Joe Carnahan’s ‘Daredevil’ Sizzle Reel; Marvel Reclaims Character [Updated]

Published 2 years ago by , Updated October 11th, 2012 at 8:29 pm,

[Update #2: As of October 10th, Marvel has regained the movie rights to Daredevil.]

It was a year and half ago when David Slade (30 Days of Night) was chosen by Twentieth Century Fox to helm the Daredevil reboot, a project that has failed to materialize as the clock winds down for the studio. During Comic-Con 2012 last month, the news broke that Slade would not longer be able direct Daredevil due his work on the Hannibal pilot conflicting with Fox’s scheduling needs.

The problem for Fox is that the film rights to Daredevil have restrictions and if they don’t have the movie in production by October 10th, then they lose the license as it reverts back to Disney/Marvel Studios. Joe Carnahan (The Grey, The A-Team) almost swept in to save the film but as we learned today, that’s no longer happening.

Fox is stuck between a rock and a hard place with their Marvel properties. While the X-Men series is their most important with The Wolverine already shooting and X-Men: Days of Future Past beginning production later this year, Fantastic Four and Daredevil are their other two franchises in need of a reboot. Chronicle director Josh Trank has already signed to helm FF but Daredevil hasn’t been so fortunate and it could be because of Fox’s feelings (or lack thereof) on the character.

Daredevil reboot official announcement Joe Carnahans Daredevil Sizzle Reel; Marvel Reclaims Character [Updated]

Last week, Variety reported that Fox was in talks with Marvel Studios about a potential trade, one that would involve Marvel giving Fox an extension on the Daredevil rights so they don’t have to rush the project, in exchange for the rights to Silver Surfer and Galactus, two key parts of the Fantastic Four mythos and cosmic side of the larger Marvel universe. According to Deadline’s conflicting report however, Fox instead simply wanted Marvel Studios to co-finance the film – an option that perhaps would not benefit Marvel as much as getting the rights back.

daredevil reboot rewrite Joe Carnahans Daredevil Sizzle Reel; Marvel Reclaims Character [Updated]

And get the rights back they might. As we learned from Joe Carnahan today via Twitter, his pitch for a ’70s style Daredevil in the vein of Frank Miller’s best books in the series didn’t fly. He confirmed that it was simply an issue of running out of time at Fox and that his pitch was otherwise very well received. For those interested, he just promised over Twitter to share it soon.

[Update: Joe Carnahan released his Daredevil sizzle reel which can be viewed up top.]

Daredevil Joe Carnahan Explanation Joe Carnahans Daredevil Sizzle Reel; Marvel Reclaims Character [Updated]

As Deadline reaffirms, Fox is “lukewarm” on the project and it seems now that they may simply let it revert back to Marvel. While at first glance, Daredevil may seem obviously best suited in the hands of its creators, Marvel Studios simply won’t be able to produce a Daredevil feature in the forseeable future. If they can’t make a television series out of it either, there will be no live-action Daredevil for anyone if Fox isn’t making it.

That’s the issue of Marvel Studios owning all of their own properties and a big part of the reason ex-CEO Avi Arad initially distributed the film rights to their key characters among a variety of separate studios as to not have them cannibalizing themselves by prioritizing only the higher profile brands.

-

Follow Rob on Twitter @rob_keyes.

Sources: Joe Carnahan, Deadline

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

101 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com 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.

  1. I feel kind of conflicted on the one hand its great that Marvel gets it’s characters back but on the other Fox could make a Daredevil movie since the schedule for comicbook movie for Fox isn’t full but back at Marvel it might not get made for really long time, perhaps as a cable series Daredevil can make it on to the screen but it might need a pretty big budget…

    • At least if Marvel gets it back it won’t suck NEARLY as much. If at all…

      • IM2? Thor? TFA?

        Suck is a universal adjective appliable to all studios.

        • Thor didn’t really suck

        • Well as you know Ignur, that’s only your opinion.

