Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what happen to making daredevil 2? i thought ben and jen were comming back... who thinks there should be daredevil 2?

If it does happen hopefully they make it alot better then the first one was

What is everyones problem with the first movie?

I never knew their were any plans to make another one and i agree with Eclipso,Daredevil was better than most comicbook movies out there that have been made.

they better not make an elektra 2

I disagree with your sig quote Mr parker

"organics are the biggest sin in hollywood history"

Its better to make it real or else it will look to fake

parker.. i agree.. daredevil is one of those best comic book based movies..along side with punisher. Spiderman might have stayed true to the comics in some kind of a way.. but the casting, and sam raimi ruined the character.!

Originally posted by Kazenji
I disagree with your sig quote Mr parker

"organics are the biggest sin in hollywood history"

Its better to make it real or else it will look to fake

Sigh, don't even get him started on that.....

Daredevil Directors Cut was one of the best comic book movies made. The theatrical version....that was a disgrace, and after seeing how fox butchered the movie, i hope DareDevil 2 is made when Fox looses the rights

Originally posted by Eclipso
What is everyones problem with the first movie?

It was bad. Mostly

Originally posted by Punker69
Sigh, don't even get him started on that.....

I did'nt know i'm a friggan newbie to these forums

Daredevil was EXTREMELY underrated. It was much better than Spider Man 1 & 2, and Fantastic 4 but not better than Hellboy and the X-Men films.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I disagree with your sig quote Mr parker

"organics are the biggest sin in hollywood history"

Its better to make it real or else it will look to fake

thats the most hilarious thing I have ever heard making it look real since we are talking about a comicbook movie here. yeah like a guy gaining powers to stick to walls and have superhuman strength ALL somehow from the bite of a genetically altered spider is REAL? well organics coming out of the wrists sure as hell are not real,the placement would be the webbing shooting out of his butt if you want to talk real. again a guy swinging from buildings from a spiderbite more than anything is fake.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
Daredevil was EXTREMELY underrated. It was much better than Spider Man 1 & 2, and Fantastic 4 but not better than Hellboy and the X-Men films.

exactly.well said my man.I disagree though that it wasnt better than the xmen movies.havent seen the last one but the first two focused way too much on wolverines character and not enough on the others.

Originally posted by Eclipso
What is everyones problem with the first movie?

Ben Affleck turned a sequel a while back. Besides how can anyone say that Daredevil was a good film. I thought it was a piece of you know what. Second the costume he wore, that horrible degrating plot, bad box office returns that is why there is no sequel.

I heard a while back that the studio wanted to do this. It wasn't going anywhere though 'cause they wanted Affleck back. And Affleck said he wouldn't do it unless Kevin Smith wrote or directed it or something.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
thats the most hilarious thing I have ever heard making it look real since we are talking about a comicbook movie here. yeah like a guy gaining powers to stick to walls and have superhuman strength ALL somehow from the bite of a genetically altered spider is REAL? well organics coming out of the wrists sure as hell are not real,the placement would be the webbing shooting out of his butt if you want to talk real. again a guy swinging from buildings from a spiderbite more than anything is fake.
So getting the strength and ability to stick to walls from a radioactive spider is more realistic than a genetically engineered spider?

I don't get why you're bringing down the movies because they're not realistic. Spider-Man is no way realistic.

Originally posted by Wolfie
I heard a while back that the studio wanted to do this. It wasn't going anywhere though 'cause they wanted Affleck back. And Affleck said he wouldn't do it unless Kevin Smith wrote or directed it or something.

So getting the strength and ability to stick to walls from a radioactive spider is more realistic than a genetically engineered spider?

I don't get why you're bringing down the movies because they're not realistic. Spider-Man is no way realistic.

Hence why its called a comic book movie

Whats next Hellboy is real and all those events actually happen

Originally posted by Punker69
Sigh, don't even get him started on that..... co-signed

Originally posted by Kazenji
Hence why its called a comic book movie

Whats next Hellboy is real and all those events actually happen
You mean the Nazis didn't open a portal to hell?!

Originally posted by Wolfie

So getting the strength and ability to stick to walls from a radioactive spider is more realistic than a genetically engineered spider?

I don't get why you're bringing down the movies because they're not realistic. Spider-Man is no way realistic.

When did I ever say that getting the strength and ability to stick to walls from a radioactive spider is more realistic than a genetically altered spider? the fact is they are BOTH just as unrealistic as the other.Obviously you only read parts of that post and not the WHOLE post.I was pointing out how lame and laughable his argument is that organics should have been in the movie when he made that ludicrous comment "make it real" because THE WHOLE THING OF SPIDER-MAN IS UNREAL.That was my point I was making is if you want "realism in a movie"- which apparently he does,,you shouldn't be seeing a comic book movie in the first place. My other point I made that you also obviously did not read was you want talk about making it real-which AGAIN is what HE said,not me,then organics should not be in the movie because realistically and logically,they would shoot out of his ass.

Originally posted by Vladimir
what happen to making daredevil 2? i thought ben and jen were comming back... who thinks there should be daredevil 2?

Why would you like that for? It's like getting slap on the face with the right hand and then asked to be slap with left hand.

No Daredevil 2.

I'll tell you what happened, the first one was a pile of shit.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why would you like that for? It's like getting slap on the face with the right hand and then asked to be slap with left hand.

No Daredevil 2.

I disagree with you there Dwarf.Although it could have been better in a lot of areas, as i said before,it was much better than most comicbook movies out there.someone mentioned it was a pile of shit but most comicbook movies made are a pile of shit because they usually betray the source material and are horribly miscast with horrible acting-and horribly written.superman 1 and 2, dick tracy, batman begins,and conan the barbarian are the rare exceptions,but like I said,its better than most comicbook movies out there and it deserves a sequal unlike a certain bug did.

Originally posted by Vladimir
parker.. i agree.. daredevil is one of those best comic book based movies..along side with punisher. Spiderman might have stayed true to the comics in some kind of a way.. but the casting, and sam raimi ruined the character.!

Vladimer my man,you got good tatse in comicbook movies.dont let anybody tell you any differently. yeah you hit the nail right on the head,that is so true.since you mention the spiderman movie,with Batman Begins I now have hope that someday hollywood will redeem themselves with spiderman the same way they did with Batman with Batman Begins because until Batman Begins came along,the sad truth is all the other batman movies made before it were a pile of shit and should be burned.None of them were loyal to the source material and Tim Burton ruined the character of Batman just like raimi did with spiderman and the movies just got increasingly worse after the first horrible one.Well Batman Forever was better than the first two because Kilmer till Bale came along was the best Bruce wayne by far,he was at least physically fit for the role and at least looked the part But Bale is the one and only true Batman and Batman Begins is the one and only true Batman movie.So since hollywood finally redeemed themselves with Batman with Batman Begins my second favorite comicbook character,this gives me hope that someday they will get a director that understands the spiderman character and redeem themselves with spiderman as well and actually make a good spiderman film someday.I wish someone would call up Chistopher nolan and tell him to start making a spiderman begins film and restart the franchise all over again.

anyways like i said before Im all with you,there should be a daredevil 2.

The first one was a pile of crap. Why is there a need for a sequel?

Parker you're wrong here, Daredevil had worse casting than Spider-Man (The only good cast members on Daredevil were Colin Farrell as Bullseye and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin) and there was only one thing about that film that actually was discussed. Who's more wooden Ben Affleck or Jenifer Garner?

Originally posted by Help
Parker you're wrong here, Daredevil had worse casting than Spider-Man (The only good cast members on Daredevil were Colin Farrell as Bullseye and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin) and there was only one thing about that film that actually was discussed. Who's more wooden Ben Affleck or Jenifer Garner?

I agree with the casting of Farrell and Duncan, BUT I think Affleck and Garner were REALLY good also. Luckily opinions are welcomed here. There should be a Daredevil 2.

totally agree with everything you say space monkey.

Originally posted by Help
Parker you're wrong here, Daredevil had worse casting than Spider-Man (The only good cast members on Daredevil were Colin Farrell as Bullseye and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin) and there was only one thing about that film that actually was discussed. Who's more wooden Ben Affleck or Jenifer Garner?

