Hacker Cinema
Daredevil
2003 · Film · 103 min
Directed by Mark Steven Johnson
By day, blind attorney Matt Murdock toils for justice in Hell's Kitchen. By night, he's Daredevil, The Man Without Fear - a powerful, masked vigilante stalking the dark streets with an uncanny "radar sense" that allows him to "see" with superhuman capabilities. But when the love of his life, fiery Elektra Natchios, is targeted by New York City's ruthless Kingpin of crime and his deadly assassin Bullseye, Daredevil may be about to meet his match.
10 positive3 negative2 mixed13 neutralfrom 28 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
28 comments on Hacker News
Seriously?
The Crown, Stranger Things, Unbelievable, Russian Doll (wow, just wow), Orange Is The New Black, Narcos, Narcos: Mexico, GLOW, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Ozark, Nobody Wants This, Altered Carbon, Dirk Gently, Mindhunters, The Queen's Gambit, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.
And that's just what I can remember off the top of my head. And that's my taste, there's more not to my taste like Squid Game, Wednesday, Bridgerton, etc. And not including the films, documentaries, shorts, etc. they done like Love, Death and Robots.
Not self conscious at all my dude (I'm not one of those insensitive woke people who get off on making everybody feel like shit to try and elevate themselves at all costs), glad I made you chuckle. How do you consume movies? I didn't know that the ̶a̶c̶c̶u̶r̶s̶e̶d̶ "visually impaired" do that. Dope.
Don't know why I'm surprised. I bet blind fury would watch movies somehow too. Also, you should obviously change your username. :)
P.S. - Daredevil sucks so bad it makes me wish I was blind. You aren't missing out on anything there.
See No Evil, Hear No Evil is a classic. Yet another example of something great that currently wouldn't get made.
I've decided I want a blind friend. Prank potential off the charts.
Hehe, thanks, I know about Blind Fury, Daredevil, and See No Evil, Hear No Evil...
As I am embedded in a visual culture, I do consume movies from time to time, so there is actually no reason to be self-conscious about mentioning media products like that...
Not taking away from your main point, but the ABC-Marvel-Netflix shows were sandbagged by Ike Perlmutter at Marvel, who wouldn't let them be treated as first-class citizens with the movies. Daredevil was still pretty sweet across all seasons, thankfully.
I think the ground level superhero shows would do well as a movie then such as a big budget Jessica Jones drama or a Daredevil psychological thriller.
I'm of the same mind here. But I also want to express that diversity is heavily important in movies, and movies that merely put diversity as a demographic ignore that the demographic comes with experiences. Many of the most successful movies today involve the diversity of experiences, but too much budget continues to go into rehashes.
I don't really watch movies myself, but I could tell you that Black Panther was a massive cultural success. As was Get Out. And The Shape Of Water (which I did see and enjoyed thoroughly, especially for its seamless integration with the battling of traditional and nontraditional masculinity). But I couldn't tell you anything about, I don't know, Antman or Daredevil other than that they existed at some point. And I think this reflects in commecial successes, also.
What has been forgotten is that masses do want some novelty, even if it isn't by very much. Incremental novelies, perhaps.
Star Wars is already the movies, plus two animated series (Clone Wars and Rebels). You can look at the Marvel strategy to see where it could go, with multiple movies a year plus multiple tv/streaming series (Agents of Shield, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Legion, Defenders, Gifted, Inhumans, Punisher, Runaways). If all that Marvel content moves to Disney streaming, plus new Star Wars content, plus their kids TV shows, plus Pixar, ABC, and ESPN, then you have a package that is really strong.
I think Netflix is diluting the quality of their original content in the race of creating more and more minutes. Initial Netflix offerings like House of Cards were awesome, it has gone downhill since then. The Marvel offerings are awfully slow paced and boring (except maybe season one of Daredevil). I've been on the verge of cancelling my Netflix subscription recently and will probably do unless they significantly improve their original content.
Daredevil and Jessica Jones were a pleasure to watch. Not cult TV shows, but how many of those appear in a lifetime ?
Luke Cage must be the antimatter version of Daredevil then. Tried to watch the first episode - after half an hour and nothing had happened I gave up.
> Daredevil never really did it for me.
Daredevil S1 was 7-8 episodes of content stretched over 13 episodes, with clear front-loading of the good stuff (where did the decent fight choreography and good direction/camera work go after the first few episodes?!). If they'd hit that same level of overall quality again I'd have stopped watching, but fortunately S2 and Jessica Jones were quite a bit better overall, though not perfect—haven't seen Luke Cage yet, can't vouch for it.
Am I the only one who feels "Netflix Original" became a negative this year?
When I first signed up, Netflix Original meant high quality shows produced/funded by Netflix itself, like House Of Cards & Orange Is The New Black & Daredevil. Netflix Original meant the best TV you've ever watched.
Now Netflix Original often means terrible unfunny stand-up comedy, or made-for-TV movies by big name stars phoning it in. Much of the new Netflix Original content is rated one-star - on my account I see Wet Hot American Summer, XOXO, Easy, Chelsea, A Very Murray Christmas, The Ranch, Mascots, Chewing Gum, Richie Rich, Lost & Found, all with one star. And there's a ton more. Worse is that it keeps pushing those as recommendations to me, even though it thinks I'll only rate them 1 star.
I can't see myself cancelling my Netflix yet, but there have been times when I've been tempted to pause it for a month or so.
Generation kill is a miniseries, Daredevil and GoT are just series :)
Rushed, cramped, and thin characters are far too common in modern movies. I think it is a sign of the times that people going to movies want more depth and 2 hours isn't enough to tell a deep story.
