---

by misskittyfantastic
Anyway, someone else say something now, coz I suck at this, lol

---

No, we shall be silent, ha!

Sorry, just kidding, I read an interview with the director where he said that DD was going a bit quite a bit darker (cool!) but the studio stepped in (grrr! bad!) and edited *loads* out because the selfish gits wanted a PG-13 release... sods! Apparently, most of the cast/crew weren't too happy about this either.

Not bad, but somehow, it didn't seem to me to capture the spirit of the comic book as well, as say Superman, X-Men or Spiderman did. It's just that the character portrayed seemed to be rather more obsessive than even Miller's darkest versions of Daredevil/Murdoch.

Also, not enough to have Elektra - I want The Hand too!

We saw this out in LA and that was probably one of the worst things we did. The film sucked in our opinion. But the cinema out there was fantastic

Colin Farrell as Bullseye was very entertaining.

The rest was a mess of bad acting, stupid plot holes, and woefully poor dialogue.

Still, the trailer for X-Men 2 was good...

I was kind of entertained, sometimes by the fights and the rest of the time by the crapness. Not the worst 2 hours of my life ever, but the cocktails afterwards did win hands down!

Not even bad enough to be funny.

Credits its audience with no intelligence whatsoever. Unsubtle, emotionally manipulative (in a really lame way)...

---

by Alan
Sorry, just kidding, I read an interview with the director where he said that DD was going a bit quite a bit darker (cool!) but the studio stepped in (grrr! bad!) and edited *loads* out because the selfish gits wanted a PG-13 release... sods! Apparently, most of the cast/crew weren't too happy about this either.

---

Additional darkness wouldn't have help because there was almost no attempt to deal with the moral issues of what Daredevil was doing, mostly because he didn't realise himself.

I didn't think it was that bad. So, it didn't really have a plot and spent too much time telling the backstory. Once Elektra's dad was killed it picked up a bit. I thought the fights sign were well done. And Bullseye was great.
I wasn't happy that they changed how Matt had ended up blind though.
Anyone else wish that Kevin Smith had writen the script? His run on the comics was pure genius.

---

by Demona
Additional darkness wouldn't have help because there was almost no attempt to deal with the moral issues of what Daredevil was doing, mostly because he didn't realise himself.

---

There's no particular need for Daredevil himself to have realised - he could have been portrayed as a genuine anti-hero. The problem was that the contradiction between the do-gooding pro bono lawyer, and the vigilante who was quite happy to push a rapist under a subway train, was never properly addressed.

I for one loved it. There was a few things that made me think of The Crow, with the running across the rooftop and the flaming DD logo.

The effect of how Matt saw was done well, Colin Farrell was entertaining. Of course i'm going to say that Ben was good as i'm a Ben fan. Before I saw the movie I was a little unsure of how he would be but it was good.

The soundtrack totally rocks! The best one being For You by The Calling...biased...why of course

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
There's no particular need for Daredevil himself to have realised - he could have been portrayed as a genuine anti-hero. The problem was that the contradiction between the do-gooding pro bono lawyer, and the vigilante who was quite happy to push a rapist under a subway train, was never properly addressed.

---

What do you men by 'genuine anti-hero'?


This a a guy smart enough to have become a lawyer and yet he doesn't even notice the moral issues surrounding what he's doing, let alone try to justify them to himself, beyond a few mutterings about 'justice'.

---

by Demona
What do you men by 'genuine anti-hero'?

This a a guy smart enough to have become a lawyer and yet he doesn't even notice the moral issues surrounding what he's doing, let alone try to justify them to himself, beyond a few mutterings about 'justice'.

---

Well yes, that's more or less what I said.

What do I mean by anti-hero? Just that it's pefectly possible to have a lead character do morally questionable or wrong things without them realising. You could, for example, moan about the lack of moral awareness in the character of Hannibal Lecter, but to do so would be missing the point - we're told up front that he's a sociopathic killer. What's more interesting is how we react to such a character.

---

by In a State of Dan
Colin Farrell as Bullseye was very entertaining.

---

Definitely the more entertaining character I did like Jennifer Garner as Elektra but her scenes unfortunately centred around Ben Affleck (and I'm not a huge fan of his) I think he carried off his blind lawyer persona extremely well, but regarding the whole superhero thing - I just couldn't get into him being *in* the suit.

The playground fighting scene was especially well done and almost oddly romantic


(Edited by Pegasus 26/02/2003 23:03)

I think I must have seen a different movie....

In the one I saw DD realises he's becoming what he hates, and by the end has made a start of redeeming himself...

BTW I really enjoyed the movie, though some of the early fight scenes just made me dizzy, and there wasn't enough Elektra, but that's what sequels are for.

