Why The Daredevil Directors Cut Should Be Seen As One Of The Comic Book Movie Greats.

I know this may be a controversial opinion, but its something i feel needs to be addressed. So if you want to see my reasoning for this belief, please come give this a read.

Follow Mrcool210:
By Mrcool210 - 7/18/2014
This is an article im a bit scared to write. Cause Daredevil is a movie that seems to get a lot of hate. Hell, even Ben Affleck himself says its the only movie he regrets doing. Your movie has got to be pretty bad for your main actor to say that, and Affleck was in Gili. But we arn't here to talk about the Theatrical Cut, we are here to discuss the Directors Cut, and why i believe it should stand up as one of the comic book movies we remember and remeber fondly.


1.) Almost everybody in the movie was perfectly cast.
Now, i know what you are thinking. "Shouldn't this apply to the theatrical cut as well since no one was recast in the directors cut?" Now while you are partially right on that statement i put that here cause the sad part is is that although the theatrical cut still has the same great cast, the majourity of the casts best scenes are cut. These are included for Affleck, Duncan, Faverau, and while Ben Urichs best scene is still in the theatrical cut it makes more sense here. Micheal Clarke Duncans best scene is his introduction, which shows his strength and how menacing he is, and they do it in a way of show don't tell. Which is what you need in movies and it set up Kingpin perfectly. Ben Afflecks best scene is when he is actualy technically 2 scenes put together, its when him and elektra are on the rooftop during the rain storm, only for daredevil to run off and stop a crime. What makes that scene so great is that it showed how commited Murdock was to being daredevil. And really showed how Affleck can pull the duality of daredevil. And finally foggy nelsons best scene is in the court room, where he is trying to defend coolio, that scene screams foggy nelson perfectly and that along with the other scenes faverau did shows how good he was for the part. I could go on, but i think you get the point, they may have been casted well in the theatrical cut, but the directors cut shows exactly why.

2.) If it would have been released at the time Daredevil could have become a much bigger hero then he is now.

Now im not going to assume anything. For all i know this could be way off, but in my opinion, if the film in this state would have been released in 2003, Daredevil, at least for a short time, could have become one of the bigger superheroes, almost like Iron Man. At the time, superhero movies were more scene as kid fare, something to bring the kiddies along, nothing with anything really adult in it. Well the directors cut of Daredevil is definitly a film for adults through and through, it is not for the kiddies. Its even got the R rating. Sure that might not have helped it much in the box office (although i do beleive that it would have made more money then it did in its current state) But it would have gotten positive word of mouth, instead of what it got. We could have even gotten a franchise out of this. I have no doubts we at the very least would have gotten a Daredevil 2 if the directors cut would have gone to theaters. The film definitly would have been praised at the time for being more adult. And for a hero like daredevil thats kind of the way you need to go about things.

3.) Marvel is going to have to try hard to make their version more faithful.
Now don't get me wrong, i have no doubts that Marvel Studios will do a good job on their Netflix show of Daredevil, Im sure Charlie Cox will do a fine job as Horn Head. But, in almost every regard (with a few exceptions with the designs of kingpin, elektra, and Bullseye) this is one of the most faithful comic book adaptations I have seen. Lets start with the costume, as you can see from comparison, its damn near perfect.It looks like the Daredevil costume lept off the page and was in this movie, perfect material, perfect coloring, everything, props to the costume designer for that. Also, as stated before, the tone is just right too. Daredevil is not a light hearted kiddy fun ride, the comic has had a more adult feel to it for a while, especially the run by frank miller (his being seen as the definitive run of the character). And this film has that tone down, it has grit, its dark, for the most part anyway, and it feels like they tried their best to emulate that feeling from the comic book. Finally like stated earlier with the exception of some of the designs i don't beleive many things were changed, his orgin wasn't changed, Bullseyes way of work didn't change, Kingpin (aside from the skin color) looked and acted excactly like the comic kingpin. The only changes i can remeber were from Elektra, not involving the hand in anyway, but im fine with the changes they did make. People like to complain about movies always changing things in the movies. Well this is one that complaint can't be applied as much.

