Marvel's Daredevil (Netflix)

[Azrael]

I'd like to ask you as an expert on DD comics, and since you mentioned Nolan's films. Do you think his very concept lends itself much better to a "grounded" approach compared to Batman?

That's a good question, Nycteris, and one I've thought about quite a bit. On the surface, you'd think Batman would lend itself better to the grounded approach. After all, the central plot of DD season 1 predicated upon the economic fallout resulting from the Chitauri invasion in The Avengers. It's hard to imagine an alien invasion occurring in the Nolanverse. Ultimately they're both perfectly legitimate adaptations of their respective source materials, and in both cases they preserved the essence of the titular hero intact. But Daredevil definitely sticks closer to the comics and makes far fewer concessions to 'realism' than Nolan's films.

Don't get me wrong, I think what Nolan did with his trilogy was fantastic. But he did strip away numerous aspects of the mythology to make the material conform to his vision. And in the context of his films, it worked. But in the case of Daredevil there really aren't that many deviations from the comics. The only two major changes were the toning down of Owlsley and the death of a certain main character. Other than that, it's pretty much spot on with the source material.

Batman is more sci-fi oriented than Daredevil and involves lots of high-tech gadgets and vehicles. Batman's also central to a wider cast of colourful supporting characters, not to mention a member of the JLA. In order to keep it grounded, Nolan had to cut most of that stuff out. So did Burton for that matter. But Daredevil doesn't have many gadgets and he doesn't pilot any over-the-top vehicles. He's just a street level vigilante operating out of a real area of New York (or San Francisco, depending on which era of the comics we're talking about). Daredevil mostly operates alone. He's worked with other heroes like Black Widow and Luke Cage, and in the current run by Charles Soule he's even taken on a sidekick named Billy Li. But none of those characters are as fantastical as Superman or Wonder Woman. So although Daredevil does occasionally hang out with the likes of Spider-Man and his ilk, he mostly keeps the company of other street level vigilantes.

I think the Charlie Cox Daredevil is sufficiently close to the comic book version that they're more or less interchangeable. They're physically very similar, they move and fight the same, they possess the same abilities and skills, the same morality, philosophy, personality, etc. I can't honestly say that about any of the recent live action incarnations of Batman. They all display aspects of the Modern Age Batman from the comics, but none embody the character 100%. The versions from Batman: The Animated Series and the Arkham games are perfect translations of the Modern Age Batman, and Adam West's Batman was every bit as interchangeable with the Silver Age comic book version. But Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney and Bale? Not so much.

Once again, I'm not dissing the Batman films. I think they're great. But they present versions of Batman rather than literal adaptations. They're still Batman, just not the comic version. Whereas the MCU Daredevil is so close to the comic version that they may as well be the same guy. And Marvel/Netflix achieved that without any significant dilution of the character or his abilities. So despite the fact Matt Murdock possesses superhuman senses and Bruce Wayne doesn't, I do think the former character is better suited to the gritty/realistic approach than the latter. Because at the end of the day the Daredevil comics are mostly gritty and grounded, while the tone of the Batman comics is based more on a hybridisation of grittiness, sci-fi and fantasy.

Thanks for taking the time, Silver Nemesis. A fascinating read. Just a few scattered thoughts of mine.

IMO their surrounding universes shouldn't be a factor in comparing them i.e. Netflix's DD isn't more fantastical than Nolan's Batman just because the economic fallout was caused by events from the Avengers; what the viewer (or reader) sees is a street level vigilante fighting crime.

Gotham (in the comics) is also pretty much a self-contained universe when a JLA team-up isn't required, even during big stories like Knightfall. Batman most often works with Robin to fight the Joker, not with Superman to fight Darkseid.

My instinctive response (as a longtime Bat-fan but only a very casual reader of a few DD stories) would be that DD is at its core far grittier than Batman, for reasons you elaborated on.

Don't get me wrong, I think what Nolan did with his trilogy was fantastic. But he did strip away numerous aspects of the mythology to make the material conform to his vision. And in the context of his films, it worked. But in the case of Daredevil there really aren't that many deviations from the comics. The only two major changes were the toning down of Owlsley and the death of a certain main character. Other than that, it's pretty much spot on with the source material.

