References for Daredevil: Comic to Film

Brubaker, Ed. "Interview with Ed Brubaker." DaredevilManWithout Fear.com June 2006 October 24, 2008 ://www.manwithoutfear.com/interviews/ddINTERVIEW.shtml?id=Brubaker>.

Callahan, Timothy. "CBR Reviews." Comic Book Resources Oct. 26 2008 30 Oct 2008 ://comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=431>.

Daniels, Les. MARVEL Five Fabulous Decades of the Worlds' Greatest Comics. 1st American ed.. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993.

"Daredevil (Matthew Murdock)." Marvel Universe: the Official Marvel Wiki . 28 Oct 2008 http://www.marvel.com/universe/Main_Page

De Bliek, Augie. "Pipeline At Five." Comic Book Resources #262Jun 18, 2002 25 Oct 2008 ://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14130>.

De Bliek Jr.,Augie. “Daredevil Yellow”. Pipeline at Five A Long Look Back. Issue #262 http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=14130

Ebert, Roger. "Daredevil." rogerebert.com 14 Feb. 2003 28 Oct 2008 ://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030214/REVIEWS/302140301/1023>.

Johnson, Mark Steven. Daredevil-Director's Cut. 20th Century Fox, Regency Enterprises and Marvel Enterprises, 2003.

Kozlovic, Anton Karl. "Spiderman, Superman---What's the Difference?." Kritikos Volume 3July 2006 25 Oct 2008 ://mailer.fsu.edu/~nr03/garnet-nr03/spiderman-superman.htm>.

Leo, Vince. "Daredevil." Qwipster's Movie Reviews. 2003. 28 Oct 2008 ://www.qwipster.net/daredevil.htm>.

Mithra, Kuljit. ""What did it mean to you personally and professionally to work on Daredevil?"." Daredevil manwithoutdear.com. 2005. 29Oct 2008 ://www.manwithoutfear.com/interviews/ddINTERVIEW.shtml?id=40th>.

Schumer, Arlen. The Silver Age of Comic Book Art. 1st American ed. Portland, Oregon: Collectors Press, 2003.

Turan, Kenneth. "Movie Review 'Daredevil'." Los Angeles Times The Guide 14 Feb. 2003 25Oct 2008 ://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan14feb14,0,5511955.story>.

Comic to Film Sequence

As I've brought together the various pieces of this project I seem to have played with time and the natural order in the blog land. In an ideal world it would be clear that the reading order should be:

1. Transition
2. Daredevil--In the Beginning
3. Daredevil Today---Comic Book Version
4. Daredevil--The Movie Reviews
5. Daredevil--The Director's Cut
6. A Second Chance for a Daredevil Movie?
7. Contrasts and Conclusions
8. References
   

I look forward to comments and questions!

Daredevil - The Director's Cut

The second chance for the movie comes with the Director's cut. This DVD adds about 30 minutes to the film. According to Director, Mark Steven Johnson, the additional footage provides a lot of backstory that is meaningful to comic book fans. The changes from the original theatrical release moved the PG-13 rating to an R. Evidently, additional brutality and strong language were to blame. I wonder about the different impact of seeing 'hand-drawn still pictures' of violence compared with a movie version, with (somewhat) ordinary humans, spewing copious amounts of blood, and most disturbing of all, complete with exaggerated sound effects.

The Director's cut of the Daredevil movie fills in a lot of missing comic book essentials--- but still can't reveal all. Events are compressed. According to the editor/producer, the intellectual content is not as important as pace."For example, Elektra seems to be someone Matt meets for the first time at the coffee shop, but in the comic book they first meet in highschool. Even in the Director's Cut it isn't explained why she is such a great fighter, nor why she seems to have a ritualistic dance in preparation for going after Bullseye--the man who killed her father.

