god they put Affleck in leather as opposed to spandex. Ech.

Favorite scene of the movie: Bullseye in the hospital during the credits.

davey123

02/19/2003, 11:49

I think it is hysterical to see a few people say they hate the film even though they did not see it.

I thought the film was great. I went in assuming it would suck (which makes me worry about the Hulk).

I can't believe that people complained about Elektra's hair color but were okay with the costume.

I think the complaints on the board are ridiculous. I was a little puzzled about DD's leaping and falling abillities, but is seemed that everyone else had them too, so it is okay with me. The DD universe (as portrayed in this film) makes it easier for "normal" people to do those things. Consitency=okay.

And since DD is a Fox film and Spiderman is Sony, I highly doubt that Michael Clarke Duncan will be given the chance to be Kingpin.

AltemReilly

02/19/2003, 11:53

what is with people? do you really think that there arent any "big white people in the world? come on. go watch WWE there are tons of big white people. sheesh. freakin rascis

They apparently did a number of screen tests with large white people (wrestlers and boxers mostly, so I hear) and didn't like the way they tested.

Duncan was only asked after this.

So they went with someone who could act and fit the bill physically...

MarkFinn

02/19/2003, 11:57

Originally posted by PantherPriest
When i see a comic movie I want the characters to look and act like their counterparts exactly. This is why I absolutely loved JJJ. dd was not a redhead, and therefore when ever I saw aflack I didn't see murdock like wise with elektra.

So, was there a comic book movie that you loved? Ever? I'm just curious. Did you see the 1991 Captain America atrocity? They got the look pretty right with that one...

Melkoloran

02/19/2003, 12:08

...

I was pretty sure Affleck was a redhead in the movie. It was like a dark auburn.

Djangomank2k

02/19/2003, 12:16

Even if i ignored all the discrepencies between the film and the comic, assuming ive never read a comic, and am just watching this movie with no prior knowledge, it still blew. Afflecks smarmy attitude, which is present in all his movies, made it hard to like the main character. Bulleyes insanity was never explored, he was just some goofy ### guy, who never missed, for reasons never explained. There was no reason to fear kingpin. The trite cliches detracted from what could have been cool fight scenes, although even those were close, blured together, and generally difficult to follow. I wanted to like this movie, and even trying to have an open mind, i couldnt ignore its glaring errors. And thats before i got pissed off about them changing a great character.

ps- It's impossible to know wether or not a direct port from comics to film would work, because noones ever had the balls to try it. Take "The Dark Knight Returns." As is, its a story that anyone could enjoy, wether they were fans of the comic or not. it seems unfair to assume a direct port would fail.

MarkFinn

02/19/2003, 12:24

This is why I want there to be no comic character movies.

It's impossible to make a movie based on a comic book character and please everyone. There are still old fans out in the world grousing about how Superman I was okay, except for X, Y, and Z.

When people filed out of The Matrix, there wasn't anyone saying loudly to their friends, "Man, Keanau was terrible as Neo. It should've been Kevin Bacon! And those costumes were okay, I guess, but come on! They didn't look like the real thing..."

All people said when they left The Matrix was, "Dude, I SO want to learn Kung Fu."

Those of you who are complaining...if you were given ultimate Hollywood power to make the Daredevil movie currently playing in your heads, it would be beautiful and perfect...and everyone who saw what's out now and liked it would be complaining that your costumes looked hokey, it was too long, too much time was spent developing the bad guys, and so on and so forth. There's always another side to the coin.

Ramplate

02/19/2003, 12:49

I have a large collection of DD and Spidey comics.
I thought that both movies were quite good (far better than those lame TV attempts of the 70's through the 90's).

If anyone should be complaining about one or the other movie being changed from the comic book - the biggest complaint should be the fact that in Spider-man they changed his web shooters to a natural power, reasoning that if a place like M.I.T. couldn't invent such a thing - why should a highschool science wiz be able to?
Answer: It's a comic book hero, not real life.
I missed the web shooter problems he always had at inopportune moments. And the scrambling he had to do in order to reload or do without. That was a major part of Spidey's challenge in the comics.