Yes. You take away from Batman to make him "realistic", while for DareDevil it's almost "as is".

As for a comparison between this show and the movies, there are things with the Batman movies (production values and production design, big name stars, epic set-pieces and music etc.) that are totally beyond not only the reach (budget), but the aims of a series like DareDevil. The Batman movies are epic in size and, as you say, a distillation of many versions (1989 in particular is more like a celebration of Batman than a Batman story); DareDevil is more lowkey and has the room to go deeper into the characters.

[Silver Nemesis]

Gotham (in the comics) is also pretty much a self-contained universe when a JLA team-up isn't required, even during big stories like Knightfall. Batman most often works with Robin to fight the Joker, not with Superman to fight Darkseid.

True. Another point to be made is that Daredevil has the advantage of piggybacking off previous MCU productions. Daredevil's universe has already been established as a world that includes characters as fantastical as Thanos and the Hulk. They can make offhand references to things like that in Daredevil without necessarily having to show them, because the audience already knows they exist in this universe. If they choose to mention them, they have the luxury of doing so.

But Nolan had to construct an entire universe from the ground up. And the only way we'd know if certain things existed in that universe was if we were explicitly shown them. Showing the Hulk in Daredevil would undermine the realistic atmosphere, and showing Man-Bat in The Dark Knight would have a similar effect. Ultimately Nolan was adapting Batman, not the entire DC Universe. The makers of Daredevil are adapting Daredevil, but they've got the pre-existing landscape of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to use as a sandbox. They have a clear advantage in that regard. And as you say, the Daredevil comics are inherently grittier than the Batman comics anyway, so it's simply a matter of reigning in the fantasy of the MCU until the shoe fits.

This opens up another interesting question, which is when/how should Daredevil interact with the rest of the MCU? Should other characters, such as Tom Holland's Spider-Man, guest appear in Daredevil? Or should Daredevil himself appear in some of the theatrical films? Personally I'd love to see Charlie Cox's Daredevil show up in the Infinity War films, but I'm less enthusiastic about other characters appearing in Daredevil's show. I don't mind some of the darker R-rated Marvel characters appearing (e.g. Punisher, Luke Cage, Blade), but I'd prefer to keep the lighter characters at a distance. Spider-Man's a tricky situation as he's frequently interacted with Daredevil in the comics. If they were to meet in the MCU, I'd rather have Cox appear as Matt Murdock in the Spider-Man movies than have Holland show up in Daredevil. That way Daredevil could venture further afield in the MCU without compromising the realistic tone of his own TV series.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this. Should the Netflix Marvel characters mingle with the theatrical heroes, or should they keep to their own corner of the MCU?

[BatmAngelus]

SN, I'm curious, do you think the series could've pulled off doing the yellow suit in Season 1?

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not sure about that. The yellow suit's synonymous with the Stan Lee era. And while I enjoy reading the Masterworks collections for historical reasons, I can't say they really gel tonally with the darker comics that came later on. If they were ever to do a lighter, more family-friendly version of Daredevil based on the Stan Lee or Mark Waid runs – maybe an animated series for kids – then the yellow outfit would be the way to go. But the colour yellow doesn't really have the same symbolic value as the red suit carries. Red just fits in better with the devil motif: hellfire, anger, blood, etc. I also think that generally speaking unicoloured schemes work better for darker superheroes than multicoloured costumes. Hence why Batman usually just wears black in the movies.

The one way I could see them referencing the yellow suit would be during the flashback scene in episode 10, the one where he fights the abusive father at the train yard. Maybe in that scene he could've worn a yellow and black hoodie instead of a plain black one. Something like this:




In the comics, the only reason he had the yellow suit to begin with was because he made it himself out of his dad's old boxing robe. But in the TV show he tells Foggy he assembled his black costume from gear he bought on the internet, and obviously Potter made the red suit for him with the devil motif in mind. So I can't see any other way they could've fit the yellow suit into the mythology.