The Director's Cut
Because if "Daredevil" seemed serious for a comic book, it is uninterestingly cartoonish for a movie. Its villains, from Michael Clarke Duncan's plus-sized Kingpin through Colin Farrell's over-the-top Bullseye, have a shopworn air about them, and the script's dialogue and situations have generic written all over them. That "Daredevil" should turn out to be neither daring nor devilish is somewhat of a surprise because filmmaker Johnson has been a washed-in-the-blood fan since he was a child. Not the obvious choice because of the nature of his previous work (writing both "Grumpy" and "Grumpier Old Men" and writing and directing the egregiously sentimental "Simon Birch"), he impressed the producers with his knowledge of and zeal for the material. Maybe it's that zeal that turned out to be the problem. Maybe the comic book mythos is so firmly entrenched in Johnson's head that he doesn't see that his screen version is only sporadically involving and not really compelling to those without that previous interest. This is Daredevil's world, after all, where things do not have a habit of working out as planned.

Another point that intrigued me in the movie was the Catholic element. In the Director's cut version, there is a scene with a mystery nun kissing young Matt on the forehead as he recovers in hospital. Is this a Madonna-mother-of-a-saviour moment? The priest who offers Matt/Daredevil an opportunity for confession intrigues me, too. Why doesn't Matt take him up on it? Wouldn't it be a great relief to share this burden of vengeance in the name of justice with at least one other person who would keep his secret? Johnson (the director) explains his original vision of the movie using phrases like "All that tortured Catholic stuff which is so great" and Frank Miller told me you're breaking my heart when you cut out the scenes with the nun" who seems to watch over both the child Matt Murdock at the time of his accident, and grown Matt as he attends church, but refuses confession

Contrasts and Conclusion

After diving into the world of the Daredevil comic book fan and immersing myself in responses to the movie I've learned that many people are passionate about Daredevil, his world and the many interpretations of it all.


The strength of the traditional comic book format is the room it provides for backstory. The detailed universe is complex and flexible.The characters move forward and backward in time at the whim of the creators. Multiple writers and artists have different eras---with fans downright fanatical about particular writers and artists, (e.g. creators, writer-editor Stan Lee, artist Bill Everett, Wally Wood, John Romita Sr., Gene Colan and Frank Miller). The fans of the comic book format are deeply invested in the world of the comics and they love the conventions of the genre.

The movie format is much more focused.Ultimately one vision, the director's/producer's, is what we see. There are all kinds of amazing special effects that physically impact the viewer. Sounds--we can hear and feel the punches land in the fight scenes. The lighting and camera work focus our eyes exactly where the director wants us to look. The music provides a pulsing background that affects us subliminally. Viewers are given warnings of impending action when the music rises. Even the opening scenes with the names of stars, directors and producers appearing in cgi Braille, give a depth to the experience that is different from that available to a reader.

One challenge of the movie business, though is target audience---young males. The Daredevil film was trimmed to 100 minutes because that's what the movie-going public wants. If the story is filled with too many important-to-the-fan details the story lags (according to the producers).


When I watched the movie and read the comic books I enjoyed both experiences AND found them quite different. Because I am not long-time comic reader, I really enjoyed the movie--especially the villains. Collin Ferrill as Bullseye was maniacal and over-the-top and I loved it. I also enjoyed Jon Favreau as Matt's long-suffering friend Foggy. Joe Pantoliano as Ben Urich the investigative journalist whose articles tie the mystery of this story together was key in helping me understand the intricacies of the plot and Daredevil's world.


I think that this comic book made a pretty good transition to film---but it could be better. 'Whose' version of better is the ultimate questions.

A Second Chance for a Daredevil Movie?

This article explores the possible ( a remake of Daredevil) without sugarcoating the reasons for the original flop.


Op/Ed- Movie Mulligans, What Else Hollywood Should Do-Over
By Michael Avila
posted: 20 June 2008 04:56 pm ET* (for full article follow link)

.....Who’s out there that could get a second chance. And who actually deserves one?

We’re talking about one of Marvel’s Old Guard, one of its most grounded-in-reality characters, with a history of rich storylines. The 2003 film wasn’t terrible, but writer-director Mark Steven Johnson’s fanboy-ish determination to squeeze in too many plot threads and an absurd number of in-jokes ultimately ruined it.