          Thor and TFA were pretty good in the eyes of most fans and they got pretty good reviews all round as well.
          TFA is even on a lot of fans’ ‘Top 5 Best CBMs of All Time’ lists… I would hardly call that a sucky film – even if YOU didn’t like it.

          • Most people agree that, Thor was enjoyable mediocracy. Not good, Not bad. It exist to exist. Doesnt live up to its potential.

            Most people agree TFA was a great movie up until he got superhero steroid juice, at which point, it quickly went down hill. TFA sucks because Hugo Weaving was unforgivably wasted, it tried to ignore it was a WW2 film and the simple superhero cliché of a plot we got despite the amazing potential Cap has as a narrative.

            • Well then we have different interpretations of what a “suck-y movie” is.
              Thor: IMDB user rating of 7 out of 10 and a RT-audience ranking of 3.9 out of 5
              TFA: IMDB rating of 6.8 out of 10 and a RT-audience raking of 3.8 out of 5.

              Personally, I would consider those ratings as pretty good…

              On the other hand, Elektra and Ghost Rider for example would be perfect examples of movies that sucked.

              • GhostRider and Elecktra were horrible pieces of cinema.

                Like I said, Thor and especially Cap did not live up to their potential. The Ratings show that. They were both good Avenger tie ins, ok comicbook movies but quite suck-y films when looking at it beyond the superhero genre. The narrative was extremely weak for each.

            • By your rationale, majority of movies period, suck or are suck-y then. There’s but a handful of movies that actually live up to their ‘potential’. That term is thrown around way too much, Thor and TFA did very well considering the hype surrounding the two, imo. Were they excellent, flawless movies or did they live up to their ‘potential’? No, certainly not flawless, but potential? That’s relative, they could’ve well been ‘potential’ box office & critical flops as well.

              • A lot of movies do suck, indeed.

                • In other words, “sucky” = merely good because they failed to live up to your potential meter (i.e. not being a 10 out of 10).

                  In that case, all the Nolan Batman’s were just a notch above “sucky” then, right?

                  • It’s ambition, positively outweighed the negatives.

      • It’ll suck more cuz it won’t be made

  2. I just want a good Daredevil movie to be made. Daredevil is the “Dark Knight” for any studio that has the balls to back it up. I absolutely loved the Frank Miller run back in the day, and believe that there must be a director out there who can do it justice. If that’s Carnahan, so be it.

    If Fox can’t figure things out, then it’s their loss, Marvel’s gain. And if Marvel gets it, they better do it justice (i.e. I want adult contemporary, not comic book fantasy), and not sit on it and wait until 2017 (or something like that).

    • Agreed on all points. Recently read Frank Miller’s run, it was fantastic.

      • Not gonna happen. In what world do you see daredevil fitting into the MCU. They are going cosmic as in bigger characters bigger movies. Daredevil doesnt fit in at all. why do you think they wanted Galactus and silver surfer?

        • I can absolutely see Marvel decide to make a stand-alone film for daredevil and hopefully for a more mature audience.

          • I mean dont get me wrong I can see it to mabe even do a heroes for hire that ties all 3 of them together. but not for a really long time.

  3. I really want to see Carahan’s vision. Sounds like he understands the character and the arc he is basing off his movies is one of DD’s best runs. Hopefully something miraculously turns around.

    If the rights revert back to Marvel it will be 8+ years before a DD film surfaces. Hopefull Marvel realizes that DD is a street level character and should not be caught up in the gears of Avengers over reaching cosmic plots. Unfortunately, I see a Marvel Studios DD ignoring the grittier aspects of DD (the violent Hell’s Kitchen) much like Captain America tried to ignore it was set in WW2 to make a more lighthearted superhero movie.

    • If Marvel turns DD into a lighthearted, general audience picture (ala Captain America), then they missed the point.

      Look, there are some characters that fit the current kid friendly, general audience picture (i.e. the Avengers and all the movies leading up to that). I get it. But DD? Like you said, it’s got to be gritty.