4.)It took nothing and made it into something.



Now this is the big reason for me, and its one of the reasons why i do hate the theatrical cut. There is an interview which i will link here that i do want you to watch, not the entire thing, just listen to what one of the producers Gary Foster has to say.



You did hear thar right? He said that while a shorter lengthed cut existed that had what was important in the directors cut, he felt it was best that the film move at a fast pace, rather then be a good movie. So its thanks to him that we got the braindead generic action movie that we got. Now onto why this is such an improvement, and why it should be seen as one of the greats for that reason. The theatrical cut of the film has a scene where matt murdock and elektra go out into a rain storm, Matt hears someone yelling for help and then says he has to go, however instead of leaving he sleeps with Elektra. Only to say one scene later that "Shes out of my league, im going to end it before it starts" Um...im sorry, where the hell did you get that idea Matt? You just slept with her, i don't think that means she would be hard for you to get. Now in the directors cut this scene makes sense. We have pretty much the same rain scene except matt actually runs off, and becomes daredevil to defeat the crook this scene with daredevil beating up the crook is still in the theatrical cut just put in a place earlier that makes no sense. After which Matt goes to work and then says "Shes out of my league". Now see? That makes sense within the context of the story. And the directors cut does a lot of things like that that. Theres a reason why everyone now knows who kinpin is, ben urich not revealing daredevils identity makes sense. And we get more of a connection with matts father since we spend more time with him. The directors cut was polished and worked on after the theartical cut came out so it was able to take a movie with no plot, and make it into an actual good movie with an interesting and complleing story, that had a great reperesentation of the property of Daredevil. I could go on, but i think i made my point, you may disagree with me on the quality of the movie but i urge you to at least consider my arguments, and have this cut of daredevil not only be one of the movies we remember from fox fondly, but one of the comic book movies in general we remember fondly and visit time and time again.

I thank you for reading my rambiling, if you liked what you read please comment, any other editorial suggestions you have for me? Please tell me. And now its time i do something else, maybe even watch this film again. 

DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
23
LIKE!
71 Comments
1 2
JFerguson - 7/19/2014, 12:22 AM
Fantastic job MrCool. Daredevil (whether it be the directors cut or not) is very underrated a movie. So cool beans, nd u get a thumb. ;P

MightyZeus - 7/19/2014, 12:27 AM
Amazing work, this was a great and interesting read, you've re-ignited my love for Daredevil the extended cut. If only Daredevil the extended cut where to be released in theaters then the audience would have understood the film better.
arkhamknight - 7/19/2014, 1:19 AM
After all this time of hearing that the Daredevil movie is crap, I think I'm gonna have to give it a shot. Nice write up.
staypuffed - 7/19/2014, 1:20 AM
Good job! I might check it out some day.
RextheKing - 7/19/2014, 2:02 AM
Bravo, couldn't have made this point better, and I'm honestly getting tired of hearing people say the film was bad, but when asked, if they seen the director's cut, they say no, and go on about how the film probably still sucks anyways.
DatNerdyKid - 7/19/2014, 3:19 AM
I thought the original 'Daredevil' definitely wasn't terrible and have heard that the Director's Cut is even better-articles like this (grammatical/spelling errors aside) make me want to watch it even more.
dethpillow - 7/19/2014, 5:10 AM
great article!

i really love that video too that you posted in it, i watched it, and really interesting stuff. Loved what the director had to say, and i'd love to see him do another CBM. lots of interesting stuff brought up in that video.