Marvel Studios’ brain-trust should ditch the S&M dungeon red leather jumpsuit, get an actor to play Matt Murdock who’s not dating a paparazzi fave and hand the franchise over to a director like Peter Berg or Joe Carnahan. Jon Favreau could ace this project but a clean break is needed for any reboot and since he played Foggy in the first one, he’s out. And leave Elektra out, too. The ill-conceived spinoff with Jennifer Garner ruined that character.

But the first Daredevil made $102 million despite awful reviews. Imagine if the film would have been any good?

What interests me here is the recognition of the deep history of the Marvel comic hero, and the story lines that hold solid appeal. The suggestion that part of the reason the movie wasn't good was the director's attempt to put too much history, too many comic book references and too much story into the movie, underlines some major differences between movies and comic books. To make a good movie, you need to make some tough choices---more (plot, characters etc.) is not necessarily better. With a comic book you can spin a story out over several issues, following a story arc suited to the format.

The second paragraph raises some interesting issues about costumes and actors. In comic books, it is a given that bodies are exaggerated (i.e.more muscular if male, more buxom if female). In a movie, even a superhero movie, characters should look human, not like completely computer generated images with unbelievable musculature. Computer generated images also brings to mind manufactured Hollywood movie stars. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner (and their budding romance at the time of filming) detracted from the story being told. In my opinion, Affleck looked more pouty than vengeful. As for Warner, she played an Elektra that was unlike anything in the comic book. The plot line of the movie left some gaping holes about who Elektra was, how she came to be such a skilled fighter, and how she and Murdock/Daredevil came to be entwined.

Daredevil--In the beginning

The Marvel Universe website and Daredevil Wikipedia entry, provide the most detailed overviews of the Daredevil character imaginable. For copious information check them out. For the purposes of this comparison, I've selected two articles that give the devoted fan flavour of the Comic book superhero, Daredevil.

The first article, places Daredevil as the 3rd most popular superhero character in the combined Marvel and DC universes. This is major endorsement of Daredevil as a character who has withstood the test of time (and of multiple artistic visions). Since Daredevil's creation in 1964, many different writers and artists have put their imprint on the character. In fact, finding out exactly how many had contributed to the vision became an impossible task! (For more details about most of the contributors check out The Man Without Fear). The recap of the Daredevil story below, hits the high points of a very long and convoluted series of stories, (much like all successful comic book series).

Comic books share some similarities with the soap opera genre: characters surmount incredible odds, succeeding beyond incredible obstacles...only to eventually fail miserably....then overcome all difficulties once again, in time to find true love... only to have the beloved brutally murdered by an archenemy. Frequently (and miraculously), characters return from the dead, or from some secret incarceration. The realism of the world doesn't apply---high drama rules--and that is half of the fun.

Daredevil

by Brian Cronin
Thursday, September 27th, 2007

Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett (with help from Jack Kirby), Daredevil made his debut in the pages of his own self-titled comic book in 1964. Matt Murdock was a successful attorney who was secretly the superhero Daredevil.

The catch?

Matt was blind.

When Matt was a kid, he saved an old man from being hit by a truck, but the truck was carrying radioactive materials that splashed on to Matt, blinding him for life. However, the materials also ended up giving Matt a kind of superpower - all his senses were heightened, to the point where he could read newspapers just by reading the ink on the page with his finger.

In addition, he gained a sort of Radar sense, like a Bat, only not sound-based, Matt just basically had a supernatural sense of where people were around him. It was how he was able to operate as a superhero, and how no one was able to connect him with blind attorney, Matt Murdock, because how could a blind guy do this?

