Ben Affleck Shares Regrets Over Daredevil

Published 5 years ago by , Updated August 16th, 2013 at 12:45 am,

When you think of awesome comic book movies, what comes to mind? The Dark Knight? Iron Man, perhaps? Whatever movie pops into your head, the odds are good that it’s not Daredevil. That film, which came out in 2003 and starred Ben Affleck as the “Man Without Fear,” received mostly mixed reviews from critics and never really hit it off with hardcore comic fans. (I’ve heard that the director’s cut of the film is significantly better, though I’ve never seen it myself.)

Considering the public’s general dissatisfaction with Daredevil, as well as the fact that Fox was in danger of losing their rights to the character, it’s no surprise that they decided to move ahead with a reboot of the franchise. If they don’t learn any lessons from what didn’t work in the first film, however, a reboot may be a moot point.

Of course, no one can speak to the failures of Daredevil better than Mr. Matt Murdock himself, Ben Affleck. In a recent interview with MTV, Josh Horowitz asked Affleck if he thought Daredevil missed out on the new “Golden Age” of comic book films. Affleck responded with disarming honesty saying, “We missed a lot in that movie.” He went on to explain how Hollywood has embraced the comic book movie and began putting major resources behind creating A-level films.

Check out Affleck’s comments below.

I certainly agree with Affleck’s assessment of comic book films post-Batman Begins. While there are still plenty of duds, I think studios have seen how much value there is in not just throwing out a generic action movie, but crafting a genuinely unique story that both celebrates the source material and brings something new to the character.

What do you think? Did Daredevil miss out on the “Golden Age” of comic book movies? What would you do if you were writing the film to make sure that the reboot surpasses the original?

Source: MTV

TAGS: Daredevil
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Affleck Sucks as an actor and THAT is why DD Tanked.

  2. I don't understand all the bad press. I grew up with DD, I've watched every Marvel/DC film out there, I've watched DD several times. I enjoyed the film. I do believe there has been a significant shift in comic book films, for the better, but when DD came out, it was a good film. I loved the Kingpin/Bullseye/Elektra storyline.

    When I think of recent bad hero movies…Elektra spinoff, the 1st Hulk come to mind…even the the first 3 Batman were worse than DD. Anyone remember Howard the Duck?! (But for the purpose of this discussion that movie can't count…too old).

  3. The Directors cut is pretty good (I liked it), but DD is still lacking as a movie.

    Not sure how a reboot would work, I'm not horribly familiar with the DD comic book, give em a decent story and a half decent director (Mark Steven Johnson lost all credibility after Ghost Rider) and I'll be interested.

  4. Well I would say for the fans of the characters it's obvious that the further away you stray from the source material the greater the danger of doing poorly. If your core audience is turned off then you really have problems connecting by word of mouth with those who will wait to see how a film does before going to the theater. No matter how pervasive the ad campaign, having hundreds if not thousands of negative recommendations really eats away at any chance at profitability. Since legit second and third tier markets exist for product vending it pushes even confused customers to wait. Of course we've heard plenty from just about everybody about the unpopularity of miscast characters and how many ways they end up spoiling box office success. Finally the deadly final four movie killers that you have to insure against is boring the audience, messing up the effects, messing up the score, and finally ending the movie on the wrong note. You can have a 95 minute spectacular but if the ending sucks your movie sucks…

  5. I have to agree that Affleck was wrong for the role. With that said so was Michael Clark Duncan – black or not. With that said, bullseye is one of my favorite villains and the extended version is way way way good!

  6. I agree. People mock Daredevil, Ghostrider, and the Punisher movies…which aren't that bad. Yes, Electra sucked and Ang Lee's Hulk did too. But I do remember Howard the Duck…plus you have the Dolph Lungren Punisher, the Shadow, the Phantom, Schumacher's Batman movies, Dick Tracy, the 1991 Captain America, Supergirl, Superman III & IV, Spawn, and all the up to the awe-inspiring Catwoman movie. There have been tons of other movies way worse than Daredevil.

  7. I have yet to see the director's cut. The theatrical cut was too traumatizing for me.

  8. I didn't really know much about DD before seeing the movie, other than he was blind.
    So I went into the movie with a relatively open mind, well, open for a Ben Affleck movie.
    The problem with Daredevil was, unfortunately, Ben Affleck. And seriously? He has a LOT more to be regretful about than Daredevil.