Ben Affleck was great in Daredevil, both versions, and so was Favreau.
dethpillow - 7/19/2014, 5:18 AM
i remember you and I had a diasagreement once about Thor 2 and it was basically over how much one could blame Alan Taylor for it. So it's cool to see that this is sort of the point of view you were coming from with that, I still entirely disagree tho. :) and i wish we had a director's cut of Thor 2 so there was more to talk about than I think vs I think. they bring up an important thing too, cuz deleted scenes and stuff like that never helps us much to understand how something would feel different, cuz even if the effects were all good, they are just in isolation.

and I was reading also an interesting critique on MOS on some site. but they were talking about editing and whoever wrote it was saying that they felt the movie was really hurt by the way it was edited. Becuz they were saying that it seemed kind of similar to the one little bit in the video you posted where they are just going thru the whole movie and taking out like .6 seconds here, take that last 1.2 before he goes in the bath, we don't need that... and on and on. And it's partly Snyder's style to do stuff like that, but this person was saying that they felt with MOS, the movie didn't really give time to let the audience breathe. cuz it's not all just about saying what happens next, but it's the pacing of quiet vs action and busyness.

i'm not sure if I agree with that or not, but it was an interesting to think about.
DrunkenNukem - 7/19/2014, 5:20 AM
If you watch the director´s cut and skip the "dancing in the playground" ..the movie its actually good
Tainted87 - 7/19/2014, 6:07 AM
I think a lot of people were REALLY turned off by the playground scene, and despite it being a foreplay of sorts, it was totally cheesy, unrealistic, and flat out dumb. One other bit was when Matt beats up his bullies in the alley - it was too casual to be over-the-top. Were they trying to be funny, or engaging? The balance was off there.

None of it really matters to me, you know, I'm just really trying to gauge the bits that no one liked. On the other hand, I really liked the movie, even the theatrical cut.

The director's cut rocked when it came out, and it still does, but there's a big problem with the editing towards the end. They interrupt a building climax to wrap up the "WOW" murder.

Anyways...
This movie really liked Evanescence. They made good use of "Bring Me to Life" with Elektra training, and for as miscast as Jennifer Garner was, she still had a great deal of chemistry with Ben Affleck - I mean the two did get married later. I thought Bullseye was fun even though I don't like Colin Farrell. I think Matt might have been brooding a bit too much in general, and some of the narrations (like the ending) drone on a bit overly long for my taste, but it was all well-intentioned.
I liked the attention to his lifestyle: pouring epsom salt into his water tank, which he would sleep in at night to drown out the noise; his collection of pharmaceuticals; his collection of scars and the pulling out of a tooth in the shower; the way he folds his bills.... it really added some depth. The trouble was, I don't think the director really had a clear direction for that depth to go.

I used to REALLY like it, and I still do, but some of it just hasn't aged all that well. For it's time, I can regard it as a pulpy action drama with bits of fun sprinkled throughout.

I recall first watching the special features on the director's cut and getting angry because of how awful Fox was to the project, laughing at the ideas, the costumes, and then cutting budgets and not giving much for the director to work with. Not that Mark Steven Johnson is some ace director - he did go on to do Ghost Rider (and his director's cut for that didn't make it any better).

You're on point though - whatever problems were present here will hopefully show Marvel what not to do in the future.
CorndogBurglar - 7/19/2014, 6:45 AM
I don't agree with your casting point at all. I actually liked Affleck as DD. It was Colin Ferrell's Bullseye that nearly ruined the movie for me. He was so ridiculous and over the top that it was painful to watch any scene with him.

Also, Michael Clark Duncan was a terrible choice. I love MCD, but he just wasn't Kingpin. He may have been okay, but the thing that irritated me was the fact that they played off of him being black. Cheesy rap music playing in the black ground when they show him, and the swagger they put on him, it just wasn't Kingpin.
CorndogBurglar - 7/19/2014, 6:46 AM
*background
AXE - 7/19/2014, 6:52 AM
The directors cut of this movie is brilliant
Snotzo - 7/19/2014, 8:19 AM
It had potential. Change casting of Elektra and Bullseye, and do away with that horrible playground fight scene, and that would fix about 90% my gripes with the movie.
DrKinsolving - 7/19/2014, 9:30 AM
I remember hearing Affleck saying that things were a lot different when Daredevil was made too, as far as what was acceptable, ect.... I like how he can be honest about his movies and I'm looking forward to his take on Batman, he's definitely proven himself as a director and actor with the Town and Argo.

I'll have to re-watch Daredevil Director's Cut.

Good Article
MrBlackjack - 7/19/2014, 9:45 AM
It's been a while since I've seen the directors cut, I need to see it again soon. Anyway, great job!
Jollem - 7/19/2014, 9:53 AM
the director's cut makes it more watchable, and is an enjoyable movie for a daredevil fan
kakinurmawth - 7/19/2014, 10:08 AM
@Mrcool21

DUDE. Well done. I;m one of those people who really was disappointed in this movie when it came out. You have changed the way I think and I definitely will give this Director's Cut version a chance.

Seriously, man very well thought out editorial. Very good job.

IF you've ever thought about writing other ones, [frick]ing do it.

Oh also Frasier is one of the best shows ever made hahaha always enjoy those Niles gifs




csdot - 7/19/2014, 10:21 AM
I didn't read this, and I respect your opinion, but after years of being told to give the directors cut a chance I finally caved (and actually bought it) and not only was it still awful but I couldn't even tell you the difference between the two versions. Casting is awful across the board (with the exception if Favreau as Foggy) though it's difficult to blame the actors because the script is cringe inducing. And the costumes OOF, the costumes are Joel Shumacher-level bad. As a fan of DD for as long as I've been able to read I find this movie about as enjoyable as repeated kicks to the genitals. Just my opinion.
EntertainmentAddict - 7/19/2014, 10:26 AM
I enjoyed BOTH versions of the film, but the director's cut is light years better than the theatrical. I will say, I have read DD comics and this film (either version) definitely picked out the important storylines and put them in the movie. Hope the series is good, but with Vincent D'Onoffrio or however you spell his name as Kingpin, I am not convinced. Will definitely be watching though...
CookieKid247 - 7/19/2014, 10:42 AM
Exactly why I don't agree when people use Daredevil as an excuse to why Affleck shouldn't be Batman. The film is campy bu t what did you expect for the time? Very faithful to the comics but I can't say it was a perfect cast. Great actors in the wrong roles is how I would put it. You can have the best actor in the world but he won't fit if the character isn't right for him. I felt like this for Gardner as Elektra.
marvel72 - 7/19/2014, 10:54 AM
the directors cut was better than theatrical release but the bar wasn't raised that high with daredevil now was it.
monstalova - 7/19/2014, 11:20 AM
I really enjoyed this movie!
In my opinion, its the best Marvel movie so far.
Love the characters, design, lighting, coloring (especially at night)
Affleck does have some of his bad acting moments but overall is quite solid.
The action scenes are well directed and different.
Special effects are brilliant and radar sense is so unique.
Colin Farrell is over the top but so much fun and with some great scenes and dialogue.
Jennifer Garner is the weak link, looks stunning but thats all.
Has one of the best lines in comic book movies when Daredevil beats up the gangster father in front of his son..."I'm not the the bad guy"
stutx - 7/19/2014, 11:21 AM
ok im not one to usually be negative i bought the directors cut years ago but never watched until a month ago. I noticed some scenes are added and moved but not enough to make jarring difference or a beloved movie out of whatever the original was. Ill admit it was better then the original but thats like saying using the restroom at home is way better then in public bathrooms, im still whipping my butt just in a better more comfortable location.

I liked the tone and his costume but not imposable to duplicate or even create. All red leather not complicated, serious dark tone with gritty images and little sunlight. Hell i would argue that any scenes with sunlight really took away from the movie. Also im sick of the ohh only kiddie comicbook movies existed prior to early 2003. umm batman and batman returns were not kiddie movies. I didnt notice any adult scenes that were added to the directors cut, i chalked the R rating to curse words (im willing to admit to be wrong due to not enough viewings).