Matt was a basic superhero for many years, during which time he was notably involved with his secretary, Karen Page, and the superhero Black Widow (they even shared his comic for awhile, as Daredevil and Black Widow). Matt’s law partner, and best friend, was Foggy Nelson.This all changed with the arrival of Frank Miller as the writer of the book. Miller introduced an old girlfriend of Matt’s called Elektra, who was a dangerous assassin. He also made Matt into a sort of a ninja, introducing a heretofore unknown sensei of Matt’s called Stick. Miller also made the Kingpin, a Spider-Man mob villain, into Daredevil’s arch-nemesis, while cementing the supervillain assassin, Bullseye, created a little while before Miller took over the book by Marv Wolfman, into a force to be reckoned with, even to the point of having Bullseye KILL Elektra.

Later on, Miller returned to the character, as Karen Page (who had left years ago to become an actress) was now a drug addict who sold Daredevil’s secret identity. It got to the Kingpin, who then proceeded to tear apart Matt’s life. In the end, though, Matt was too strong, and along with Karen, he began a new life.Eventually, he even regained his law license.Sadly, Bullseye struck again, this time killing KAREN, as well.Reeling from her death, Matt was spiraling. He had his identity published in the papers and he even attempted to put HIMSELF in place as the new Kingpin of Hell’s Kitchen. During this period he married Milla Donovan, who is also blind. Matt was able to recover from this period, and even was able to refute the identity issue (although everyone pretty much thinks he is Daredevil now). He is now back to doing what he does best, practice law and patrol the streets as Daredevil

This next article, written by columnist Augie De Bliek Jr., for Comic Book Resources, shows just how seriously devoted fans take their superhero stories, and how much they enjoy and distinguish the efforts of different writers, artists, colorists, and in this case, book designers.

Daredevil Yellow
Augie De Blieck Jr., Columnist, Comic Book Resources--Pipeline, Issue #262

For those who might be coming in late, Marvel originally presented DD: YELLOW as a six-issue mini-series with story by Jeph Loeb and art by Tim Sale. They went back to Daredevil's origins and crafted a remarkable love story between Karen Page and Matt Murdock. That's the mostly-hidden arc for the series. What you see is a lot about Matt taking up legal studies in an effort to avenge his father's murder, some early superhero hijinks, and the start of Nelson & Murdock.

The thing that the story keeps coming back to, though, is the love triangle between Page, Nelson, and Murdock. It's the focus of the doomed ending of the fourth issue and the heartbreaking ending of the fifth. It's the point of contention between Nelson and Murdock, and it's the part that grounds the story to a level of normalcy. It's not all super powered heroics, and even those bits cross over into the romance. But that's OK. It all fits. Murdock has to learn to balance his career and his vigilante-ism. In fact, it's about the only missing point in the book for me: How can a man who's passed the bar and knows the law inside and out also engage in a form of vigilante justice at the same time? It's probably the most fascinating part of his character, but something that would require a book of its own. This was not the place for it. It's also something that's being touched on in the current DAREDEVIL series. Loeb and Sale have been working together long enough now to know each other's strengths. Loeb can create snappy dialogue and a story with heart. Sale can inject it with the right amount of mood and a strong sense of realism or surrealism, depending on what's needed. In the case of DD: YELLOW, it's definitely a realistically-drawn story. You will believe every brick is on that building and that every ceiling tile belongs on the ceiling. You believe that because Sale isn't afraid to draw it and, even more remarkably, the pages don't clutter up with it. Indeed, the larger format to this hardcover only helps to bring out the detail. The larger format is a big aid to the storytelling. On some of the full-page splashes, you'll think you're looking at an art book.

Sale's art hasn't looked this impressive since SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS. In DD: YELLOW it's his use of the ink wash technique that sells the book. Not only does it look impressive, but it also helps set the book in the past with its murky and muddy tones. The story takes place not just at the beginning of Daredevil's career, but also at the time that the origin was created, in the early 1960s. From the cobblestone streets to the fancy dresses and the period hairstyles, Sale leaves no stone unturned. Sales' inkwash (combined with the meticulous colors of Matt Hollingsworth) helps to sell the book as looking a little "older" and realistic.

