Marvel Studios may be planning more MCU for the small screen

[Christopher]

I'd much rather see the fun swashbuckling pre-Frank Miller / Marvel NOW! Daredevil.

What's the difference between that and Spider-Man?

That's just it, I think. DD and Spidey have always had a fair amount in common, and the way Stan Lee originally wrote the character was in his usual lively, wisecracking vein, which Mark Waid has returned to in the current run. Personally I think that kind of devil-may-care attitude makes more sense for a guy called "Daredevil, The Man Without Fear" than endless angst and despair.

Besides, since the MCU doesn't have Spider-Man, maybe they could use a Waid-style Daredevil as the closest equivalent -- sort of the way Smallville and Arrow have used Oliver Queen as a surrogate Bruce Wayne.

Although of course there are a lot of things that make Daredevil distinct from Spidey -- his blindness, his greater career success, the fact that his identity has been outed or at least suspected by the public more than once, his ninja training, etc. Then there's the fact that part of the strength of Waid's more relaxed, light-hearted characterization of DD is that he does have that long history of angst and despair, so that his new attitude is a deliberate reaction to that, a decision to adapt and make a new start, whereas his best friend and partner Foggy Nelson believes it's just denial and possible mental instability. So it's his history that makes him different.

Hell, Matt Murdock's more of a street-level Tony Stark.

So like Peter Parker then? Scientific genius that makes his own gear (or improves his natural abilities), wisecracker in and out of battle, dates the most beautiful women...

Um, no -- Matt isn't a scientific genius at all, and he doesn't use that much tech beyond his fancy billy club/cane/grappling hook thing. I don't really see the Tony Stark comparison, unless it's to the angsty, broken, "Demon With a Bottle" Tony Stark rather than the RDJ Tony Stark.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

I meant in all the non-techy ways.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Besides, since the MCU doesn't have Spider-Man, maybe they could use a Waid-style Daredevil as the closest equivalent -- sort of the way Smallville and Arrow have used Oliver Queen as a surrogate Bruce Wayne.

Ugh, I hate the argument that, since we don't have character x, we can use character y as if we did. If you want to watch the Marvel character Spider-Man on screen, there are five movies in which you can do so. Just because he isn't being creatively controlled by Marvel studios doesn't mean that he isn't that character being portrayed on screen. This is particularly true with Spider-Man, who has been fairly good compared to most comic book movies.

I'm personally agnostic on which Daredevil we should have (my only point is the more Miller-esque one fits with the other three characters), but this line of argument that sees a character (particularly the protagonist in his own story) as a fill-in for someone else does a disservice to that character.

Although of course there are a lot of things that make Daredevil distinct from Spidey -- his blindness, his greater career success, the fact that his identity has been outed or at least suspected by the public more than once, his ninja training, etc. Then there's the fact that part of the strength of Waid's more relaxed, light-hearted characterization of DD is that he does have that long history of angst and despair, so that his new attitude is a deliberate reaction to that, a decision to adapt and make a new start, whereas his best friend and partner Foggy Nelson believes it's just denial and possible mental instability. So it's his history that makes him different.

See, that's fine for a comic that can build on that history, but it doesn't work when you have to introduce him for the first time. You either introduce that history or you don't.

Of course, there's also room to have both ways to a degree.

 

[Thestral]

^ Agreed. I thought the tone of the Affleck film was pretty good in terms of darkness/angst.

Um, no -- Matt isn't a scientific genius at all, and he doesn't use that much tech beyond his fancy billy club/cane/grappling hook thing. I don't really see the Tony Stark comparison, unless it's to the angsty, broken, "Demon With a Bottle" Tony Stark rather than the RDJ Tony Stark.

Ok, I didn't think so but I've not been a faithful reader of his comics so I thought maybe I was missing something.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think that movie did try in a lot of ways, it just didn't succeed very well (ETA: I should add that I heard the director's cut is better, but I haven't seen it).

My main point is that Daredevil often seems very similar to Spider-Man. Because of this, the goal to sell Daredevil is to distinguish him, not blur the lines.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not saying he should be just a fill-in, just that the Lee or Waid version of Ol' Hornhead fills a similar niche to Spider-Man while doing so in his own distinct way.

 

[JD]

Personally, I can see using a character as a fill in for another on you don't have the rights too. That way you can still do the story lines that you want do, but don't have to worry about whether or not you have that specific character.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

Either way, asking the difference between Daredevil and Spider-Man is silly and pointless when there is no Spider-Man.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, no. Just because the character isn't being written by people hired by Marvel doesn't mean there is no Spider-Man and it's unimportant to keep the characters distinct. If everyone looks at Daredevil and goes "oh, that's just a Spider-Man ripoff" you'd be losing a lot from the character and, imo, wasting everyone's time giving him his own series. If you want a Spider-Man ripoff, introduce Spider-Woman or someone like that. Or hell, create an original character like how the Chutari were created to fill the role ofthe Skrulls. Don't change another character for that purpose, it isn't fair to that other character

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

But it's not a change. Daredevil was originally and currently a fun swashbuckling character.

 

[Christopher]

As I said before, there is a real difference between filling a similar niche and simply being a copy. It's not that the original/current Daredevil is exactly like Spider-Man, because of course he isn't. It's more like they share a subgenre, a style of storytelling. Like how Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural are both shows about wisecracking demon-fighters, but one is by no means a copy of the other. So nobody here is proposing a "ripoff."

And the Chitauri were not created for the Avengers movie. They're the equivalent of the Skrulls in the Ultimate Marvel Universe in the comics.