But to be honest, I was just thrilled they included the black prototype outfit and the red devil-horned suit. They were the priority for me. It's funny to think that this time last year we weren't even sure we'd be getting the red suit. I can't say I really missed the yellow costume, but I would've been very disappointed if they'd balked at including the red version.

What's your take? Could they have incorporated the yellow costume, and if so how would you have done it?

[BatmAngelus]

Without changing anything major about the series, the yellow and black hoodie probably would've been the way to go for the flashback.

With more creative license, I wouldn't have minded seeing a version of it if they had covered him going after his dad's killers, with him kinda poetically wearing the costume made from his dad's boxing clothes. (I wonder if they're going to cover that in flashbacks in Season 2. I was kinda hoping we'd see him go after the Fixer and his men, since we haven't really seen an adaptation of that part of the origin).

It would've been a weird transition to go from the yellow suit to the black Frank Miller type suit in the show's chronology, though. Unless you replace the black suit with the yellow suit for most of the series, but it probably would've been an odd look for the current show and the transition from yellow devil suit to red devil suit just wouldn't have been as powerful 'cause it'd just seem like he changed colors.

So, I agree with you, SN. The yellow suit would've been more of a fit for a lighter toned show. If they were going for more of a retro Agent Carter type feel, the first season could've drawn more from the original run of comics and Loeb and Sale's Daredevil Yellow. But since they were going for capturing more of the Frank Miller run, it was probably for the best.

[Silver Nemesis]

The Fixer's fate is definitely an unresolved plot point they could revisit. It's not essential, but it might make for an interesting development in a future episode. They got around it in the 2003 film by pulling a Batman 89 twist and making Kingpin the enforcer who killed Jack. So by beating Fisk, Daredevil effectively avenged his father. But as far as the MCU goes, the Fixer's still out there somewhere. Unless Daredevil already got to him...

I think we will be seeing more flashbacks in future episodes. It looks like season 2's going to introduce Maggie, so they'll probably show us what happened with her and Jack. And Joe Quesada's Daredevil: Father put an interesting and disturbing twist on the accident that blinded Matt as a kid. I won't say what it is, as it's a pretty cool payoff at the end of the book. But suffice it to say it's another aspect of Daredevil's back story they could potentially revisit.

Here are a few observations about the two trailers. Firstly, the most obvious one – the scene adapted from Welcome Back, Frank (2000).

Although Daredevil is unarmed in that pic, there are other clips where he clearly has a gun taped to his right hand and a chain attached to his left wrist, just like in the comic.

The shot of the rosary in the first trailer seems to hint at Maggie making an appearance. Look in the background of the shot and you can see a nun leaning forward. This is likely adapting the scene in Born Again where Maggie leans over Matt to kiss him on the forehead.

A nun can also be seen standing with her back to us in the lower left corner of the season 2 poster, just next to the 'D'. Again, this is probably Maggie.

And in the second trailer we get a glimpse of Elektra's final costume, seen from behind at the 1:40 mark. It looks similar to her comic book outfit only with the arms and legs covered, which makes sense considering this was filmed in the dead of winter.

Less than three weeks to go! 

[The Laughing Fish]

A little over a month ago, Charlie Cox said in an interview that even if Daredevil were to appear in Avengers: Infinity War, he reckons it doesn't necessarily mean he'll get to reprise the role, and says the Marvel-based Netflix shows and the MCU are two separate things.

If he is correct, and Daredevil gets recast by someone else, that would only mean to me that those in charge of the MCU don't want the more violent Netflix shows to be associated with the movies. This is despite the shows occasionally making references to the Avengers, particularly the first movie.

[riddler]

I do think daredevil lends itself more to the grounded approach. Not that Batman can't be done grounded but with Waynetech and Bruce Wayne's many toys, it's easy to go unrealistic with the technology. Daredevil relies on an alternate sensatory system. He does have the 'gifts' a typical blind person would have. The debate is whether said gifts are too heavily enhanced or it merely reflects how intelligent and perceptive Matt Murdock is.  I would argue that daredevil's villains are more grounded than some of batman's villains (ie clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Crock).