I remember picking up the hardcover printing of Loeb and Sale's BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN. I said at the time that it was the standard of what a comic book (book with a capital "B") should be. It looks like a normal prose book. It's got a nice dust jacket. It prints a large story. It fits well on your bookshelf. It's reasonably priced. SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY followed the same format. Now, we can add a book from the competition to that same section of bookshelf.

Marvel has one-upped DC in recent months with their hardcover program. Not only do they create attractive hardcovers that are nicely designed, but they pack them with bonus material at the end where available, and even print it on larger paper. Right now, ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN Volume 1 hardcover is the single best use for the format. Books like DAREDEVIL: YELLOW may be smaller, but they're no less impressive. This book includes a little behind the scene piece on the making of the comic, including a look at the original script, some pencil sketches, and the final ink washing.

But it's still the story that takes the show. DAREDEVIL has had a lot of good ones lately. Heck, even the Frank Miller run is available again. For a character that was all but written off a few years ago, it's been a heck of a comeback. DAREDEVIL: YELLOW is a great addition to the collection.

(The book, I should add, contains one of my favorite funny sequences in modern comics. In the third issue, Matt Murdock takes on a pool hall filled with some wisecracking college kids. Not only does the blind Murdock turn around and demolish the punks in a round of billiards, but he deflates their barbs with his own series of Helen Keller jokes. It reminded me of one of my favorite movies of all time, Steve Martin's ROXANNE, where Martin's character reels off a list of 21 jokes about having a large nose as a means of deflating the bully at the bar. That movie, of course, is based on CYRANO DE BERGERAC.)

Daredevil Today---Comic book version

Hot off the press is this October 26th, 2008 of the most recent Daredevil Comic book--- issue #112. Writing in CBR reviews, Timothy Callahan, offers an overview of the long arc of the Daredevil story. He underlines the influence of multiple writers and artists, each taking the character in different directions, through different eras. This issue is interesting in that it introduces Lady Bullseye, a deadly female version of the maniacal Bullseye we met in the movie version. (Same sculpted forehead scar). Callahan writes:

As dark as this issue is, and it's literally very dark -- full of heavy blacks and plenty of night scenes -- "Daredevil" feels more vibrantly alive than it has in a long time. This is a far cry from a light-hearted comic, but it seems to have shaken off the shackles of the burdensome melodrama. Brubaker and Lark have embraced the Frank Miller building blocks of this series, adding 50% more ninjas and giving Daredevil a mysterious new costumed foe who just happens to be a beautiful, and deadly, woman. Perhaps it's not that Brubaker is taking this series in a new direction, but that he's returning it to its roots, and doing it in his own particular way. Without a doubt, though, "Daredevil" has now regained its status as one of the must-read Marvel comics. It's the Brubaker/Lark "Daredevil" comic that you expected a couple of years ago, finally free of the Bendis influence.

This is a big theme to fans of comic books---different writers and artists do very different things to beloved characters. Fans (and reviewers), have strong reactions to changes. Many fans have a detailed knowledge of the Marvel universe so opinions about different character interpretations ring out loud and clear.

Transition

I'm picking up where I stopped blogging last April as I concluded my Information Technology for Learning course (University of Alberta, EDES 545 Winter 08).

The next few postings are assignments for my second course, LIS 518 Comic Books and Graphic Novels in School and Public Libraries, (University of Alberta, Fall 08). This will be a good record for me---and presumably no one will read it unless they are interested.

This is a continuing question I have about blogs---do they ever disappear?

Daredevil - The Movie Reviews

The Roger Ebert Review from 2003 is one of the more positive I've found. Ebert definitely is among the most charitable of the reviewers giving Daredevil a solid B. Ebert is a good and entertaining writer. I like his description of the relationship between Daredevil and Elektra

She and Daredevil are powerfully attracted to each other, and even share some PG-13 sex, which is a relief because when superheroes have sex at the R level, I am always afraid someone will get hurt. There is a rather beautiful scene where he asks her to stand in the rain because his ears are so sensitive they can create an image of her face from the sound of the raindrops.