 

[Thestral]

If you approach it with the idea of "Oh, let's make him like Spider-Man because Spider-Man doesn't exist and nobody will notice" then it's just lazy copying. What Daredevil's known for and became famous for isn't goofy, swashbuckling antics. That doesn't mean he has to be relentlessly grim and humorless though or that there can't be any of that, think more Angel since we're using Buffyverse metaphors.

 

[Christopher]

If you approach it with the idea of "Oh, let's make him like Spider-Man because Spider-Man doesn't exist and nobody will notice" then it's just lazy copying.

But that's absolutely not what I'm proposing, as I've explained repeatedly. I'm saying that he could fill a similar niche in his own way. Like how, say, Spock and Data filled a similar niche in their respective Star Trek series, as the scientific genius and the outside observer of humanity, but were nonetheless extremely distinct characters. A character can fill a similar role and purpose without being a copy or ripoff in any way.

What Daredevil's known for and became famous for isn't goofy, swashbuckling antics.

Not in his Frank Miller heyday, no. But you don't call a character "Daredevil" if you don't want him to be a carefree swashbuckler, and that's what Stan Lee and Bill Everett's original version of the character was. And it's a quality that Mark Waid has brought back to the character in recent years, without losing the baggage and impact of that darker phase the character went through, because now DD's more upbeat behavior is a way of coping with that past tragedy, of trying to reinvent himself.

And Waid's take on the character has been very successful. I was never a reader of DD's comics before, but I've followed Waid's run with considerable interest. This is what Daredevil is known for to the contemporary comics audience. And screen adaptations often draw their lead from where things currently are in the source material, or at least have been relatively recently -- which is why so many Marvel movies draw on elements of the Ultimate universe, or why the 1990 TV version of Barry Allen's Flash had a number of qualities and characters in common with Wally West's Flash.

Of course, the creators of a TV or film adaptation of a comic don't just copy a single era; they distill what they consider the best or most viable ideas from throughout the character's history and synthesize them into a new whole. I expect them to draw on what Frank Miller did with Daredevil, undoubtedly, but I'm hoping they will synthesize it with elements of the Waid interpretation that's brought such freshness and life to the character.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

No one is proposing that, Kestrel.

 

[Thestral]

And it's a quality that Mark Waid has brought back to the character in recent years, without losing the baggage and impact of that darker phase the character went through, because now DD's more upbeat behavior is a way of coping with that past tragedy, of trying to reinvent himself.

I expect them to draw on what Frank Miller did with Daredevil, undoubtedly, but I'm hoping they will synthesize it with elements of the Waid interpretation that's brought such freshness and life to the character.

As you note though, for the comics Waid's building on years of history and baggage, where a TV show wouldn't have the time to do that necessarily. I think we're in basic agreement though in wanting to see some synthesis, you're just arguing more heavily for Waid's take and I hope they take more cues from Miller.

Actually... the nearest analogue to what I'd like to see is Arrow without the island segments, which is funny because there's a lot of Nolan's Batman movies there, and I've always thought Daredevil's closest counterpart in comics was Batman without the money.

 

[Christopher]

As you note though, for the comics Waid's building on years of history and baggage, where a TV show wouldn't have the time to do that necessarily.

There might be a way. It wouldn't be the first time a series' lead started out with a dark past that they were trying to move beyond, with that past revealed gradually through flashback and exposition. Xena did that, and so has Arrow, more gradually.

Or maybe there's a way to balance both approaches. Give DD the tragedies he's gone through in the comics, but have him resolve sooner to rise above them rather than wallowing in unending despair for years on end. That way there'd be a more direct and ongoing struggle between his commitment to optimism and the circumstances conspiring to destroy it.

I think we're in basic agreement though in wanting to see some synthesis, you're just arguing more heavily for Waid's take and I hope they take more cues from Miller.

That's partly just because of the name -- as I said, I don't think the name "Daredevil, The Man Without Fear" is consistent with someone wallowing in angst and despair. Someone called Daredevil should be bold, confident, scoffing at risk.

Plus I'm not a fan of relentlessly depressing TV shows. There was a time when darkness was bold because it was unusual, but then everyone jumped on the "dark = sophisticated" bandwagon and now it's become ubiquitous and cliched. Which is why I find Waid's approach so appealing -- because he's actually doing something fresh rather than just conforming to the fashion.

...and I've always thought Daredevil's closest counterpart in comics was Batman without the money.

Actually it's kind of the other way around. The modern view of Batman is defined mainly by Miller's seminal work on the character in The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One -- and Miller did those after his work on Daredevil, and indeed probably got those gigs on the strength of that work. So the similarities between the modern Batman and the "definitive" Daredevil are not at all accidental.

 

[JD]

If you approach it with the idea of "Oh, let's make him like Spider-Man because Spider-Man doesn't exist and nobody will notice" then it's just lazy copying. What Daredevil's known for and became famous for isn't goofy, swashbuckling antics. That doesn't mean he has to be relentlessly grim and humorless though or that there can't be any of that, think more Angel since we're using Buffyverse metaphors.

I wasn't talking about changing the character in my post. All I meant was if you want to tell a story about a billionaire vigilate who uses gadgets and don't have Batman, then it makes sense to use Green Arrow instead.

 

[Christopher]

Come to think of it, if they did take a Frank Milleresque approach to Daredevil, the general audience would probably think they were copying Batman -- or Arrow. So that could be an advantage to incorporating a more Waid-like tone.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

What about my point about maintaining tone between the four series? Surely you agree that Jessica Jones won't be lighthearted.

 

[Fist McStrongpunch]

Thor and The Incredible Hulk didn't have the same tone. The Avengers worked out pretty well.