      Someone else on ScreenRant recommended that Marvel come up with different brands to differentiate between certain titles (i.e. Marvel Knights for titles like Ghost Rider, Doctor Strange, etc., and another Marvel brand for titles like DD). That would be cool, with each one having some sort of identity.

      But the biggest problem with all this is that Marvel is just one studio, and can’t possibly make every single superhero film out there in a timely manner. Which is why it might actually be better that other film studios be involved.

      • Tht would be a fantastic idea. I have said before Marvel should adopt a 3 movie a year formula. 2 big-medium budget Avengers connnected films released Spring/Summer and a smaller budget street level character relased in the winter that strives to be different in tone from the rest of the MCU.

        A Marvel Knights imprint would be perfect.
        Moon Knight – mind bender/thriller (Memento/FightClub)
        Luke Cage – 70s Blaxxploitation homage (Shaft)
        Iron Fist – classic Foreign martial arts film (Enter Dragon)
        Blade – Vmpire Horror film
        Cloak & Dagger – A Gritty Coming of Age story
        Punisher – nuff said lol

        • Oh, man, I like where you’re going with this, and would love to see these movies!

        • Yea it’d be awesome if they have a focus on the darker/grittier side of Marvel.i don’t think it should be completely seperate…keep it in the MCU. But they don’t really have anything to do with the Thors or Ironman’s of the marvel universe anyway…so it would basically be seperate. But there could be some cool cameos of the bigger characters to be had.

          A more adult connected Marvel Knights side of the MCU could be incredible though. Set it up with a few smaller budget origins for Daredevil, Moon Knight, Luke Cage, Iron Fist then do some team ups/crossovers. The Punisher doesn’t really need another origin story.

          But truthfully like others have said, put it on Tv as a High Budget show on Starz or somewhere like that. call it Marvel Knights, and have episodes focus on different characters with cameos/crossovers. Basically at the end of season one all of them would have their own movie. A show like that would really allow Marvel to introduce characters without devoting hundreds of millions on a risky solo movie for them.

          • Agreed Ace.
            The show could be done from the perspective of Heroes for Hire running into the other heroes. That would give the show a sense of continuity. They all live in New York after all.

        • punisher movie!!! i think the punisher should pay a visit to Fox studios

        • Awesome idea.
          That would seriously be amazing if they went with what you’re suggesting: 2 big budget main-stream movies in the middle of the year and a smaller budget, darker and possibly R-rated film at the end of the year, each year.

      • Marvel/Disney gritty superhero movie…

        LOL Good joke.

  4. I think Disney has a good deal with Starz when it comes to releasing its movies for pay cable. This could also work in favor for a cable show for Daredevil, Punisher and Blade. I mean Starz did give us the wonderfully bloody and violent series Spartacus and a morally curved line in Boss. So these would fit in perfectly.

    DisneyMarvel will need to branch out to get the grittier side of their universe on screen.

    • Nice idea (i.e. the cable alternative). It could work, although I’d like to see DD on the big screen.

      But, yes, Marvel should branch it. Do they have the balls/money to do it?

  5. Disney should agree to an extension, but only if Fox agrees to let Disney use their licensed Marvel characters in a crossover movie.

  6. At this point if Marvel gets Daredevil back and there is an issue with them not being able (or willing) to do a big-screen version then maybe they should consider television for this and other characters. The motion picture approach has been tried with many of the properties and considering the current direction Marvel is going in there might be a burn-out factor at some point with box office profits.

    Building a fan base and making characters more familiar can only help to build the brand overall. And there is no rule saying a television show can’t get a movie spin off eventually, it has worked alright for other properties before.

  7. I have a feeling we won’t be getting anything gritty or not Avengers related from Marvel for quite some time. Since DD hasn’t been lucrative for FOX and while there is a good community for it, there aren’t a majority of people asking for a DD to come down the line, so they’ll probably revert the rights. A live action DD will be treated like The Punisher, Blade, a real Deadpool film, and so on. There will be some talking but nothing will happen.