Contrast this with USA TODAY review by Mike Clark who gives Daredevil a solid D+

The two leads show their love for each other by engaging in Matrix-like punches, flights and flips, already a movie cliché before the second Matrix pic can even make it into theaters. One early fight sequence is so dark, fuzzy and impersonal that the participants look like video-game combatants, which might be the point, given the target audience.

Ebert takes a poke or two at the comic genre as he explores Daredevil's human-plus athletic abilities--but to my mind movies and magical abilities are already entwined.

Daredevil has the ability to dive off tall buildings, swoop through the air, bounce off stuff, land lightly and so forth. There is an explanation for this ability, but I tend to tune out such explanations because, after all, what do they really explain? I don't care what you say, it's Superman's cape that makes him fly. Comic fans, however, study the mythology and methodology with the intensity of academics. It is reassuring, in this world of inexplicabilities, to master a limited subject within a self-contained universe. Understand, truly understand, why Daredevil defies gravity, and the location of the missing matter making up 90 percent of the universe can wait for another day.

Ebert praises the actors, too.

They play their roles more or less as if they were real, which is a novelty in a movie like this, and Duncan in particular has a presence that makes the camera want to take a step back and protect its groin.

He sums up the super-hero movie genre, the script which varies only slightly...

The movie is, in short, your money's worth, better than we expect, more fun than we deserve. I am getting a little worn out describing the origin stories and powers of superheroes, and their relationships to archvillains, gnashing henchmen and brave, muscular female pals. They weep, they grow, they astonish, they overcome, they remain vulnerable, and their enemies spend inordinate time on wardrobe, grooming and props, and behaving as if their milk of human kindness has turned to cottage cheese. Some of their movies, like this one, are better than others.

In the Daredevil movie, the vision is mainly that of one man, screenplay writer-director Mark Steven Johnson.

Daredevil succeeds, for the most part, because the creators aren't just filmmakers, but actual fans of the comic book. Scattered throughout the film are homages to the comic book's glory days, name-dropping such famous writers as "Miller, Mack, and Bendis." There are some visual homages to some of the more famous events in the series as well, such as the shot of Daredevil clinging to a cross, or in the confrontation between Elektra (Garner, 13 Going on 30), Murdock's love interest, and Bullseye (Farrell, The Recruit), the assassin sent to murder Elektra's father. Cameo appearances by Marvel creator, Stan Lee, and the man who helped re-popularize the character in recent years, filmmaker Kevin Smith, also should entertain those who might have a passing knowledge of the comic book character.

reviewed by Vince Leo http://www.qwipster.net/daredevil.htm

Daredevil* (for complete review follow link)

By Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Feb.14, 2003 ... Because if "Daredevil" seemed serious for a comic book, it is uninterestingly cartoonish for a movie. Its villains, from Michael Clarke Duncan's plus-sized Kingpin through Colin Farrell's over-the-top Bullseye, have a shopworn air about them, and the script's dialogue and situations have generic written all over them. That "Daredevil" should turn out to be neither daring nor devilish is somewhat of a surprise because filmmaker Johnson has been a washed-in-the-blood fan since he was a child. Not the obvious choice because of the nature of his previous work ... he impressed the producers with his knowledge of and zeal for the material. Maybe it's that zeal that turned out to be the problem. Maybe the comic book mythos is so firmly entrenched in Johnson's head that he doesn't see that his screen version is only sporadically involving and not really compelling to those without that previous interest. This is Daredevil's world, after all, where things do not have a habit of working out as planned.

I found the 'Times guidelines' : Mild by the standards of the genre of special interest. What does this mean?What is the point of guidelines if they vary from genre to genre? This also reminds me of the Director's cut comments where Johnson explained that the Director's cut got an R rating because of added bruatlity--specifically when Bullseye stabs Elektra in the R version, he also kisses her, pulling at her bottom lip. Perhaps it is sexualized violence that is determined to be inappropriate for 13 year olds....