Daredevil? Anyone?

I wasn’t ‘wowed’ by it, but it was good to see a movie written/directed and starring fanboys. A couple of scenes were absolutely directly lifted from famous DD comic panels (and if you know Daredevil, you can imagine which ones they are.)

I found one of the more entertaining things to be catching all the names of the DD artists and writers they used throughout the movie (mainly as names of boxers.) Heard Colon, Romita, Miller, Quesada, and tons more.

Going to go see it again tonight in another theatre because the one I was in last night had an old projection bulb apparently and the screen was TOO dark to see the fight scenes clearly.

It makes no sense for a teenager to devise a substance that every adhesive manufacturer in the world would kill for, and even less sense for him then to work as a freelance photographer instead of becoming enormously wealthy and using the money to aid his fight against crime.

Here’s a “Daredevil” from another era:

http://64.38.106.196/Daredevil_Comics_No11_Lev_Gleason.jpg

And I mean that in more ways than one.

[spoiler]

Both films have the following:

A flashback sequence in which the hero sees his father killed by a mystery man who turns out to be the movie’s chief villain.

An investigative reporter who finds out who the masked hero is but doesn’t tell anyone.

A showdown high up in a cathedral (Gotham is based on New York, in the unlikely event you didn’t know).

A black tie benefit ball.

Unusual sleeping positions.

Murder with innocuous objects.

The hero framed for a murder committed by the villain.

Daredevil’s billy club also seems to have altered function to be more like Batman’s gear; I don’t recall it ever having a grappling hook, though I haven’t read any Daredevil in many years.[/spoiler]

That do you?

—Ebert liked it.—

Did he like it better than Spawn?

Nope doesn’t do me at all.

[spoiler]

Already covered that one. Other heroes who went off on villains because they killed someone of emotional importance to the hero: Spider-Man, Blade, Green Lantern (current) and a host of others. Although now that I think about it there is a closer similarity in that he finds out years later that the man who killed his father is the same bad guy he’s after now. But then again we’ve seen that before in non-super-hero movies.

**

Straight out of the DD comic and before the Batman movie. Also the reporter in Batman finds out because Alfred tells her, in DD he figures it out himself. And there is also a totally different dichotomy between these characters as well. Vicki Vale is Batman’s love interest, Ben Urich is certainly not Daredevil’s main squeeze.

**

I already covered this one.

**

Whose purpose in the Batman movie was to show the wealth of Bruce Wayne, how he fooled people, and to introduce Bruce Wayne to Vicki Vale. In DD there is a similarity in that he hooks up with his female protagonist as well (although not for the first time), but then once again the comparisons fall apart. Another point of the ball in the DD movie was to introduce Matt Murdock to the Kingpin and to foreshadow Elektra’s father’s death. In the Batman movie the scene was not so plot integral. And I should also point out that there are hundreds of movies that involve a black tie affair to promote characterization.

**

And completely different ones, especially with how they relate to the characters. Batman does the hanging thing to more strongly associate him with a bat, DD does it just so he can go to sleep. In other words Batman does it 'cause he feels like it, DD does it because he has to. Or at least that’s how it’s presented in the respective movies. Honestly, you see this as a comparison?

**

Again, straight out of the comic. Once saw Bullseye kill a guy with a plastic knife and another time he shot a fly in midair with a paperclip and that’s just the tip of the ice burg. I’ve also seen this sort of stuff in James Bond movies.

**

Y’know, it’s been awhile since I saw Batman and I don’t remember that. However I think it’s pretty safe to say that it’s probably a minor point in the Batman movie, whereas in DD it was vital to promote the plot and provide tension between the two main protagonists.

**

The grappling hook is the only new thing (it is movie specific) but it works in a practical sense (easier to snag stuff to swing from). Other than that it’s the standard billy club he’s had in the comic for years. How does it having a grappling hook mean it was taken from Batman? Both guys swing above the city, so they’re gonna need a way to do it, grappling hooks just make common sense. However, interestingly enough originally DD’s club had a tape recorder and some other stuff in it making it more Batmanesque, but that was dropped in the sixties.[/spoiler]
**

Nope. What you’ve listed a bunch of similarities that are circumstantial (and some of with which we could use your line of reasoning to argue that Batman ripped off the Daredevil comic). I’m sure you could do that any number of movies if you tried.

Because it just didn’t make sense that somehow he got all of the other spider powers except that one. Someone who had passing familiarity with the comics (i.e. not a fanboy) would not have understood why he gets the leaping, wall-crawling, spider-sense, but not the webs. It just didn’t make sense, and doing it the way they did not only made sense, but also provided a sly wink at other things that come out of a teenager’s body.

IMHO, the organic web shooters were a change for the better. The whole origin in the movie was better than the comics. It made more sense. And it worked for the character much better. What he learned in the movie origin was not only that with great power comes great responsibility, but also that even when the world treats you like crap (i.e. the wrestling promoter), you still have to do the right thing. One of the recurring themes in Spider-Man comic books is that the world treats him like crap, but he still goes out to fight the fight. The movie origin played into that very nicely.

I saw it. It was so-so. Affleck’s smirk makes him look like he has gas. Colin Farrell and Favreau were funny. My favorite part in it was stolen straight from Frank Miller:

“You’re pretty good… But me? I’m magic!” Then a playing card to the throat, and a sai to the gut. And the way the sai went through her without puncturing the outfit was a cool little homage to the way Miller drew it. Fantastic!

Otherwise, ehh.

Yeah, you know, spoilers and stuff ahead.