  8. You see, this is why I Love you guys at Screen Rant .
    You posted the title as a question mark .
    There are some sites that are reporting Marvel getting the rights back as a done deal.
    You also make it very clear that it might possibly be better for Dardevil to to be at another studio, or at least you entertain the possibility of that .
    Top Notch Reporting Rob.
    Thanks.

    • Your check is in the mail, Gary ;)

      Seriously though, thanks!

  9. Not gonna get 2 excited about this because it really seems that somebody can’t get their act together! Fox,if you had just gone ahead with a DD reboot earlier on, then you wouldn’t be in the mess that your in now. You obviously don’t really understand the character and you can’t find a decent director because you won’t let the director bring his or her vision of what they could bring 2 DD. Especially if they understand the character.

    Poor DD. Maybe one day someone will bring him the star treatment he deserves. Great character that doesn’t get the justice or respect that he should get.

  10. I just can’t believe people are seeing any bright side to Fox still owning the property. You people are crazy. Even though Marvel may not be able to make a Daredevil movie in the forseeable future, I would rather have his fi;m franchise die in peace then have Fox completely eff the character up a second time. I don’t care if I have to wait another seven years for a Daredevil flick, if he’s in the understanding hands of his creators then there’s no reason why we can’t rest easy.

  11. Must watch! Official. Joe Carnahan releases sizzle reel for his proposed Daredevil project. FANTASTIC! This movie must be made!

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j5rb3R5iWs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      ^^Version 2.0. Carnahan released both of these videos.

      Source: Twitter @carnojoe

      • These are great Ignur Rant. Thanks for posting them. Someone finance that film.

      • Thanks for posting my friend. I loved them!!! :)

      • that sucked man. talk about grasping for straws.

      • So let me preface this with, I’m at work and couldn’t listen to the sound… But I was not impressed by that at all…

    • I can dig it. :)

  12. Here are the two Sizzle reels Carnahan released to show the look/feel for the film he wants to make

    http://t.co/do17oPs1
    http://t.co/ItZ9ithm

    Seems like an interesting take, I like it….but I doubt Disney/Marvel would make that once they get the rights back.

  13. FYI those sizzle reels are the ones he used when presenting his pitch to Fox executives. They loved it.

    • Yea I bet, they definetly made me want to see that Daredevil film…but unfortunately it looks like that won’t happen.
      I love seeing official sizzle reels though, really shows the passion people have for that particular character that they’d take the time to find and cut up all those films and basically make a Fanmade trailer to show their vision.

  14. I think if Daredevil does end up back at Marvel they’ll treat it like Hulk and do an animated version. It would be nice if they would do something like that and put it in a deluxe DVD set say coupled with ‘Avengers 2′ or ‘Winter Soldier’ when it’s eventually released on DVD…

  15. While I’d love to see a new DD film I don’t want to see it set in the 70′s. First the target audience 18-25 wouldn’t relate to it (I’m 55 by the way so I totally would lol ) second that would negate any chance of him ever inteacting with the rest of the Marvel universe. I actually enjoyed the DD movie for the most part but definitely think it could be improved on. DD might work better on the small screen maybe as a spin off from the proposed ABC marvel series ( hopefully Heroes For Hire ).

    • Being from New York I see the vibe the director was going for, don’t know how it would play overall though. Setting it in the 70′s could give it a nostalgia vibe, but it does date the material if they want to expand. It worked to a degree for X-Men:First Class so maybe it’s just something Fox is into right now.

      As for interacting with the rest of the movie universe they have established, everything may not need to connect up with the Avengers now or in the future. Even though the comics seem to have taken the position that everything has to be cross-over, Daredevil and many other characters really dealt under the radar of what other characters were involved in. They can still acknowledge the overall concept with other characters without necessarily directly linking everything to the Avengers films.

  16. I’m loving the Marvel Knights cinematic universe. Good ideas fellas.

    If DD reverts back to Marvel,does Elektra come as well? She does fit with the Avengers.

    • Yea she does, along with Kingpin, Bullseye, And a bunch of others.

