Marvel's Daredevil (Netflix)

[thecolorsblend]

'Last Rites' is terrific. As you say, it makes for a great sequel to Born Again. But it's also a superb Kingpin story. Chichester was the first writer to really delve into Fisk's background and flesh him out as a human being.

Funny you should say that because I remember thinking that the flashbacks and character tidbits seemed really organic and consequential to the story. Often, flashbacks in comics are for exposition more than character development. But here, the flashback stuff really sang. Some great writing.

Mind you, the first issue or two had a ton of typos and awkward phraseology so it's all relative.

Going off topic a bit now, but I was thinking the other day that Jack Murdock is one of the most underrated characters in the Marvel mythos. Most superheroes lose a parent figure early in their life, but the majority of those parents are portrayed as idealised saints. Thomas Wayne, Ben Parker, Nora Allen, etc. The great thing about Jack was that he wasn't a saint. He was a leg breaker. A drinker. A thug. He even lashed out at his own kid on one occasion.

...

But despite all that, Jack was a good man. A very good man, in fact. Whenever he did wrong, his conscience suffered because of it.

...

But he did bad things anyway because he believed it was serving a greater good: namely providing Matt with a better future. Matt breaks the law as a vigilante because he too believes he is serving a greater good. But both men have their limits. Jack refused to throw a fight, while Matt refuses to kill his enemies. Both men bend the rules, but both remain inescapably tethered to their core moral values. There are certain lines they won't cross, even at the expense of their own lives.

Dying the way he did, Jack taught his son the value of making sacrifices for one's principles. It was also from Jack that Matt learned to respect the importance of rules, and by extension the law.

Bingo. And I'd wanted to add that if Jack was any less solid a guy, Matt wouldn't have become a hero when he grew up.

Strictly speaking, Daredevil's origin story ought to be how a supervillain gets his start. But between religion, Jack's complicated (by comic book standards) view of right and wrong and other things conspired to keep Matt more or less on the straight and narrow.

As is typical of lawyers, Matt is willing to cross certain ethical lines if not necessarily certain moral lines. I refer his big showdown with Bullseye in Daredevil #181. Spider-Man, Captain America and other, more virtuous heroes wouldn't have let Bullseye drop like that. I think it's implied that Murdock knew Bullseye would survive. But still, even Batman would (usually) hesitate to hurt somebody that badly.

But the way I interpret that scene is Murdock wanted to end the threat of Bullseye permanently in a non-lethal way. It's a fine line to tread, so to speak, but Murdock did it. And I don't think just anybody else could. Or would. Needless to say, that's not conventional superhero ethics... but he didn't violate his own morality.

Only an attorney can make distinctions to quite that degree.

The hatred for Chichester mostly stems from his later stories. I've got to admit, I really like his run for purely nostalgic reasons. It was round about that time I first started reading Daredevil comics as a child. I have particularly fond memories of the whole 'Fall from Grace' storyline. I remember the glow-in-the-dark card covers on some of the original issues. I re-read the whole thing a few years ago when it was reissued as part of the Epic Collection and... it wasn't as good as I remembered. But I still like it. If nothing else, Scott McDaniel's artwork looks great.

Indeed. McDaniel grew a lot on an artistic basis doing that book. I've always wanted to see modern day McDaniel pay another visit to Daredevil. I suppose it's unlikely to happen. But I'd love it all the same.

As to Chichester, I'm willing to look the other way when it comes to a lot of FFG. First because I don't think it's completely fair to judge a writer's creative successes or failures when they weren't given a chance to finish the job. It's reason why I'll defend Chuck Austen's work on Superman to the hilt.

Second, it's one thing to enjoy or not enjoy the story on its own merits today. But one must remember how things were when FFG came out. The speculator boom was beginning to die off, although the industry hadn't become fully aware of that yet. In 1995, in many ways it was still 1993. Even by 1996, 1993 was definitely over.

In that kind of market, it was hard to get any oxygen at all. Comics were crammed to overflowing with chromium-embossed whatchamacallit and silly publicity stunts to vie for media attention.

In that environment, changing Daredevil's costume so drastically and other things that happened in FFG make more sense. Chichester seemed to really love the character. But he wanted to put his own stamp on the book, tell a story exciting enough to compete with the Doomsdays, Knightfalls and Clone Sagas of the world and have some fun with it too.

It's easy for someone to make fun of FFG nowadays. But I was still somewhat cutting my teeth as a collector back then. I remember exactly how things were. And Chichester succeeded when even Marvel didn't care about Daredevil anymore (unless the name "Miller" was somewhere on the cover). Daredevil had a lot of attention from a lot of people and for the first time in a long time he wasn't regarded as stale anymore. I would argue that without Chichester, Daredevil may very well have gotten cancelled somewhere in the mid to late 90's.

Much of the excitement in Wizard and other places either didn't mention Miller or else said words to the effect of "... hasn't been this exciting since Miller". By itself that's a huge victory. I don't think even Nocenti ever managed to rise above Miller in the fan press while she was on the book.

Anyway, if the book had been cancelled then maybe Quesada would've been able to rescue it later on anyway... but maybe not. If the only thing Chichester succeeded in doing was stave off the risk of cancellation then I'm prepared to call his run a success.

[Silver Nemesis]

But the way I interpret that scene is Murdock wanted to end the threat of Bullseye permanently in a non-lethal way. It's a fine line to tread, so to speak, but Murdock did it. And I don't think just anybody else could. Or would. Needless to say, that's not conventional superhero ethics... but he didn't violate his own morality.

Right. Matt's ethics when it comes to killing are largely based on the principle of double effect. He'll use extreme and sometimes lethal force if doing so is unavoidable in the pursuit of a greater moral end. But he won't choose extreme or lethal force as an end in itself. Frank Miller once said that Matt is a character who's more concerned with comforting and protecting victims than he is with punishing criminals, and I think that's very true. Violence and death may be unavoidable consequence of his mission, but they're never a desirable objective.

His actions in DD #181 go back to a moral decision he made in 'Devils' (Daredevil Vol 1 #169, March 1981). In that issue Bullseye had escaped from captivity and was suffering from a terminal but operable brain tumour. It was Bullseye's own fault for running away before the tumour could be removed, and all Daredevil had to do was wait it out and let him die of natural causes. But he goes after him anyway and brings him in so the surgeons can save his life. The whole moral dilemma is encapsulated in the final battle, where Bullseye collapses on a railway line just as a train is bearing down on him. Daredevil could easily move Bullseye out of the way, but he's sorely tempted to just let him die.

In the end he saves him – from both the train and the tumour – and the story concludes with Matt pre-emptively assuming responsibility for all of Bullseye's future victims. Which would of course include Elektra. So in DD #181 Matt revisits that fateful decision and chooses a very different path. But I don't think he does it simply out of revenge. He sincerely weighs the moral implications of his actions and tries to do what is right.

In that kind of market, it was hard to get any oxygen at all. Comics were crammed to overflowing with chromium-embossed whatchamacallit and silly publicity stunts to vie for media attention.

I've got to admit, I do kind of miss those gimmicks. I had the original issues of Miller's Man Without Fear miniseries when I was a kid, and they all had cool red tinfoil colours. The only other time I remember Marvel going to that effort for Daredevil in the nineties was the Fall from Grace arc.

Though I do remember the glow-in-the-dark cover for one of the FFG issues stank really bad, so maybe it's a good thing they abandoned that particular gimmick.

Much of the excitement in Wizard and other places either didn't mention Miller or else said words to the effect of "... hasn't been this exciting since Miller". By itself that's a huge victory. I don't think even Nocenti ever managed to rise above Miller in the fan press while she was on the book.

Funnily enough I discussed this subject in a private conversation with The Joker a few years ago, and he also mentioned the Wizard coverage of the Fall from Grace event. Evidently that story got a lot of press attention at the time, which must have helped boost sales (if only temporarily).

[thecolorsblend]

Right. Matt's ethics when it comes to killing are largely based on the principle of double effect.

I've spent the past few years studying Catholicism (not because of Daredevil; it's because I converted). Originally, I just assumed that Murdock being Catholic was just window-dressing Miller added. It didn't add or take away from the character; it just fleshed him out a bit.

But when I began my studies, I realized that a lot of Murdock's moral universe and worldview are VERY Catholic. The double-effect you mention is something the Church has taught for a long time. It shows me that Miller wasn't just inventing stuff out of whole cloth. He really had his thinking cap on when he came up with the Catholic angle.

At one point, you said that Daredevil is probably the most textured and nuanced character in mainstream superhero comics. I neither agreed nor disagreed with that statement. But the more I think about it, the more I realize how complicated Murdock really is.

You specifically excluded Batman from consideration because reasons. I came to realize that you were right to do so. Batman has been Adam West and he has also been Ben Affleck. He has been drawn by Dick Sprang and he has also been drawn by Kelley Jones. There's no single approach to Batman.

But Daredevil... mostly he's always been Daredevil. Elements have been added but the core substance was there from the beginning. There's an incredible level of consistency to Daredevil that even a lot of other Marvel characters can't match. And there's also a sophistication (as you know) that stuns me every time.

I've got to admit, I do kind of miss those gimmicks. I had the original issues of Miller's Man Without Fear miniseries when I was a kid, and they all had cool red tinfoil colours. The only other time I remember Marvel going to that effort for Daredevil in the nineties was the Fall from Grace arc.

Though I do remember the glow-in-the-dark cover for one of the FFG issues stank really bad, so maybe it's a good thing they abandoned that particular gimmick.

I do as well. And we'd probably still have those enhanced covers these days except for simple economics. Cover enhancements inflated cover prices between 30%-60%. When cover prices start range from $0.75 to $1.50, people can roll with it. People didn't mind paying between $1.95-$2.95 per issue back in 1993.

But when cover prices start off at $3.99 and only go up from there... well, most people probably don't want to pay $5.25-$7.95 per issue these days.

And even those numbers presuppose a standard 22-page comic. But enhanced covers were often used on issues with additional pages, which means the price goes up even more.

So basically if the collector version of Batman #500 came out today, it would probably have a cover price hovering between $8-10.

Much of the excitement in Wizard and other places either didn't mention Miller or else said words to the effect of "... hasn't been this exciting since Miller". By itself that's a huge victory. I don't think even Nocenti ever managed to rise above Miller in the fan press while she was on the book.

Funnily enough I discussed this subject in a private conversation with The Joker a few years ago, and he also mentioned the Wizard coverage of the Fall from Grace event. Evidently that story got a lot of press attention at the time, which must have helped boost sales (if only temporarily).[/quote]It was a pretty big deal. The "new" outfit looks a little silly but current standards but in its day it was different, dynamic and exciting. Made to order, really, for where Daredevil was at the time. I knew basically nothing about Daredevil back then... and the only reason I didn't start following the title was because I couldn't afford it on my weekly allowance. It was hard enough keeping up with Batman and Superman.

[Silver Nemesis]

But Daredevil... mostly he's always been Daredevil. Elements have been added but the core substance was there from the beginning. There's an incredible level of consistency to Daredevil that even a lot of other Marvel characters can't match. And there's also a sophistication (as you know) that stuns me every time.

I'm glad somebody else sees this besides me. A character like Batman may have a better overall mythology than Daredevil when you take into account things like the setting, the villains, the gadgets and so on. But to my mind, Matt is the most consistently fascinating lead character in any superhero comic I've read.