I own one comic book: an issue of Batman I bought many years ago (9?) while on a trip to Dallas. I only know about Daredevil because I heard of it in an article about Kevin Smith. I thought the movie was pretty good. They avoided the common cliche of a superhero never getting hurt nicely (scars and painkillers, as stated earlier). The usual objections to the plot many people (as evidenced previously in the thread) I didn’t mind: it’s a movie based on a comic book, after all. It was exciting but much too short, only some 90 minutes or so. For the last twenty minutes was kept thinking, “No, don’t end. If it ends it’ll have a sucky ending.” And then it did end. And I was sad it had a bad ending; I had a flashback of Signs. Maybe they’ll make a sequel.

Now, on to the Hulk. And then The Matrix!

Someone else may have already called you about this, but any Spider-Man reader will know that Spider-Man’s web dissolves and loses it’s stickiness after one hour.

As for him getting rich off it, I vaguely remember Spider-Man contemplating that very thing and possible even trying to sell it, but the stuff was deemed useless as an everday adhesive because of the previously stated hour long duration.

It may shock some people but I’m gonna pretty much agree with Evil Death on this. The only reason Spider-Man hasn’t gotten rich off of his web fluid is because it’d make for a boring Spider-Man. C’mon, can’t you think of a thousand uses for Spidey’s web fluid?

Law enforcement: screw tasers, or maybe even guns. Just wrap the bad guy up with this fact acting, nontoxic adhesive.

Safety aspects: Guys working in high rise construction or whatever could be equipped with webshooters so they can shoot a safety line if they fall, or make a safety net if a coworker falls.

Military: Drop a bomb of this stuff on anything mechanical and you’ve just seriously messed up its operations permanently (that motor’s gonna try and turn regardless and will burn up). I’m sure actual military types could come up many more uses.

Thrill seekers: Screw base jumping, jump off a tower and see how far you can fall before you throw out a line.

And that’s just off the top of my head. I’m not saying Spider-Man should market his web fluid and retire to Florida, it’d ruin the character. But if Marvel really wanted to be as realistic as possible (I know, super-heroes, realism?) they’d admit that Peter Parker would be a rich man for his invention.

I saw it. I liked it. I wasn’t crazy about the Affleck factor, but the movie made me care more about the emotional state of the hero than any comic book movie I have seen so far. Something about the visuals, the religious imagery, and the savagery with which the Daredevil attacks all made me see a lonely and rage-filled hero hanging on to his morality by a thread.

Note I don’t say the acting. But it’s a tough call. Ben Affleck can be a smug bastard, so when the script called for it, it worked. He can show some other emotions too. Sometimes. Maybe. It was hard to differentiate between the emotional impact of the setting and the actor himself. But either way, the image came through.

And Colin Farrell was brilliant. When I first heard of Bullseye’s character I was like, “Yeah, he throws pencils. Scary.” But the dude freaked me out.

Enough already. Just my $.02.

Then he’s pretty damn stupid leaving criminals hogtied in it, isn’t he?

Perhaps. I don’t write Spider-Man, so it’s not like I decided that it was a good idea, I just know that it DOES dissolve after an hour.

Could be that later writers of the book decided to ignore this, but that’s how it is in the original issues written by The Man.

Most know that spider man used web shooters.

I mean saying being able to make web shooters doesn’t make since is a weak argument. People have been able to except web shooters for over 40 years now. Web shooters make as much since a machine that can radiate a spider and give a human powers.

PS Spider-man’s powers aren’t spider based it’s just fits how he got them and what he dose. He as the ability to stick to walls by generating a VERY VERY VERY strong static charge that pretty much sticks to every thing. The radiation gave him super human agility and strength. His spider since, well god knows what the really is (his flawed clone Kain could see into the future with his version of it) but I’m pretty sure that spiders don’t have that in nature it’s just what he calls it. So it makes perfectly logical that he doesn’t have organic web shooters.

I liked it better than Spiderman. I’m still trying to figure out why. Something about Spiderman just didn’t feel right to me.

I don’t have the visceral hatred of Ben Affleck that many seem to, and thought he did a decent job. Not fabulous, but passable.

I thought that this movie added a lot more little touches that made it somehow seem more realistic (all of which have already been mentioned by others: the scars, the painkillers, the sensory deprivation tank).

Jennifer Garner was not nearly as obnoxious as Kirsten Dunst, although what I’d heard about the character of Elektra and what was shown in the movie was quite different; i.e. badass ninja assasin chick vs. rich girl who happens to have had a lot of martial arts training, and gets killed the first time she goes out to fight someone.

I really liked the effects that showed how Murdoch “saw” things with sound.

Colin Farrell was hilarious, especially in the airplane scene.

I thought Michael Clarke Duncan was an excellent Kingpin. He doesn’t have the perfect physical characteristics, but he had the right aura. Honestly I can’t think of anyone who could have palyed a better Kingpin, though I’m sure someone will come along with an idea.

In addition, there was Kevin Smith. Playing a character called Jack Kirby. I’m not even a comic book nerd and I still went “hee!”

Arisu, the only differene in Elektra’s character between the movie and the comic is that her father is a diplomat. Pretty much everything is spot on. Well…The Kingpin didn’t kill her father in the comic and some other minor plot points are different, but otherwise…

I liked the movie. Something about it reminded me of Blade. Both are “dark.” I can poke holes in most movies, but realize that they are just movies. FWIW.

If the movie Spiderman had manufactured web-shooters, people would tear it up. That he has organic ones, people tear it up.

Either way you can’t win.

I liked it too! Even though I was expecting not to, and I’ve never read the comic. It had more acrobatic antics than a Jackie Chan film and even more than Spider-Man. Seriously, how on earth can you ruin an action film with bad acting? Even so, I thought the worst acting came from Colin Farrell as Bullseye. 40% of his on-screen time is shots of his face getting more screwed up as he gets angrier. :slight_smile: