TVPast Forums

d.smyth · #1 02-27-2006, 05:07 AM

im a deardevil fan and a fan of jennifer garner,
i have the one disc, the 2 disc and the directors cut dvds, and now there is a new version out soon,
does anyone know whats new about it ?

http://tinyurl.com/fm3l3 (amazon.co.uk)

tekken1701 · #2 02-27-2006, 07:37 AM

Yeah..this version doesnt SUCK!!!!!!

d.smyth · #3 02-28-2006, 08:30 AM

none of them suck,
whats new about this version ?

tekken1701 · #4 02-28-2006, 02:39 PM

REPEAT...this version doesnt SUCK!!!

MagnificentMarcus · #5 02-28-2006, 03:43 PM

Almost as bad as Dr. Who!

d.smyth · #6 03-01-2006, 01:09 AM

any more details why this one does not suck ?
does not give much info on amazon.

tekken1701 · #7 03-01-2006, 07:11 AM

Still not as bad as Jimmy Neutron!!!!

tekken1701 · #8 03-10-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by SPOOKYFOXMULDER

I thought Electra was quite good.

Youre kidding right? It wasnt as bad as Daredevil but it still was WAY off the mark. In my opinion thats like saying you would rather have your fingernails pulled out with wirepliers as opposed to having your eyes poked out with a hot stick...lesser of two evils kinda thing!!

lordsmurf · #9 03-10-2006, 04:17 PM

I didn't see anything wrong with Daredevil. I'm sure any big Daredevil fan was just happy to see their favorite character on the big screen. Elektra was probably bad, but I'm sure it was still better than Catwoman. I saw neither.

ninjagirl · #10 03-10-2006, 09:59 PM

Their is obsoutly nothing wrong with daredevil, i am a big marvel & DC fan and found the movie to be a near perfect view of the comics.

As with any film to comic adaptions, its not alwaysd going to follow the comics perfect. some of the fims are so rushed to get with the craze and make a few extra bucks that its not done properly and it just flops.

But how daredevil was done was great, its not perfect. but the film wasn't rushed unlike some other comic to film adaptions.

How he got his powers was followed from the comics itself, not many comic to films adaptions do that right.

take for example fantastic four, i love the FF as a comic and look forward to film. But quite frankly it stunk, it basically stunk because it didn't follow the comics as it should of.

quite frankly why they gave the film a new origin is beyond me, heck the only thing it followed from the comics was the names of the cast.

The only bits about daredevil that didn't follow was adding in electra and bullseye, but that ended up fitting in quite well as a story. even the fact kingpin was black in the film, when he is meant to be white as in the comics.

But Michael clarke duncan played the part perfectly as the kingpin, overall as a film it was done much better then any comic to film adapation as you would get.

well with the exception that spider-man is the best comic to film adaption ever done.

tekken1701 · #11 03-11-2006, 02:11 AM

There was PLENTY wrong with Daredevil. I guarantee there is NOT a bigger DD fan than me on here, but just because a character makes it to the big screen doesnt make it a good movie simply because you're a fan! He was basically nothing more than a pill-popping psychotic in the movie. The only slightly cool thing was using a hyperbaric chamber to sleep in. The biggest problem I have with comic book adaptations is that people who do them simply throw out the 40+ plus years of history the hero has and give it their own "twist". Thats well and good but dont disregard the "rules" set down in the comics. For example, take the VERY STUPID fight on the playground with Elektra. For a blind lawyer he sure moves pretty good, huh? Way to protect the old secret identity,DD! Just having an action scene for the sake of having it doesnt cut it with me. I am one of the harshest movie critics I know and I am MORE HARSH on superhero flicks. I didnt hate Elektra but it could have been SO much more. Like I said before, unless you're a comic fan along the lines of Sam Raimi, you should NOT be allowed to make a superhero flick.
Explain to me how Daredevil was a close comic adaptaion anyway. So they got the origin right...BIG DEAL!! That was the only thing they got right. The Kingpin being black wasnt a big deal but they should have made him more than just a super-rich drug dealer. The Kingpin is WAY more than that..and always has been!! Bulleye is one of my favorite DD villains and basically he was a punk in the movie. He got worse treatment than Daredevil did. The only redeeming thing is that Ghost Rider will probably take the suckiest superhero movie trophy from DD...although FF was sure close!!

markatisu · #12 03-11-2006, 06:16 AM

The DD Directors Cut was much better than the original theatrical release. Some things were changed around in the movie and subplots actually got some time in the Directors Cut

One thing people dont want to accept is they only have 2hrs or less, in Daredevil for example to make the Kingpin as bad as Greg wants they would have had to completely forgo either Elecktra or Bullseye which might not have been a bad thing. Fact is to make the movies Greg wants you would either need a Pt 1 and some sequels or you would miss something, comics are too deep to get them right in the short time frame of a theatrical piece and STILL allow the "non-fans" to go to the movie and not be confused. Remember these movies are made for $$$, not because the comic geeks enjoy them, they will go anyway out of loyalty to the character

Spiderman is the perfect example of a comic story done right, handled only one villian and the origin story, then next sequel continue the story. But Daredevil is a VERY obscure character in the grand scheme of things (that is fact compared to a license like X-Men or Spiderman) so the fact they did anything right and did not make it a tv movie like Nick Fury Agent of Shield is impressive.

Its reality of the motion picture, as long as its not as horrid as Batman and Robin with George Clooney I will watch it, now there is a movie that Greg should be tearing apart lol

Now to answer Darren's original question which none of you have...that new DVD looks to be maybe a lower priced re-release of the Directors Cut. They did something similar here by re-releasing it for $9.99 in new packaging

But I do not think anything "new" was added because I am sure a site like superherohype.com or aintitcoolnews would have put a post about it being that it is comic book related and has quite a few fans.

tekken1701 · #13 03-11-2006, 07:08 AM

Daredevil is not worthy of a sequel. Spiderman is a perfect example of the fact that a comic movie can be right and not be a 4 hour movie.In actuality the Harry Potters and LOTRs shows that people will sit still for a longer movie so why not do a character justice and give a movie a 2+ hour runtime? It actually doesnt have to touch on every facet of a character but they should include the important stuff which Spiderman did but Daredevil did not! I refuse to comment on any Batman movie other than the first Keaton one..I hated batman begins also!