I can't point to something in the Batman films and say "Batman wouldn't do that," because somewhere there's almost certainly a comic where he has done it. Batman is largely defined by external factors: the costume, the gadgets, the vehicles, the hideout. His internal characteristics – his values, his methodology, his temperament – all vary from one incarnation to the next. The Batman of 1940 would deliberately shoot a group of criminals to death from the Batplane. The Batman of 1941 wouldn't. The Keaton Batman would. The B:TAS Batman wouldn't. The Affleck Batman would. And yet they're all Batman. He's not defined by ideology, psychology or faith, but by his more superficial trappings. That's not to say he's a superficial character; his malleability is obviously one of his greatest strengths and has allowed the character to be reinvented for different eras. He can be a moody bloodthirsty avenger, or a squeaky-clean do-gooder. With Batman there's no 100% consistent core to the character beyond the fact he dresses as a bat and is trained to peak physical and mental condition.

I would argue the core of Daredevil is that he's basically a mixture of Sir Thomas More (martyred Catholic lawyer) and Zatoichi (blind martial artist). I can point to something in a Daredevil adaptation and say "Daredevil wouldn't do that," because the character of Matt Murdock is consistently and carefully defined. Take for example the scene in the 2003 film where he murders Quesada. Quesada may have been a lowlife rapist, but there's no way any version of Matt from the comics would intentionally kill a comparatively small threat like that. The only time Matt's done anything comparable in the source material was when he killed Bullseye during Shadowland. And as we've already discussed, that wasn't really Matt. Foggy confirms it in Daredevil Vol 3 #26 (July 2013).

It's not his external qualities that define Daredevil, but his internal. And his internal qualities are vastly complex and oftentimes paradoxical. And yet somehow it all comes together. I think he's a far more literary creation than most other superheroes. And when I say "literary" I mean in the sense of novelistic depth.

On the subject of his beliefs, we're lately seeing a lot of comic publishers injecting religious or ethnic factors into superheroes for the sake of diversity. But in Daredevil's case, his Catholicism wasn't imposed by an editor. It evolved naturally from the character. His name's Murdock, he has red hair, he's from New York, he has an extremely well developed sense of right and wrong, and he believes passionately in the sanctity of human life. Throw in some writers with Catholic backgrounds, such as Tony Isabella and Frank Miller, and his belief system evolved by itself in a totally organic way.

By comparison, Batman's ethics were defined by an editorial mandate from DC editor Whitney Ellsworth in 1940. Bruce Wayne's no kill rule didn't evolve organically. It was shoehorned in overnight and directly contradicted his earlier characterisation. And it's never been completely consistent anyway. It doesn't define him. Frank Miller has said his Batman – the Earth-31 incarnation from The Dark Knight Returns and All-Star Batman & Robin – is also Catholic. Other writers have argued Bruce is Episcopalian. Others say he's an atheist. At the end of the day, Bruce can be any of those things and still be Batman, because his beliefs aren't important to his characterisation. Obviously that's not true with Matt.

Catholicism is also one of the many parallels that exist between Daredevil and Punisher. Frank Castle had trained to be a priest in his youth but left the seminary when he found himself incapable of forgiving criminals (it'll be interesting to see if they reference this in the upcoming TV show). There's a nice moment in DD s2 where Daredevil crosses himself as he's trying to reason with Frank on the waterfront. Apparently this wasn't scripted but was added by Charlie Cox (who also happens to be Catholic in real life). By making that gesture in front of Frank, Matt is revealing something about himself. Something he knows Castle will understand. It's his way of saying, "This is where I'm coming from and this is why I can't condone your actions." I thought that was a neat nonverbal signal that allowed the characters to connect on a deeper philosophical level.

I do as well. And we'd probably still have those enhanced covers these days except for simple economics. Cover enhancements inflated cover prices between 30%-60%. When cover prices start range from $0.75 to $1.50, people can roll with it. People didn't mind paying between $1.95-$2.95 per issue back in 1993.