      The might be able to swing a share rights swap with Sony. Let them use Kingpin and some other characters that Daredevil is bringing, for…something.

      • Right! Kingpin would be an *ahem* amazing villain to have for their franchise, better than a rebooted Goblin(s) or Doc Ock, IMO.

    • “Interestingly enough, Variety says Fox still holds the rights to Daredevil’s love interest Elektra, who was in the 2003 Daredevil movie and got her own self-titled 2005 solo flick.”

      source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/14/daredevil-reportedly-returning-to-marvel

      • Interesting, I’ve heard it both ways. If they still do have the rights, they will revert back to Marvel by the time any DD project would get off the ground (2 years), unless they hire Carnahan obviously (which is doubtful)

      • WTF? THAT is BS. I thought these were bought as a package deal and revert as a package.

        • My guess would be the rights revert back after a certain amount of time between the character being used in a project. Daredevil came out in 2003 and Elektra was 2005, so they probably have another two years give or take a couple of months to use Elektra. Not like it really matters, they won’t do anything with the character more then likely and by that time Marvel may have come up with something to do with the property as a whole.

          • That’s not my understanding of the deals which is why, buy using just one of the characters from a franchise they can call the terms of the contract fulfilled.

            Arg, I would REALLY love to get my hands on these horrible contracts to see exactly what is going on! ><

  17. At this point I would prefer the “deal” we originally heard about; DD extension vs SS & Galactus, instead of this co-finance bull. That way DD can be done in a more timely fashion and Marvel can then use these two great characters in the shared universe they are molding that almost demands they make an appearance.

    If all we have however is co-finance on the table (a very VERY lame proposition from Fox that does nothing for Marvel), then I say Marvel take back DD. At least that way they will have one more of their kids back home.

    oh and IR……I saw the directors cut of DD and was, um……still not all that impressed. While it did flow better it still contained things that could never be removed; Electra, horribly fake martial arts choreography, MCD as King Pin (sorry but I don’t consider him all that great of an actor). So for me it probably moved the star meter from a 5 to a 6 (out of 10)

    • As you have stated before the Avengers has made these properties potentially more profitable, if done correctly. With Fox still having the X-Men and Fantastic Four I don’t see why Marvel would want to rework or extend any deals with other studios at this point.

      From a pure negotiation stand-point Fox now being willing to trade Silver Surfer and Galactus just makes it look like they have no intention of using them for a Fantastic Four project, and that’s assuming they get that reboot off the ground. Unless Fox got Namor in the deal, Fox tipping their hand by trying to trade two other characters off means they probably don’t have much planned for FF at this point since you can’t get many more movies using just Doctor Doom as the main villain.

      • It was my understanding that it was Marvel that offered the extension on DD for the use of Galactus and Silver Surfer. Which Fox declined because DD is anything but a sure bet and they are trying to kick start a new F4 franchise..and don’t want to lose those two important characters.

        If the F4 rights are like the Daredevil rights than Marvel is going to get F4
        back in 2016. But since there is a scheduled reboot with Josh Trank coming out from now until then….if Marvel wants them they will need to get Disney to open up the check book.

      • As a side note, Fox can still use the Skrull (and Super Skrull) story arc to make a movie and to be honest that would probably make more sense than trying to use Galactus or the SS again.

        • @mongoose-The trend at Fox has not been to spend more money on these movies over time so I doubt they were going to invest in doing the Surfer over again. They spent about ten dollars on Galactus the last time so again, they probably aren’t looking to go down that road at all going forward.

          The Skrulls would make sense if they don’t want to use Doctor Doom again, and using the Super Skrull would just mean re-purposing the effects for the main four characters.

          @Ace-There are several stories about this, with the last one being Fox wanted Marvel to invest in the next Daredevil movie(which just let Marvel know Fox couldn’t raise the capital for DD). I can’t see how Marvel could ask for two characters in exchange for one they didn’t even have back, and in reality Marvel doesn’t need Silver Surfer or Galactus for what they have going on. They have more than enough characters to work with at this point.