It seems marvel's standpoint is that the MCU is canon for the shows but not the other way around. It's likely if any show ends up canon it will be agents of shield and none of the phase two films have made reference. I kind of get why they would do that; the films are pre requisite for other films, it's hard to expect the viewers to also follow all the TV shows as well.

[Silver Nemesis]

I do think daredevil lends itself more to the grounded approach. Not that Batman can't be done grounded but with Waynetech and Bruce Wayne's many toys, it's easy to go unrealistic with the technology. Daredevil relies on an alternate sensatory system. He does have the 'gifts' a typical blind person would have. The debate is whether said gifts are too heavily enhanced or it merely reflects how intelligent and perceptive Matt Murdock is.  I would argue that daredevil's villains are more grounded than some of batman's villains (ie clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Crock).

While that's generally true, Daredevil does nevertheless have some fairly monstrous foes in his gallery of rogues. Bullseye, Mr. Fear, Eric Slaughter, Kingpin, Ox & the Enforcers, Punisher, Elektra, Matador, Gladiator, Bullet, Lady Bullseye, Nuke, the WiIdboys, Jester, Ammo, Echo and maybe Typhoid Mary could all be depicted fairly realistically without compromising much (if any) of their comic book accuracy.

Other characters are trickier: Purple Man, Death-Stalker, Mr. Hyde, Stilt-Man, the Owl, Hellspawn, Bushwacker, Leap-Frog, Mephisto and Blackheart would all require substantial FX work if portrayed accurately. Of course Mr. Hyde already exists in the MCU, having appeared as a recurring villain in season 2 of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. played by Kyle "How's Annie?" MacLachlan. And I thought they did a pretty decent job with him.

Purple Man was the central antagonist in Jessica Jones season 1, but I felt they heavily diluted the character to the point where he only partially resembled the version from the comics. I wasn't mad on how they handled Nuke either.

Generally they're better off sticking with the more grounded villains on television, though I'd love it if they did a season where they delved into the more explicitly supernatural aspects of the mythos. Maybe do a Lone Stranger/Daredevil: Reborn type of story where Matt leaves New York and goes wandering in an act of penance, haunted along the way by the forces of Mephisto and his son Blackheart. If they are indeed adapting Shadowland for The Defenders miniseries, then this might be a suitable plotline to follow it up with in Daredevil season 3.

Some of my favourite Daredevil stories are the ones that explore the darker aspects of the devil motif, delving into themes of the occult, the supernatural and the demonological side of Catholicism. Those kind of stories have a gothic horror edge to them that blends brilliantly with the dark urban atmosphere of Hell's Kitchen; sort of like The Crow meets The Exorcist. It'd be great to see that area of the Daredevil mythos translated into live action.

It seems marvel's standpoint is that the MCU is canon for the shows but not the other way around. It's likely if any show ends up canon it will be agents of shield and none of the phase two films have made reference. I kind of get why they would do that; the films are pre requisite for other films, it's hard to expect the viewers to also follow all the TV shows as well.

True. By my reckoning, the MCU's television content currently consists of around 100 hours worth of footage, and that's not counting the upcoming Luke Cage series or any of the movies. I expect most people only watch parts of it. But I guess most fans don't read every single issue of every Marvel comic either. The scale of the MCU is one of the things I find so impressive about it. Eventually it will reach the point where no one can keep up with the whole thing, so they just pick their favourite characters to follow. Just like we all do with the comics.

While Marvel's film and TV divisions have so far functioned independent of one another's purview, I'm confident they will eventually overlap. The TV actors have a clause in their contract stipulating movie appearances should their characters show up on the big screen. And there was a rumour circulating a while back that the Infinity War movies were intended to serve as a juncture where all MCU content would converge. In light of the Russo brothers' recent claim that Infinity War would feature 68 distinct characters, it's not hard to image Daredevil might be one of them.

That said, Marvel did create different versions of Daredevil and Jessica Jones for the LEGO Avengers game rather than use the MCU versions. I get that they didn't want to reference R-rated content from TV-MA shows in a kid's game. But when the time comes, I doubt they'll shirk at including the real versions in the movies. Not when the Netflix shows have received such a positive response from critics and fans.

[Silver Nemesis]

2 weeks today!