Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

Yeah, DeKnight is correct in general, but I feel like the casting of a few characters is going to be the biggest similarity between MCU and Netflix Daredevil shows, and I don't think that anyone who made the Netflix Daredevil show really deserves money for MCU just using some of its casting. It makes total sense that the MCU Daredevil is its own thing, the existence of Charlie Cox in the show doesn't make it a continuation of the Netflix show. Honestly, ejecting all of the previous story and 90% of the recurring cast almost guarantees that the MCU show will be better anyway.

 

OK that is a fair point. I'd just been assuming since it was Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio it meant it had to be a continuation of the Netflix show, but that doesn't have to be the case. And yeah, if it's not a continuation of the Netflix series, than DeKnight really doesn't deserve any credit or money. It's not like they give credit or money to all of the people who made past adaptation of a book or comic.

Probably not, chances are if he was involved in Burn Again, then they would most likely be crediting him for his involvement in the Netflix show.

 

Of course it's a Disney trick. Even if they do ditch everybody but Cox and D'onofrio, there's going to be enough allusions or implications to suggest Matt and Fisk have been doing this for awhile and have past beef with each other. It's pretty clearly intended to be a continuation in spirit of the Netflix show, otherwise they wouldn't call it "Born Again." Born Again from what? The dead Netflix series. Otherwise why specifically cast those two in the first place?

 

Besides, it's a show called Daredevil, starring the actor who plays Daredevil in Daredevil and the actor who plays Wilson Fisk in Daredevil. And Daredevil's outfit is 99% the same as it was in season two of Daredevil. Pretending it's a brand new show is asinine. And Disney have long been known to pull this rebranding trick. It's just what they do.

 

Is this based on set pics or something? Because the She-hulk suit was not even close to 99% the same as the Netflix suit.

 

Maybe 99% was a slight exaggeration, but it was basically the same pattern with a few tweaks and with different colors. And the helmet was if not identical, then pretty damn close.

 

I can think of plenty of people who played completely different versions of the same character. First one that sprang to mind was Christopher Lee who played five or six different versions of Dracula. (And actually Peter Cushing played multiple Van Helsings as well.)

The Matt Murdock/Daredevil in the MCU is a much more light-hearted, comic book-y character than the Netflix version.

 

Just as the 616 version fluctuates wildly between comedy and drama.

 

It’s worth pointing out that it is a different show. Netflix licensed those characters then commissioned and paid for the first, three season show.

Then Netflix cancelled it when they decided D+ was competition and they assumed their deal wasn’t going to be renewed as Disney would take it all in-house.

Disney didn’t cancel the previous show. It is a new show for Disney.

 

See also Judi Dench playing two different versions of M.

 

What in the world made you think DeKnight was talking about himself? He was saying this is a longstanding practice that Disney employs on many of its shows, particularly its shows aimed at children, where they continue the series but retitle it so they can reduce people's pay to first-season levels. DeKnight didn't work on any of those shows. He's not being selfish here, he's saying this is one more part of the studio abuses that the writers and actors are striking against and that need to be changed for the benefit of all writers and actors. He's using the Daredevil situation to call attention to that wider practice.

(I wonder if he's thinking partly of the Power Rangers franchise, which Disney owned for about 8 years a while back. By the time Disney acquired it, the franchise had adopted the practice of the Super Sentai franchise it was based on, and other Japanese tokusatsu and anime franchises, to start over every season with a new title, cast, and storyline. Maybe Disney got the idea from them.)

 

Is there that long a list of Disney shows that reboot and start over with the same cast and crew?

 

I don't know, but it seems to be a common practice in children's TV. Remember how Justice League became Justice League Unlimited after two seasons? Similarly, Young Justice gets a new subtitle every year, and I remember Cartoon Network had a practice of restarting/retitling shows like Ben 10 every few seasons. So it doesn't seem implausible that Disney would do the same thing.

We're not really talking about reboots here, just rebrandings. DeKnight's point is that it is the same show, but the retitling allows the studio to treat it as a separate show from a contractual standpoint so that they can reset the pay levels. Regular cast and crew are supposed to get raises every year a show is in production, so treating it as a new show lets them lower the pay instead.

 

I believe the more recent version was meant to reflect how the character was written during his early days.

 

"Daredevil" was not a Disney show, so I don't follow your question.

And beyond two actors is there any overlap?

 

I had the same thought/question. The original show was a licensed IP deal with Netflix, utilizing Production House Y. This is the IP owner making a show with Production House X (which the IP owner may also own). The only similarity I see is it's the same IP and shares 2 actors playing the "same" characters. Isn't everything else behind the scenes different?

 

Of course it was a Disney show. It was produced by Marvel Television and ABC Studios, both of which were owned by The Walt Disney Company. It was distributed by Netflix but not produced by them. That's why Netflix cancelled it and the other Marvel shows it carried -- because when Disney decided to create its own streamer Disney+ to compete with Netflix, Netflix didn't want to promote its competitor by airing Disney-made Marvel shows.

 

From the original tweet (or whatever) that started this, "It's an old Disney scam where they slightly rename a series to reset contract terms back to first season. Needs to be addressed by all the guilds/unions and crushed!"

I'm just wondering how big a problem is this, since this is really the first time I've heard of it with Daredevil. You follow my question now?

 

Maybe they cast them because they like them? Daredevil and Kingpin having history doesn't mean that they have the same history as the Netflix version. It could easily be, and I bet it is, that nothing from the Netflix show is going to end up being canon, except Daredevil's generic origin and job as a lawyer (which the Netflix show didn't create), Kingpin having (or having had) a wife named Vanessa (which the Netflix show also didn't create), and Kingpin / Daredevil fighting because Kingpin is a crime lord and Daredevil is a superhero, which is, again, not a Netflix creation.

They've already added Echo into the mix, with her having an association with Kingpin that wouldn't work with the Netflix show, and of course Kingpin is the extremely physically tough Kingpin of the comics as well. At this point, I'm sure we'll see characters like Foggy and Elektra, but probably completely recast and just completely different characters (I'm still hoping for a comic accurate Elektra).

Until we actually see the show, acting like any of the Netflix people deserve a penny is like saying that Bryan Singer deserves money because Brandon Routh played Superman in the CW Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover.

 

Technically, Horror of Dracula (1958) spawned two direct sequels: Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), where Lee portrayed the same Count in the same continuity.