But when cover prices start off at $3.99 and only go up from there... well, most people probably don't want to pay $5.25-$7.95 per issue these days.

And even those numbers presuppose a standard 22-page comic. But enhanced covers were often used on issues with additional pages, which means the price goes up even more.

So basically if the collector version of Batman #500 came out today, it would probably have a cover price hovering between $8-10.

I knew the nineties speculator boom had devalued comics through overproduction, but for some reason I'd never really considered the inflated cost of the actual production itself until now. When you lay out the numbers like that, the folly of the whole enterprise becomes even more apparent. Still, I'm glad we have our nostalgic memories of The Death of Superman and other similar events from that era. I was too young to appreciate the financial consequences of what was happening at the time, so it didn't sully my enjoyment of those novelty covers.

[Silver Nemesis]

SPOILER WARNING! Don't read this post if you haven't finished The Defenders. If you have finished it, read on.

In case it wasn't obvious from the end of The Defenders, Charlie Cox has more or less confirmed Born Again for season 3:

The ending mirrors a scene from Daredevil: Born Again, a popular arc from the comics. Would you be excited for Born Again to provide the story blueprints for season three of Daredevil?

For sure. That's such an amazing story. Everyone who loves Daredevil loves Born Again. You can't not. And if that's the case, then the implications of that would be very exciting to me. That would be great. Having said that, I know we don't tend to follow any story blueprints too closely, because if you do, then you become a foregone conclusion. There may be elements from Born Again, but I'm sure there will be elements that are unfamiliar and surprising and different in order for the show to be compelling to fans who know the comics very well. If we start making Born Again page-for-page, then the people who have read it and loved it — the hardcore fans — they won't have too much drama.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/defenders-charlie-cox-whats-next-daredevil-1031159

This sounds perfect to me. So far the Netflix series has done a sterling job of adapting classic comics in such a way that captures the key events and most important themes, while integrating them into the wider ongoing story and adding a fresh spin for the MCU. Frank Miller has always been the starting point for this show. They've already covered most of his classic Daredevil stories:

•   The Man Without Fear
•   Gang War (and Love and War)
•   Daredevil vs. Punisher
•   The Elektra saga
•   Elektra Lives Again

The only major Miller Daredevil stories remaining are Born Again and the Bullseye saga. We know we're getting one of those in season 3. How about the other?

The two most important casting announcements for the next season will be:

•   Who is playing Sister Maggie?
•   Who is playing Bullseye?

Of equal interest will be Elektra's role, or lack thereof. I expect she'll appear in some capacity, if only during flashbacks revealing how Matt got from the tunnels beneath Midland Circle to Maggie's church. But I don't want her dominating another season at this point. I felt like they finally got Elektra right in The Defenders. Now I'm happy for her to step aside. Punisher and Elektra dominated DD s2. Season 3 needs to focus on Matt, Fisk and (hopefully) Bullseye.

[Silver Nemesis]

Filming of season 3 is scheduled to begin on October 15th and end on June 30th 2018.

https://mcuexchange.com/daredevil-season-3-production-timeline/

Even allowing for a Christmas break, that's a much longer shoot than the first two seasons. Seasons 1 and 2 took around 5½ months to film, followed by around 3-4 months of postproduction. This means we're unlikely to see season 3 until around September or October 2018 at earliest. Unless of course they finish early and bring the release date forward.

But why the longer shoot? It's still only 13 episodes.

[riddler]

I enjoy the 2003 Daredevil movie as a noble failure. It got far more right than it did wrong. Ultimately I think it aimed for too much. It put Daredevil through a slightly deconstructive character arc you'd think should wait for a sequel.

A fun but slightly dark intro movie pitting Daredevil against Kingpin and Bullseye followed by a more introspective, grittier character piece sequel featuring Elektra would've been a solid one-two combo. Basically even the director's cut (hell, especially the director's cut) is a trilogy all in one movie. As such, none of the passages and movements really have a chance to breathe.