I did enjoy afflecks take on the char, well really i think everyone was casts remarkably well
wykin2 - 7/19/2014, 11:29 AM
Agreed. I've been making this kind of argument to friends for years.
Dandy - 7/19/2014, 11:33 AM
It was a huge improvement over the theatrical cut, but it was still a polished turd.

I still thought the movie was trash.

Here's hoping the Daredevil series does better.
Mrcool210 - 7/19/2014, 11:42 AM
i do apologize to everyone for the spelling and grammatical errors. I wrote this very early in the morning before getting any sleep, ive tried to edit the article, but im not able to anymore. Sorry.
TheBatmanRules - 7/19/2014, 11:45 AM
I saw the director's cut and the theatrical cut just last month and I completely agree! The theatrical version is very poor (not terrible)but the director's cut is great. The costume looked a bit tight in the shoulders but other than that it was a perfect adaptation of the comic book suit.
csdot - 7/19/2014, 11:47 AM
Yeah the kiddie-centric comic book movie era defense is a joke. DD was post X-Men and Blade.
Mrcool210 - 7/19/2014, 11:50 AM
@csdot my arugment wasn't that all Comic book movies at the time were kiddie, im saying thats how they were seen at the time, people in the early 2000s saw comic book movies as movies to bring the kids too. Thats why some parents even brought their kids to watchmen when it came out.
KoonEl - 7/19/2014, 11:51 AM
Daredevil gets remembered as a bad movie. The truth is that it was a success. It spawned a spinoff that was terrible, then the whole Bennifer thing happened
X75 - 7/19/2014, 11:52 AM
I have them both on DVD and never understood the hate for this movie. It's probably because a lot of people like to bash Affleck. I do agree that the DC is a better movie.
KoonEl - 7/19/2014, 11:53 AM
Cont. Gigli happened and studios lost faith in Ben's box office pull potential
ThrotTheUnclean - 7/19/2014, 12:03 PM
Great article, the director's cut of Daredevil is one of my favorite comic book movies. I agree with all of your points. My ONLY complaint is Bullseye's costume was shit entirely shit. Although it was incredible acting all around though. Casting was perfect, story was perfect, plot was perfect. I really loved this movie.
Wolf38 - 7/19/2014, 12:03 PM
The director's cut is a decent film, but I still see it (Daredevil) as a B-movie. It feels like a throwback comic book film, in spite of the intention to be serious. I don't have a problem with Affleck, but Colin Farrell is just silly in the film, and Kingpin feels too over-the-top to really buy.
UlisesMX - 7/19/2014, 1:10 PM
I liked the directors cut since it appeared on DVD years ago, it's like a new movie.
blyndjustyce - 7/19/2014, 1:19 PM
DD has always been one of my favorite heroes and I have always stood behind the movie.
I tell everyone that hates on it to watch the Directors cut (hell, I tossed the theatrical version as soon as I got the D C )
The roof top scene alone sets it apart (I don't know why studios think all movies need a sex scene) don't get me wrong in the right context they work but in DD it just fizzled.
Great read all around, now maybe some that skipped the film will give it a try
SpitfireOverThames - 7/19/2014, 1:33 PM
A really thoughtful commentary on the DD director's cut! I agree wholeheartedly--it is a much better version of the film.

How can people find so much fault in this film? It's got some great scenes, an awesome, catchy soundtrack, funny bits plus a great cast! What's not to like? Perfect? Few are! But the director's cut is entertaining and a good portrayal of DD and his Hell's Kitchen backdrop! -Sean
VikingKing - 7/19/2014, 1:35 PM
The Director's Cut is a legitimately good film. EXCEPT for the cartoon church organ sequence that is still in it. There's really no coming back from that.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.