  9. They strove so much from the source material. It is sad really. And the theatrical version of the film just killed me. The ending, how kingpin was potrayed “that is how we do it in the Bronx, just me and Daredevil”. Just silly.

    The directors cut was much better. Filled up the plot holes and made the action more belivable (but the fight between Electra and Mathew on the playground is on of the scenes that tanked the film for me).

    I look forward to the reboot.

  10. I honestly understand what Ben Affleck stated, but he is putting the fault of the movie completely on the script. The first mistake was to cast him as Matt Murdock, big mistake #2: Jennifer Garner as Elektra!!! I don't even know which was worse! They are both bad actors (Ben is the worst out of the couple)! I could write pages and pages about how bad this movie is, but I think enough time has passed for everyone to see the mistakes for themselves. Everything about that movie was bad, point blank.
    Yeah, I would say that they did miss out on the Golden Age of comics, but it was better that they came out with that crappy movie then and not now. I say this because now I'm sure fans can see a terrible comic book movie just by watching a sneak peak of the trailer so I think they actually would've made less money if it came out now.
    In order to make this film successful FOX (I believe they are producing the film) needs to actually stay close to the source material as much as possible, unlike they did with ALL of their previous movies (including the X-Men franchise which could've been so much better). Thats all they have to do to make this movie good, plain and simple!
    If only Marvel could somehow get all their characters rights back and we wouldn't have all these terrible productions of comic book movies!! If only….

  11. I liked DD, some silly stuff yes, but overall an enteraining movie- loved the action, loved Bullseye and they had a cool radar effect.

    Benn Affleck was not that bad, -biggest thing I reacted on was why he was not Blond, and why Kingkoin was Black – but even that worked i the end.

    If comic book fans can learn that there are Ok movies and entertaining movies- Not just WORST comic book movie and BEST comic book movie EVER! than maybe DD would get a fair rating.

  12. ” What would you do if you were writing the film to make sure that the reboot surpasses the original?” SIMPLE NO FOX=GOOD MOVIE.

  13. I didn't have any problems with DD. It wasn't great, but it was good and I'm happy with that.

  14. Affleck as DD was as bad as Clooney playing Batman…..(on top of one of the worst scripts in history). I'll take Michael Keaton as Batman, over Wimpy Ben any day of the week. At least Keaton was able to be a little convincing. Seeing a wimp play 'The Man without Fear', probably made Stan wet his pants with anguish. But he went with it because someone fooled him into believing Ben was a good actor because of some Hunting movie….I thought Affleck playing George Reeves was a stretch, but “Hollywoodland” was an excellent flick, thanks to Adrien Brody. (I think Reeves was rolling over in his grave like a rotisserie)

  15. No DD did not miss out on the golden age of comic book movies……Just neede to find a less wimpy male actor to play “the man without fear”. Meryl Streep would have been more believable than Ben.

  16. Yes this is really strange to me too. We just witnessed from the preceeding comments that DD wasn't a terrible movie and to many a fairly good movie. I really liked it myself. I think it has just become a trend to bad mouth any superhero movie that doesn't conform to any given fans perfect vision of the character and claim that it was “crap”. I view each of these movies as a telling from that writer/director/actors view point and go from there. I really liked DD, Ghostrider, Superman, X3, FF 1 & 2, and Punisher. The fact that I may have changed things if I had been creating those films doesn't mean their version was bad. That attitude just breeds negativity amongst fans and makes those naysayers sound like whiney idiots as far as I'm concered. There's a big difference in saying “I didn't like this about that movie” and saying “That movie was crap”.

  17. I couldn't have said that any better. Nicely put!

  18. for me i luv DD and elektra!!
    ben and jen are both good actors…

  19. DD was quite honestly the worst piece of modern cinema i have ever seen.

    It was almost as if someone decided to intentionally make a film as bad as humanly possible. Everything from the acting, visuals, story, SOUNDTRACK (full songs with vocals during the actual film? Really?), editing, and so on. It was just garbage through and through.

    However, DD has become one of my favorite horrible films for all the aforementioned reasons.