Then again, how many movies can be accused of having too many good ideas, too many good characters, too much good acting? A noble failure.

Sorry for quoting you six months later but I avoided this thread until I finished season 2 of Daredevil which I did tonight (I watch extremely little Netflix these days.)

The reason the theatrical Daredevil film failed lies within your post; the reason why the director's cut did not become the theatrical version. Initially the movie was greenlit as an R-rated movie. It was filmed with the intention of what later became the director's cut, to be the R-Rated release. Once spider-man came out and made a massive profit, Fox (the studio producing daredevil at the time) increased the budget on Daredevil, which was in itself in post production, ordering the film be reshot and recut for a PG rating hence why plotlines such as Coolio high on drugs allegedly murdering a prostitute had to get cut from the film despite opening up plotholes.

We'll never know but if Fox didn't crack the hammer at the 11th hour and order for a PG rating instead of letting Ben Affleck and Mark Steven Johnson bring home the film they envisioned,  history would have certainly gone differently.

[Silver Nemesis]

Filming on season 3 should be starting any day now, if it hasn't already. In the meantime we have a couple of news updates.

It's been confirmed Vincent D'Onofrio is returning as Fisk. I'm sure everyone was already expecting this, what with the Born Again angle and all.

Less expected is the change of showrunner. Steven S. DeKnight served as showrunner on season 1, while Douglas Petrie and Marco Ramirez assumed the role for both season 2 and The Defenders. Now Erik Oleson is taking over as showrunner for season 3. Oleson's background includes working as a writer and executive producer on The Man in the High Castle. Apparently he also used to work on Arrow, so he's got some experience with comic book adaptations. Will he be the next Steven S. DeKnight or the next Scott Buck? Time will tell. But I think it's good to shake things up once in a while and keep the show fresh. Especially after the rather underwhelming first season of The Defenders.

But still no word on Bullseye.

Anyway, here's a charming extended conversation between Jeph Loeb and The Man Without Fear himself.

[riddler]

Filming on season 3 should be starting any day now, if it hasn't already. In the meantime we have a couple of news updates.

It's been confirmed Vincent D'Onofrio is returning as Fisk. I'm sure everyone was already expecting this, what with the Born Again angle and all.

Less expected is the change of showrunner. Steven S. DeKnight served as showrunner on season 1, while Douglas Petrie and Marco Ramirez assumed the role for both season 2 and The Defenders. Now Erik Oleson is taking over as showrunner for season 3. Oleson's background includes working as a writer and executive producer on The Man in the High Castle. Apparently he also used to work on Arrow, so he's got some experience with comic book adaptations. Will he be the next Steven S. DeKnight or the next Scott Buck? Time will tell. But I think it's good to shake things up once in a while and keep the show fresh. Especially after the rather underwhelming first season of The Defenders.

But still no word on Bullseye.

Anyway, here's a charming extended conversation between Jeph Loeb and The Man Without Fear himself.

I like the idea of a different showrunner every season. Let every season stand out on it's own, part of how Marvel is keeping the MCU so fresh is by using a variety of directors to give their films individual feels.

[Silver Nemesis]

I like the idea of a different showrunner every season. Let every season stand out on it's own, part of how Marvel is keeping the MCU so fresh is by using a variety of directors to give their films individual feels.

I'd be down with that. There's no denying some staleness has crept in with the last few Marvel Netflix shows. Perhaps regularly changing showrunner is the solution to the problem.

Meanwhile Steven DeKnight has said he'd be up for helming a six episode prequel series about Fisk, based on Brubaker's Return of the King arc:

https://www.cbr.com/daredevil-kingpin-tv-miniseries/

They already referenced that storyline quite heavily in episode 8 of the first season of Daredevil. But at this point, more of D'Onofrio's Kingpin can only be a good thing.