But they wanted to go for realism - they should have gone all the way if that was the case - can you see Spidey swinging on a web line that he shoots out of his Arse? (that's where a REAL spider's web comes from)
:D

The Sandman

02/19/2003, 12:59

Could I pick this movie apart if I wanted to, yes. The only thing I really would have liked to see different is not jam it into the hour and half, just flesh out a couple of scenes/characters/etc. Did I enjoy the movie?

Yes.

ojcart

02/19/2003, 13:12

movie studios make changes to books/comics MOST the time those two minor changes (jack's nickname and the origin tweak) like that should not ruin the movie for you fanboys. the movie was just average anyway. I will admit that while Jen Garner is a beautiful girl, her Elektra didnt convince me (she didnt look Greek)
and Affleck looked like a robot in his fight scenes.

WereMonkey

02/19/2003, 13:29

Originally posted by ro_gan

Maybe the d***ed liberals out there got their panties in a bunch when they saw a portrayal that if someone were to get doused by chemicals they would develop super powers. This (in their DELUDED opinion) might cause some stupid kid/adult to go and douse himself with chemicals with the crazy idea that he would get super powers. And yes there are that many STUPID people in the world to believe something like this. But IMO, this would just be a good Darwinian moment. "Weeding out the gene pool."

I was on a special Liberal committee hired by Fox Studios to go through the footage and make sure that no stupid person would be harmed by anything in the film. We lobbied hard to make Daredevil a civil rights activist, and the bulk of the plot be him giving a lecture at a college, cutting out all superpowers, crime-fighting and action. BUT THOSE DARNED CONSERVATIVES came in and were too powerful for us, changing back everything in the film until it was perfect... (we had to sneak in at night to change the origin sequence, whew!). If only those darned conservatives weren't running around protecting everyone in the world from us liberals' evil influences, why, we could cover the world in our dark insidious shadow. Curse you, conservatives! Curse you for being the annointed crusaders of all that is good and right!

Or something like that.

SonOfAres

02/19/2003, 21:24

y'alls INSANE, the movie KICKED!! It was, by FAR, the BEST comic movie out there (on Marvel at least, the old Batmans rival it and the Supermen are too old to compare)

Spider-Man, my all-time fave Comic hero, was an incredible disappoint in the special effects department. The mistakes were unforgivable, and ruined the movie. It looked worse than what college kids would come up with. You'd think they'd have a big enough budget to actually use a real human when MJ clings to Spidey in that AWFUL "dummy" sequence.....

I was too new to comics to pay much attention to X-Men, and didn't care much about X-Men, but it just didn't strike me as "good". I can';t exactly tell what was wrong, but it didnt feel like an X-Men movie. Maybe the lack of characters, or the mixup, or the lack of origins, I dunno...

anyway, back to DD-- definitely in my top 5 fav movies list, alongside Lord of the Rings (haven't decided on the other 2 yet, not sure if Star Wars will make it). It was dark and scary, not the "kid" comic movies, which was a relief I LOVED. There were NO obvious special effects problems, everything lookes flawless.... my only beefs were--

no Bullseye costume (definitely forgivable)
not enough Elektra nudity (eh, whatcha gonna do?)
no yellow costume
DD got stabbed in the chest, couldn't even move when Elektra got killed, yet after she died, managed to run around on rooftops, fall a coupla times, get the SHIZ-NITS beat out of him, and still managed to humiliate both Bullseye AND Kingpin consecutively.
it was too short. They crammed too much history into a single movie. It was great and I looved to see the important parts of DD's history, but we're never gonna have the DD/Elektra luv connection back, DD had no other enemies besides Bullseye (Kingpin?), Kingpin's story wasn't explained enough..... the movie could easily have gone 3 hours (3 hour movies just seem more professional anyway) and they could have got a lot more done. The movie ALMOST felt rushed.

Yeah, so what if tehy differ SLIGHTLY from origins? It was still good, and me, being only a NEWLY DD fan (after seeing the movie, DD bumped to #3 on my fave list, just after Spidey and Silver Surfer, from beign like number 20. the movie made him seem THAT cool) I thought the origin made sense and seemed "logical" (as much as can be for a comic book). Course, I found out about the origin changes later.