  20. Daredevil could've been a much better film if Mark Steven Johnson stuck closer to the original source material and incorporated the basic film noir elements that Frank Miller, Ann Nocenti and Kevin Smith were successful with during their tenure on the comic book series.

    It was a glossed up film as opposed to the gritty and dirty Hell's Kitchen we all know from the books. The movie also very much under played the poor social economic status of the community at large.

    Anyone who's read Miller's, Nocenti's and Smith's run on Daredevil knows what I mean.

    Ann Nocenti's prolific run from issue #238-291 was also largely ignored by the film makers. She introduced Typhoid Mary in issue #254.

    I didn't mind Ben Affleck in the role. I thought he did a good job despite the script and poor direction, BUT the costume was crap. They could've done a better job with that. :-)

  21. It should have bee nin the vain of “Daredevil: Born Again” written by Frank miller back in the 80's it was a great storyline; gritty, abrasive and a complex “fall of the hero” premise. Ben Affleck was not right.

  22. It should have bee nin the vain of “Daredevil: Born Again” written by Frank miller back in the 80's it was a great storyline; gritty, abrasive and a complex “fall of the hero” premise. Ben Affleck was not right.

  23. It should have bee nin the vain of “Daredevil: Born Again” written by Frank miller back in the 80's it was a great storyline; gritty, abrasive and a complex “fall of the hero” premise. Ben Affleck was not right.

  24. This is how I feel about most movies. I could very easily thrash most movies, but they're still pretty good and I like seeing how others craft these amazing characters. =)

  25. Ben Affleck was just a poor choice.

  26. I have got to say something about this picture. I can’t believe I would have to, but the colouring in this criticism is truly unbelievably one-sided. And, I will start here: Since when did Nolan become the go-to director for realistic superhero motion-pictures?

    Since when did a movie released two years “before” Batman Begins become somehow “less” gritty than either BB or TDK? Everyone loves to talk about opinions. Let’s look at some facts.

    Ben in this video clip (thanks Rob for that!) is obviously being politically-correct in a sea of bias against his acting work ala Gigli — which I must admit I haven’t seen. Therefore, I’d ignore it as any serious opinion from an actor who has managed to crawl back up out of a public hate pool into critical directorial work.

    I never saw Daredevil in the theatres. There was minimal advertising. When I first saw the movie it was in video stores. I was, then, very biased myself. I didn’t like the costume. I didn’t like “hollywood’s” political-trading making the Kingpin black. I didn’t even get as far as the fact that Matt was supposed to be blond. The shows where I am on the spectrum of fanboyism.

    One plus for me was I did like Affleck’s work in Armageddon and Pearl Harbor.

    My subsequent praise for Mark Steven Johnson’s Daredevil comes hard won. Michael Clarke Duncan was the best choice for the role of Kingpin I can imagine. Colin Farrell was exquisite!

    The film does the best job I have seen in transitioning the life of a traumatized child into a vengeful, somewhat super-powered, vigilante I have yet to see. And, I am very aware that it is now 2011. Affleck was spot-on as an obsessed lawyer striving to get justice any way he could. This Daredevil killed people — that’s hard-core. He thinks he is “one of the good guys.” And, then, he is confronted with the fear of a child. The character transitions again. In the end, he admits that his justice is not real justice and he stays the execution of his greatest enemy.

    Johnson admits the CGI could have been better. That’s life. They were doubtless under pressure to get the film in on time. Like Rob, I have heard the director’s cut is better and I haven’t seen it. But, after watching this film more times than I can remember, it really doesn’t matter.

    As far as chemistry between actors is concerned, there is better chemistry here than Nolan has given us in his first two later Batman movies. And I am going to submit here that Hollywood’s golden boy is only so because on the rapt-attention given to his Batman films by Batman-or-nothing fans, who had grown tired of maudlin attempts that frankly anything believable would do. That is, of course, ignoring the “batmobile”s maneuvering down a very Burtonesque structure to safety. Not cool. Not at all.

    Since when have people become so blind that they look at a film made in 2005 and proclaim it is the most realistic when we had Blade in, what was it, oh! 1998!

  27. It was a pretty good movie, very entertaining. I don’t know why ppl had issues with the kingpin being black. It happens! You’ll be surprise…