This one did a good job of establishing the principles;
Elektra, Bullseye, Kingpin, Foggy, Karen Page etc.
Hopefully they'll keep the atmosphere and cast, and not go all over the place as happened with Batman.

---

by Demona

This a a guy smart enough to have become a lawyer and yet he doesn't even notice the moral issues surrounding what he's doing, let alone try to justify them to himself, beyond a few mutterings about 'justice'.

---

But aren't US lawyers, by their very nature, completely devoid of all morals and ethics anyway?

I've not seen the film yet, but I do have a familiarity with the character as he appears in the comics. I need to go see this movie then I'll come back with my take on how things can either be explained, not explained or are just plain wrong.

Folks also need to remember that this is a movie about a comic book character. Big colourful letters spelling out "BASH... SOCK... POW..." are not out of the ordinary in said comics, so it might be a bit much to expect much more than that in teh film adaptation, even if we are talking about a take on Frank Miller's version

---

by Wesley
I think I must have seen a different movie....

In the one I saw DD realises he's becoming what he hates, and by the end has made a start of redeeming himself...

---

A kind of blink-and-you'll miss it morality moment...

What there was of it was heavy-handed and inadequate.

---

by MonSTeR
Folks also need to remember that this is a movie about a comic book character. Big colourful letters spelling out "BASH... SOCK... POW..." are not out of the ordinary in said comics, so it might be a bit much to expect much more than that in teh film adaptation, even if we are talking about a take on Frank Miller's version

---

Hey, I'm all for comic-book adaptations

But hell, even Spiderman was more complex in the way it put its message across (and that had the god-awful repetition of 'with great power... blahblahblah')

This was far the inferior of either of the other recent Marvel adaptations.

---

by In a State of Dan
Just that it's pefectly possible to have a lead character do morally questionable or wrong things without them realising. You could, for example, moan about the lack of moral awareness in the character of Hannibal Lecter, but to do so would be missing the point - we're told up front that he's a sociopathic killer. What's more interesting is how we react to such a character.

---

Just to compare him with other comic-book characters, we can see that he's most comparable to Bruce Wayne, but no where near as interesting and self-aware.

We could look at the actions of Wolverine as someone who doesn't question what he does, but he's an entirely different sort of character - a warrior.

Daredevil is a lawyer, and one who chooses only to take morally correct cases, yet he doesn't understand what he's doing.

My point is that for Daredevil's character, there should have been some moral awareness, rather than that I was complaining that all characters should be. Also that the film-makers obviously meant for there to be some, and they didn't pull it off at all.

---

by Demona


Hey, I'm all for comic-book adaptations

But hell, even Spiderman was more complex in the way it put its message across (and that had the god-awful repetition of 'with great power... blahblahblah')

This was far the inferior of either of the other recent Marvel adaptations.




Just to compare him with other comic-book characters, we can see that he's most comparable to Bruce Wayne, but no where near as interesting and self-aware.

We could look at the actions of Wolverine as someone who doesn't question what he does, but he's an entirely different sort of character - a warrior.

Daredevil is a lawyer, and one who chooses only to take morally correct cases, yet he doesn't understand what he's doing.

My point is that for Daredevil's character, there should have been some moral awareness, rather than that I was complaining that all characters should be. Also that the film-makers obviously meant for there to be some, and they didn't pull it off at all.

---

X-Men was by all accounts quite a loose adaptation of the comic book, but an excellent super hero film. You can't hope to do otherwise with such 2 hours of film and 40 years of comics Not when you're not focusing singley on one character's story.

I think you're spot on with the Batman comparison to pluck out a similar character, and it's true I've rarely seen Wolverine doubt his convictions, and yes he is a very different type of character.

I think I need to see the film before I can say more about it

I think that takes care of tomorrow night


(Edited by MonSTeR 27/02/2003 15:52)

The X-Men was a loose adaptation in the sense that it didn't (and couldn't really) stick to Claremont's decades long history and plotlines but it captured the spirit of the book and its characters superbly.

My main problem with Daredevil is that it doesn't do that nearly so well. It gets the key details right - blind lawyer, sonar sense, street-level crime fighter, Kingpin etc but takes serious liberties by fundamentally changing the character of Matt Murdock (as I recall it anyway). Even in Miller's darkest portrayals, he's not the sort who'd leave a criminal to die under a train. I think that's why the Daredevil/lawyer thing doesn't really work in the film.

Oh well, I'll forgive them as long as Elektra and The Hand make an appearance in a sequel.

Daredevil is indeed getting a sequel, and rather than have Elektra in the sequel (although i guess she might be), she is getting her own spin-off film, much like the Jinx character did from Bond.

Well I went and watched this last night. I thought it was okay..not brilliant but a good movie. Special effects were cool and the CGI was ok if a little obvious in places.

Best part for me had to be the soundtrack though...it's amazing..as such I've been d/loading Evanescence tunes all night