  18. IMO, I would rather the rights just go back to Marvel. Even if they don’t have any immediate use for it, they will at least be in control of their own property again. Who’s to say they can’t option the rights to another company? They could then reconstruct a better, less constraining deal than the one they had with FOX, like a per-picture deal or maybe even retaining crossover rights for some of the characters. They could even conceivably consider a deal with Sony. Sony isn’t going to give up Spiderman anytime soon and they might be interested in a Spiderman/DD cro$$over. Maybe that could even help pave a way for Spidey to appear in The Avengers. “Here, we’ll give you Daredevil, if you just let us borrow Spidey.”

    • Marvel doesn’t need Spider-Man (especially for the Avengers). The only ones who would benefit from that crossover would be Sony.

      • I never said they needed him. But, I am sure it would be nice to have the option of using him, in some capacity, in the future. I’m not saying make him a part of “the team”, like Sony would let that fly anyway. However, with the shared universe they are trying to convey and depending on the direction the storyline goes it’s not inconceivable that they would want him to make an appearance.

        • no, but you implied it would mean big bucks for Marvel with the $$ in the word, “crossover”.

          Marvel has PLENTY of other characters to work with and a team-up with DD would probably be last on that list even if they had DD back today.

          You also need to remember that while some at Marvel may have consulted in TASM, it is not necessarily Marvel’s vision of what the character would be, nor how they would want that part of the universe to work. So I think it’s pretty safe to say that those franchises that Marvel doesn’t own are pretty much dead to them until they can regain total control.

          To put it bluntly….Sony needs Marvel WAY before Marvel would need anything from Sony. So any crossover deals are not in Marvel’s best interest because they want those IPs back regardless of how nice they are being about the whole situation. You don’t help the enemy keep that IP by bolstering it with appearances in your movies.

          • SONY would be interested in a “Spiderman/DD cro$$over”, not Marvel. Although the proposition could be beneficial to both companies if handled correctly. I’m just saying that if Marvel has no use for DD, they could conceivably “trade” him to Sony for something they do want. It doesn’t have to be permanent, like I said it could be for just a one picture deal.

            “it is not necessarily Marvel’s vision of what the character would be, nor how they would want that part of the universe to work.” It doesn’t HAVE to be Andrew Garfield or Sony’s version of Spiderman. It could just be a generic Spiderman in Marvels Own Universe. It could just be a shot of him webslinging across the building tops or something.

            Why did Marvel go out of their way, to make a deal with Sony, to use the Oscorp tower in The Avengers? (I don’t know if they actually did use it, but they secured the rights to) Same thing. You KNOW A LOT of fanboys would go apeshit just to catch a glimpse of Spiderman in The Avengers. Just a small cameo, would sell tickets.

            Actually it doesn’t even NEED to be Spiderman, maybe Sony, or anyone else for that matter, has something else Marvel/Disney would want. A potential trade could be in the interest of both companies, ESPECIALLY if Marvel has no immediate use for DD. Why let him sit on a shelf for 5+ years, when he could be bringing in some form of income. Get a job DD.

            • Since Sony tried to snake all the Spider-Man rights away from Marvel at some point I don’t see them ever cutting another deal with them that would grant them use of anything other than what they already have.

              As for Daredevil, it has been years since the last mediocre Daredevil movie and Fox wasn’t prepared to do another one anytime in the next year probably. If Marvel waits five years or more than it won’t hurt anyone because odds are the most people were going to get is one more out of Fox depending on how it did. Maybe by the time Marvel is able get around to it they will have someone solid on the table, maybe third time will be the charm for DD.

            • Well one thing Marvel has smartened up about is contract deals. So if they indeed get the rights back but have no plans for him, I agree they could farm him back out to some other studio. They just need to make sure “perpetuity” is nowhere in the wording.

              “It doesn’t HAVE to be Andrew Garfield or Sony’s version of Spiderman”

              No, it doesn’t but then why would Sony allow a different, “non-Sony” version? They would get no cross recognition which would be the the only real reason to do it.