They werent anywhere near as wooden as Tobey Mcguire or Kirsten Dunst.Mcguire makes me cringe when he talks with his lame ass delivery of lines.The thing thats really sad about Dunst being such a horrible actress in those movies is she is normally a good actress,she has been good in other films,but due to poor direction given to her in the spiderman films by a lousy director,she was just horrible and wooden as hell in those movies.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
but most comicbook movies made are a pile of shit because they usually betray the source material and are horribly miscast with horrible acting-and horribly written.superman 1 and 2, dick tracy, batman begins,and conan the barbarian are the rare exceptions

And also X-men 1,2, Hellboy.........i better not put spiderman 1 and 2 because it will anger you


also the organic thing i mentioned us more towards the CGI vs Prosthetics just to clear things up

Originally posted by Mr Parker
They werent anywhere near as wooden as Tobey Mcguire or Kirsten Dunst.Mcguire makes me cringe when he talks with his lame ass delivery of lines.The thing thats really sad about Dunst being such a horrible actress in those movies is she is normally a good actress,she has been good in other films,but due to poor direction given to her in the spiderman films by a lousy director,she was just horrible and wooden as hell in those movies.

I think I must be from another planet... Spiderman rules big time, Daredevil was quite horrible.

Some people just cant get past how amazing the special effects are and see how horribly written these movies REALLY are..The special effects department for the movies did an amazing job with the movie,no doubt about that. its only the amazing special effects that the special effects department did a great job with in the movies that make the movies worth sitting through.the scenes that DONT have special effects in them are just pure crap.Its sad that the supporting characters like Rosemary Harris as Aunt May and J K simmons as J Jonah Jameson as far as the actors go,carry the movie.Next to the special effects,they are the best thing about the movie as far as actors go.J.K simmons especially is great and amazing and fun to watch.People here really need to get past the amazing special effects though and see how horribly written and acted these movies really are.

I myself will take Daredevil anyday of the year over the spiderman flicks because they at least are not kiddie flicks and are made for adults.I dont just say the spiderman movies are kiddie flicks just because i hate them.I hate the Burton/Schumacher batman films equally as much obviously from what I said earlier about the Batman movies but I can at least acknowledge with them though that they are not kiddie flicks and were also adult themed like Daredevil was.

Ben Affleck looked horrible as Daredevil. I think the best acting came from Stan Lee...he basically was himself.

yeah i agree with the pro daredevil 2. i think they should start doing DD2. ill be waiting for that

Originally posted by Mr Parker
People here really need to get past the amazing special effects though and see how horribly written and acted these movies really are.


I actually liked the second film alot more then the first one it was big improvement



What are you on about they did open it up in the film

Here's what I think the issue is: Most people who watch Comic Book movies expect nothing but a dumb, eye-candy, special-effects laden, action film. That's why Kazenji didn't mention X-Men 3 in the movies he thinks are crap, because that was the movie with the LEAST substance of the trilogy. When comic book movies with substance, as far as artistic or message-wise, come out there seems to be an air of disappointment. Whenever there is an argument about comic book movies that seems to be the case, whenever there isn't an argument, then it's safe to say the movie was really crap(i.e. Catwoman, Batman & Robin). Spider-Man could have been extremely awesome, but it went the way of easy ticket sales. Appeal to the "Book cover" viewers instead of people who will read the book. Daredevil seems to have put aside the need to look pretty and gave us the flawed character, that is Matt Murdoch, on the screen. Had that movie been prettied up and made to look cartoonish like Spider-Man it would have made more money and had more fans, but it would have sold-out.

I have high hopes for Spidey 3, but I fear it will find a way to ruin the aspect of having all those cool characters.

Again, this is JUST my opinion.

Originally posted by Kazenji
I actually liked the second film alot more then the first one it was big improvement