Kingpin was PERFECT. We don't need a white man, this guy played Kingpin exactly as he should be. I BELIEVED he was a crime boss who the public ignored legally and welcomed socially.

THIS MOVIE KICKED! IM SEEING IT AGAIN FRIDAY! THEN IM SNEAKING BACK IN AND SEEING IT ABOUT 3 OR 4 MORE TIMES!

Emerald Knight

02/19/2003, 21:30

DD got stabbed in the shoulder....

SonOfAres

02/19/2003, 21:33

it was closer to the chest. Remember, we argued about where the heart was! and the heart is NOT in the shoulder!

Emerald Knight

02/19/2003, 21:38

whatever

MemoryMan

02/19/2003, 21:49

I liked it but it certainly had flaws. The two things that will keep me from watching it over and over when i get the DVD are gonna be the music, which was total ####, and the stupid love scene. That 30 seconds of naked shoulders could've been used to develop Matt and Elektra's relationship a little better.

I'm interested in how much further they're gonna deviate from the classic stories in the sequel. I guess the "Born Again" story will be easy to set up now that Kingpin already knows DD's secret identity. I just hope it has some ninjas. DD without ninjas is like a day without sunshine.

memory man

and speaking of liberals ruining things--how come i can't use a pretty non-offensive euphamism for excrement without being censored? If i can't swear the terrorists have already won!

SonOfAres

02/19/2003, 21:57

I agree about the love scene, it wasnt really necessary....

I dunno, I then Ben did an OK job as DD, I hear dsomeone somerwhere complain that his "blind" state didn't look realistic, that his hearing and all would have allowed him to look someone directly in the eye, but, wouldn't that be like taking off your mask in front of a camera?

I completely disagree about the soundtrack, it's like a perfect mix cd for me (but more.... legal) and reflects the "dark and scary" DD, that I THINK the movie was trying to go far, and has gotten closer than any of the other comic movies "sides batman, but that wasn't intended for kids to wacth at all.... then again, I wouldn't have been mad if DD went the same way.... they were obviously trying to make it look diferent from spidey but still keep the same 'formula')

AltemReilly

02/20/2003, 07:58

I've gotta go with Emerald on this. It was very clearly *not* in the central cehst area, i.e., where the heart and lungs are.

I remember it being right below the shooulder, which is a much less serious wound than it would be if it were even a little bit lower and a little more to the right.

musicjoeuk

02/20/2003, 15:15

wasn't House of Pain "Top of tha Mornin' to ya" in the movie? in the bar when we first saw bullseye, playing darts?

well its not on the soundtrack, and its brilliant.

other than that, i think the soundtrack rocks.

Joe

Earnan

02/20/2003, 15:23

MemoryMan-

The filters were in place long before the terrorist attacks. The is no need to bring political ties into this thread, or this forum. I don't find the word offensive, but others do.

The intent of these boards to be as inoffensive as possible has nothing to do with terrorists. Al-Qaida has not taken over these boards to inhibit your free speech. Please don't imply that they are.

WarlordEarnan

MemoryMan

02/20/2003, 15:42

Earnan,
I realise the filters have been there for a while. Someone earlier in the thread had blamed the liberals for making the DD movie too PC (or something to that effect). I was merely continuing/poking fun at this notion. I actually was a little mad at myself for getting my lazy psuedo-swearing blocked. I attempt to comunicate as clearly as possible over the internet because I know how easy it is to misread the tone of a post. For even more vulgar (and funny) discussions of post 9-11 issues check out the new David Cross CD whose name i can not write here.

Back to the thread; The House of Pain song was the only one in the Movie I actually thought fit the scene in which it was used. Too bad it didn't make the soundtrack. I would have preferred a vocal-free soundtrack since i feel lyrical songs in a movie are sometimes too heavy-handed and lazy. I also am not into the rap-metal thingy. Either a traditional movie score or instrumental techno or what have you would have suited my taste a bit better.

memory man