              The problem with any version however is it then becomes a “hook and line” maneuver. Sony allows Marvel to use him once (for a moderate cost), everyone likes it and Marvel wants to use him again but this time Sony ups the price considerably because they know they have marvel “hooked”. It’s just best for Marvel to steer clear of any no-owned cross-overs, imho.

              And the whole Oscorp building thing was really nothing more than Marvel really liking the building design and thought it would be a fun easter egg. No one secured rights to anything.

  19. Im hoping the rights revert I like daredevil a lot and Electra. I wanna a marvel studios version.

  20. I grew up reading Frank Miller’s original DD run and caught up with his Born Again arc years later, and Carnahan’s homage looks pretty faithful to that, but Disney is NEVER going to go for it…and they shouldn’t have to think that it’s the only way to go.

    Mark Waid’s current run on Daredevil is a blend of both Silver Age meets Bronze Age ‘DD’. it is a refreshing change from the ghost of Frank Miller that writers and artists have been chasing for thirty years now…time to let it go.

    You’re never going to ‘out Dark Knight’ the last three Batman movies, so don’t even try. Since Sony will never relinquish the movie rights to Spider-Man in our lifetime, Marvel should just give us the next best thing.

    Joss Whedon, Jon Favreau, and Kevin Feige can put their heads together and figure out how to make The Man Without Fear as relevant on the big screen as Iron Man and company without having to copy Christopher Nolan’s vision.

  21. I think it’s great news that DD goes back to Marvel and for the life of me, I can’t figure out how some are upset about that. Granted, it would’ve been fantastic to see Galactus or the surfer in a Guardians movie or at the end of the Avengers sequel but nonetheless, it’s still good news.
    So Marvel doesn’t make a DD movie for the foreseeable future, they can still use the accompanying characters.
    Could you imagine Hydra employing Hand assassin to take out Nick Fury in a stand alone Shield movie.
    Now that Marvel has the rights back to the Punisher as well, we could possibly see Castle go up against the Kingpin or even Bullseye.

    If Marvel plays its cards right, they could allow Ben Kingsley to slip in a reference to the Hand.
    Or Marvel could go to Sony and tell them that they could “borrow” (not keep) the character of the Kingpin to use in their next Spidey film in order to allow Spiderman to appear in an Avengers sequel.
    One of the greatest Spiderman stories featured Wilson Fisk (1st appearance actually).

    The possibilities are positively boundless

  22. @mongoose, completely agree. I bought DD’s Director Cut on Blu-Ray for cheap, and still want my 10 bucks back. Everyone said to give it a chance and check it out . . . I did and it was still awful. The playground fight scene, Bullseye, and the list goes on. DD is a perfect example of how not to make a Superhero movie.

    A 70′s Daredevil? Ummmm, no. It was another trainwreck in the process. I liked X-Men First Class but they still did it wrong by placing it in that era. Sorry, that isn’t a proper X-Men/Marvel movie. Marvel Studios is nailing how these characters should be shown on the silver screen. I agree they should get a more mature tone with some of the characters in the future but they have done a top-notch job, so far. Sony’s Spider-Man was good, but still messed it up.

    • I don’t know about Bullseye and kind of enjoyed Farrell’s portrayal. He is insane and that came across while the Irish thing was seemingly unnecessary but that was the director deciding to use his natural accent.

      The only thing I didn’t like was the bullseye brand on the forehead. I know he does have that mark but am not big into the character so I don’t know if it was adapted after the movie or the movie did get it from the comics. It did seem excessively silly but then again I could see an arrogant, insane person with his ability doing this type of thing.

  23. Even if they don’t use the characters, they could still reference them (to actually give validation that these characters indeed live within the same Marvelverse would be cool. Marvel is known for their easter eggs in their movies)
    To this day, I still get a nerd on when they referenced Dr Strange in Spiderman 2.