thats something we CAN agree on. Yeah the second one was definetely a lot more of an improvement over the first one no doubt thats because with the first one the special effects were not all that impressive and looked cheesy many times where with the second one,the special effects as i said were really amazing,I was pretty much referring to the second one when I said the special effects were really good and amazing. the special effects for the second one is really about the best thing to look at in the film.They are what saves the film.The first one I cannot stand and cannot sit through at all and want to forget.Other than the oscorp building,the special effects in THAT movie didnt do much for me, but the second one is at least watchable because like i said the special effects are what saves that movie from being utter crap but special effects alone dont make a movie a great film,However unlike the first one,the thing that dissapoints me about the second one is it DID have the potential to be a magiacl movie masterpiece comicbook movie up there with the greats with Batman Begins and the first two Superman movies but unfortunately the acting of Mcguire,Dunst and the script just brings the movie down several notches and keeps it from reaching that milestone which is a shame because spiderman is such a great character.I compare SM2 to The Star Wars prequals.The special affects in those movies are amazing and fun to watch but the scripts are so horrible that it makes the movies very dissapointing,not at all magical masterpieces like the first two star wars movies A New Hope and Empire Strikes back which I feel are the only good star wars movies that have been made. The special effects are its lone saving Grace.Kinda like how the presence of the hot looking Kim Basinger makes the first Batman movie worth sitting through. She had such a huge role in tha film she actually makes it worth sitting through. Shes the only thing good about that movie.I taped that movie off cable once and I will pop the movie in the VCR at times to watch it and I'll just fastforward through all the scenes that dont have Kim Basinger in it and just watch the scenes that shes in.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
Here's what I think the issue is: Most people who watch Comic Book movies expect nothing but a dumb, eye-candy, special-effects laden, action film. That's why Kazenji didn't mention X-Men 3 in the movies he thinks are crap, because that was the movie with the LEAST substance of the trilogy. When comic book movies with substance, as far as artistic or message-wise, come out there seems to be an air of disappointment. Whenever there is an argument about comic book movies that seems to be the case, whenever there isn't an argument, then it's safe to say the movie was really crap(i.e. Catwoman, Batman & Robin). Spider-Man could have been extremely awesome, but it went the way of easy ticket sales. Appeal to the "Book cover" viewers instead of people who will read the book. Daredevil seems to have put aside the need to look pretty and gave us the flawed character, that is Matt Murdoch, on the screen. Had that movie been prettied up and made to look cartoonish like Spider-Man it would have made more money and had more fans, but it would have sold-out.

I have high hopes for Spidey 3, but I fear it will find a way to ruin the aspect of having all those cool characters.

Again, this is JUST my opinion.

and a very good one I might add that pretty much hits the nail right on the head. unlike you though I dont have high hopes at all for SM3.I think its pretty much safe to say that SM 2 will go down as the best spidey movie.I say that because when the trailers for SM1 came out,I was like cussing the movie and tv screens big time because there was enough evidence from the trailers that you could tell it was going to be a horrible movie,However when the trailer for SM 2 came out I wasnt doing that because it looked much more promising and was defenetely the better movie of the two.NOW with SM 3,I look at the trailer and for it and it seems to be following the same path the first one did.Looks cheesey as hell.Venom looks to be about the only good thing about that movie.The special effects for Sandman look cheesey as hell and not at all believable like they do with Venom.Sandman was a poor choice for them to use as a villian because you can tell from the scenes they have shown with him in it that Sandman is a villain that works good on the comicbook pages and in the cartoons but not on the big screen.Plus Sam Raimi must be related to that other idiot director Tim Burton who ruined my second favorite comicbook character Batman-and I will add that Batman is a VERY close second to spidey as my favorite comicbook character obviously.That movie sucked partially because they betrayed the comic having the joker be batmans killer -thank god for batman begins for clearing that up and showing everybody Tim Burton for what the true idiot he is,its like Sam Raimi must be buddys with Tim Burton or something because he is making Sandman become the killer of Uncle Ben which really sucks.

Oh wow, I had NO idea that The Joker wasn't the real killer of Batman's dad. Thanks for clearing that up. I bought into the Burton story hook-line-and-sinker.

I actually did'nt have a problem with the acting in SM2 and as for the star wars movies thing A New Hope and Empire Strikes back and Return of Jedi i would have to say are the only good ones that have been made



The sand Effects for sandman look believable to me




Same here space monkey and that thing with Sandman being petes real killer for the trailer for SM3 when i saw that i was what the **** are they on about ??

Wrong forum, Comic movie forum.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
Oh wow, I had NO idea that The Joker wasn't the real killer of Batman's dad. Thanks for clearing that up. I bought into the Burton story hook-line-and-sinker.

yeah that was just a minor thing though compared with some of the other moronic things that Burton did with that movie though like making the worst casting choice in comicbook history casting pudgy gut,receding hairline,half bald,short runt michael keaton for tall,muscular,handsome,full set of hair bruce wayne.what a total joke and and insult to true batman fans. then the worse sin of all making batman a cowardly killer when batman hates to kill people. thats what I loved about batman begins was nolan the director is a fans director and understood the character of batman by making a point of it in the movie that batman will not kill people to bring criminals to justice.

It's a great movie like The movie Hellboy.. i like the roll of Selma Blair in that movie.. great job!http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2004/sonypictures/hellboy/images2/selma-2.jpg