David Slade Will Direct Daredevil for Fox

[Dream]

Tosk wrote:

---

I know it's just a sizzle reel, but I can't say I'm sorry to see Fox lose DD. I didn't dig it.

It's FOX's own fault. They haven't made a Daredevil related movie in SEVEN years. It clearly wasn't happening. The Daredevil rights might as well go back to the original owner.

[Admiral_Young]

Looks like it is official.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dared...ber-32479.html

[Captaindemotion]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

Joe Carnahan's DD pitch to Fox! Goddamn, Marvel's got to sign Joe to do their DD!

I personally like it a lot and would go see this in a heartbeat. Having said that, I can understand why Fox didn't go for it, loath as I am to defend them.

Even leaving aside the fact that the previous DD film wasn't a huge earner, a 70s-set superhero movie is likely to be a risky move at the box office. X-Men First Class had a lovely, groovy James Bond-esque look and feel but made less money than the blander Origins: Wolverine or Last Stand. A hard-edged gritty almost blaxploitation-feeling movie could be an even harder sell, particularly with teenagers.

Let's face it, you just know that even had Fox greenlit this, they would have interfered and interfered until the final product looked nothing like Carnaghan's final product!

Marvel may well hear Carnaghan's pitch, now they have rights to DD back, but I also find it hard to see them agreeing to a 70s-set movie, thus keeping him out of the action alongside the rest of the MCU (unless they decide to have an older Matt Murdock in a sedentary role in modern days).

Still, if Marvel were feeling brave, they could think about maybe a series of low-budget movies or HBO type show, set in the 1970s and featuring DD, Iron Fist, The Falcon and The Punisher (with no need to update the Vietnam origins of Mr Castle).

[Captain Craig]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

Looks like it is official.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dared...ber-32479.html

So no waiting till October for confirmation. Avoids the pins/needles situation.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

Marvel may well hear Carnaghan's pitch, now they have rights to DD back, but I also find it hard to see them agreeing to a 70s-set movie, thus keeping him out of the action alongside the rest of the MCU (unless they decide to have an older Matt Murdock in a sedentary role in modern days).

You never know. Ant-Man is going to be set, at least in part, in the 60s.

[Dream]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

So no waiting till October for confirmation. Avoids the pins/needles situation.

It's only official now, but doesn't become OFFICIAL official until October.

There is still a small chance FOX changes their minds at the last second, and releases something that is complete shit like that Fantastic Four movie to desperately hold onto the DD rights.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Corman's FF movie wasn't complete shit. It was cheap but it had heart. Tim Story's FF was complete shit. No heart at all.

[Captaindemotion]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

You never know. Ant-Man is going to be set, at least in part, in the 60s.

Really? Cool.

[Admiral James Kirk]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

Really? Cool.

Yeah, it will have a flashback/flashforward structure. Hank Pym in the 60s in Tales to Astonish mode and then Scott Lang in the present day. For more info check out the production history of Ant-Man on the Marvel Movies Wiki.

[Captaindemotion]

^That does sound rather good.

But in having two different Antmen, it doesn't preclude Marvel from using the modern day incarnation in the rest of the MCU. And only part of the movie will be set in the 60s, not all of it.

I just have my doubts about whether or not they'd establish Matt Murdock as being a hero in the 1970s, thus meaning he'd be too old to join in the present day fun and games, in terms of swinging off buildings and the like. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

[Admiral James Kirk]

I'm assuming that Ant-Men will be like The Mask of Zorro with Pym passing the torch to Lang at the end of it. As for DD, it doesn't necessarily have to be set in the 70s to have a gritty, grimy, violent 1970s feel. However I think a 70s setting would be extremely cool.

[Captaindemotion]

^Agreed on both counts.

Edit. You know what's interesting, if off-topic? Some months ago, Carnahan announced that he was remaking Death Wish - surely an inspiration for a gritty, 70s-set New York-based thriller. Now that DD has fallen through, he's returned to DW. But, rather than re-hash or transpose the ideas he had for his Daredevil reboot to his Death Wish remake, it seems he's going to set it in LA and update it.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57634

[Admiral James Kirk]

Yeah, I knew about it. It sounds like he's carrying a lot of what he liked in DW to the remake. I've always liked the original and I'm looking forward to the new one. Still, I hope Joe Carnahan is asked to pitch his concept for DD to Marvel when they're ready to make it.

[Turtletrekker]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

Corman's FF movie wasn't complete shit. It was cheap but it had heart. Tim Story's FF was complete shit. No heart at all.

Agreed. Corman's movie hit the "family" vibe, which is essential to a good FF tale, much more than the Story movie did. And Corman's movie was about people who were at least recognizable as Reed Richards and Victor Von Doom.

But back on topic-- you know what is almost as cool as getting Daredevil himself back? Getting Ben Urich back. Now there is your "bridge" character for street-level heroes.

[Admiral James Kirk]

I hope they get Joey Pants to play him.