  24. Wow. That pitch could have been a trailer!
    I dont see how any Daredevil fans would not want to see this movie made when its so clearly channeling one of DD’s best runs.
    Sorry Marvel Studios, You have been upstaged. Carnahan has my vote.

    PS. Did anyone else notice Robert Deniro’s Al Capone voice over from Untouchables? Fisk is very much a modern day Al Capone in the way he is known criminal but untouchable.

  25. I like daredevil a lot he’s a great superhero, it’s good in the sense that marvel will probably handle him better than fox but on the other hand it’s disappointing that fox didn’t get to make an entertaining daredevil flick. I saw the movie last year on DVD and I had some interesting thoughts on it. Personally I feel that the movie just lacked a good story, it really had too many characters from the daredevil universe and the acting really wasn’t that impressive and some of the casting could’ve been better. I think Michael Clarke Duncan was a good kingpin but I think he could’ve been a great one and they just didnt work with him enough as a character, Collin Ferrell could’ve been a great bullseye but again the story was crappy and his costume was pretty lame and although he was cool he was quite lame at the same time, Ben Urich was again castes well but written poorly, now for Ben affleck I personally like him as an actor and I thought he wouldve made a great daredevil but again the writing really bad, Jon favreau was actually fantastic as Nelson he was hilarious couldn’t stop laughing, Jennifer garner was poorly castes I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that she’s just not Elektra material. I think mark Steven Johnson was a good choice of director but if he had avoided writing the story then perhaps he movie could’ve been more entertaining. I’m confused as to why marvel can’t make a live action daredevil can anyone explain why?

    • The Faverau/Affleck chemistry was in top form. Faverau does really well in those type of roles.

      DD biggest problem was the studios interference to make DD more “superhero-y” film and the forced Elektra as a love intrest/mini-antagonist. The Directors Cut is better depiction of the vision the director wanted but couldnt all the way fulfill.

  26. I’d love to see somebody–anybody–do a GOOD Daredevil film (I did not mind the first one…not great, but good enough I bought the DVD), possibly based on an idea that was floated a long time ago as a possible sequel to the first one where the villains were Kingpin again and Mr. Fear.

    • DD had potential to be an amazing sequel, possibly the best ever made. Kingpin coming back for revenge!? I could see it following the Born Again storyline with Kingpin systematically destroying Murdock’s life piece by piece. Destroying his Law practice, destroying his home and maybe utilizing Karen Page’s betrayl and addiction to heroin in a different way.

  27. Ok so who should play DD? My top three are
    Affleck
    Gyllenhaal
    Urban

  28. a one season big budget series would be cool, i would prefer a black panther movie for cinema. and the ff must have a mo-cap the thing and they should take michael chikklies again, and i.m.o the thing looks in some comics better if he is 6ft tall, i know he´s more a massive,bright big thing and not that tall like hulk,but like i said they should give him hulk syze

  29. Gotta say, I loved that sizzle reel… not so sure about the 70s setting. I understand the tone they’re going for, but I’m certain a good director can get the same effect and feel in a modern setting.

    Like a lot of the other commentors I’m a little conflicted. Obviously it would be awesome if the rights could go back to Marvel, but the chances are that the character will just end up sitting on the shelf gathering up dust (i.e. with their busy schedule they’ll never make it), but on the other hand with Fox there’s a big chance they’ll screw it up again, OR there’s a chance it’ll be a huge hit, so yeah, I dunno. Either way I’m just hoping when when Daredevil makes his return to the big screen it’ll be done properly.

    I could see Daredevil being a very successful tv show though. Marvel is looking to expand into television and if they do get the rights back from Fox, it would be awesome if he could get a tv show… maybe that could even start up a Heroes For Hire spin off series – so many possibilities.

    Ignur Rant’s suggesting of releasing a lower budget film with a different tone than the MCU which introduces more grounded characters at the end of each year is the best idea I’ve heard though. Hopefully someone at Marvel Studios has been thinking about doing something like that as well [crossing fingers]

Be Social, Follow Us!!