While it has its flaws, the modern mini series (Game of Thrones, Daredevil) tell much better stories that are more compelling and have depth. (except The Walking Dead, they have some issues)
I would rather see a 6 hour series on Netflix that tells the Rogue One story than a single 2 hour flick with characters that I have no interest in.
I couldn't agree more. I think about "Daredevil" season one: 13 episodes, each almost an hour long. We saw more character development in a single season (of both the titular character and Vincent D'Onofrio's excellent Kingpin) than in years of Marvel movies.
If an episode's story needs to run a bit longer, it runs longer. Commercial breaks don't affect pacing. Nobody has to worry about sponsors being upset about content, an episode being interrupted by breaking news or postponed due to a sporting event.
I'd like Netflix to have a larger movie catalog, but if they continue to crank out quality long-form stories I'm quite happy to remain a subscriber.
(Now we just need them to secure the rights for Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey/Maturin novels)
"If Netflix launched with Orange is the New Black, Luke Cage, and Daredevil, would they have even a tiny fraction of the user base they currently have?"
I think there's fairly strong evidence that the answer would be "yes" to that question. More people have signed up for Netflix since the release of House of Cards in Feb 2013 than signed up before then. IIRC that it's right around that time that the Netflix movie catalog really started to shrink, and also the time when Netflix started to have attractive original content.
Agreed. On top of that Netflix is by far the best platform for Marvel superheroes. Daredevil, Jessica Jones and now Luke Cage are quality shows that would not work as well on TV and IMO have been far more enjoyable than most Marvel movies. The extra 10 hours for these tv series afford writers an opportunity to build better villains, examine more themes and more surprises.
The previous site allowed anonymous viewing of a movie listing, for recommending a movie to a non-subscriber.
The Daredevil movie listing link goes to a login page, is that expected?
Well, for one, they could stop doing origin stories on well established characters. For example, the next Spider-Man movie will supposedly be a non-origin story as it is rebooted to be part of Marvel's cinematic universe. If they wish to start a new actor as a character it doesn't necessarily mean a reboot of the character. But issuing new actors over-and-over with reboots and origin stories for these characters would be the boring part.
I, for one, like seeing the new heroes being introduced into the mix such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Marvel has a large number of characters to rely on that haven't been introduced into the cinematic universe. Just because they are relatively unknown doesn't mean it won't work. Guardians was considered a risk because most people had no idea what they were, yet it did big numbers at the box office.
These stories can be told endlessly if they are done correctly. Not all of Marvel's characters are super-powered beings and some of the normal characters have interesting stories to tell. Daredevil on Netflix is a good example of this. It didn't even feel like a typical Marvel enterprise until the suit came into play. Up to that point it was an interesting drama with occasional action pieces. Agents of Shield is another; stories about mostly ordinary people dealing with living in this new world of super-beings and gods.
Where comic book movies/shows go wrong is when they are created to be commercials for selling toys and the story comes second. So far, Marvel has avoided this. Hopefully DC can do the same. If telling the story is always the most important aspect, then these things can last a long time before they get boring.
The article did mention TV shows, very briefly. But I'd be shocked if anybody who had even the slightest interest in this stuff wasn't aware of Daredevil and the other upcoming Netflix shows.
The article goes on about the films, but also Marvel has been making quite a few TV shows that seem to be hits and doing well.
One of the latest is a Netflix exclusive Daredevil which was just released and this week another season was ordered (I highly recommend watching it, HBO level production and violence and amazing fight scenes).
It seems Netflix will also be release a few other Marvel series going forward too.
Netflix is well on its way to becoming the first of the 21st century "networks". When you think about a television network it plays re-runs of old shows, re-runs of old movies, movies that have come out of theatres, and original series.
The only difference between Netflix and say "TNT" or "FOX" (other than they don't have news shows) is that the content is available on your schedule, not the networks, and they don't put advertisements in their content they just charge you a monthly fee to have access to it.
They have, nominally 60M subscribers[1] world wide, and 40M in the US[2], out of a total of 113M TV households [3]. If half of their subscribers watched the series Daredevil (which I recommend) that would be the equivalent of Netflix getting a 20 rating. [4] That would be equivalent to a Seinfeld [ibid] which was NBC's hottest show for a very long time.
So what that means is that networks need to either adapt to this new model or die. And the more that die, the more content there is for folks like NetFlix.
Oddly enough, this sort of makes Roku the new Comcast :-)
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/01/20/netflix-soars-on-subscriber-growth/
[2] http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-tops-57-million-subscribers-in-q4-as-u-s-growth-slows-1201409712/
[3] http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_2014-2015_DMA_Ranks.pdf
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Commercial_ratings
Speaking of exclusive content, I highly highly recommend Netflix's "Daredevil" (a TV series they developed with Marvel). It's seriously some amazing content.
Try to actually think about it. What movies fit that formula?
Iron man - no, an arrogant man built his own powers Thor - no, an entitled boy temporarily had to cope with the absence of his powers to earn them back The Hulk - no, he is not a great wizard, he is trying to cure himself Captain America - you could make an argument for it, but no, he auditioned for his powers Batman - no Guardians of the Galaxy - no Spider-man - OK, especially in "The Amazing Spider-man" they played the destiny card Superman - sort-of, but he grew up with his powers Green Lantern - yes Daredevil - sort-of, but his wizards power is "not actually blind" X-men - sort of, but their powers are a civil rights race analogy
Most comic book movies do not fit the boy-who-thinks-he-has-nothing-is-actually-a-great-wizard formula and those that do tend to be less successful.
That would be the movie/comic book hero "Daredevil"
If you're a weirdo then I am one too. I kind of want the sleeping thing from the movie Daredevil (tiny capsule where he sleeps in water so he can hear nothing).
I could build one myself but I always live with people who might treat me like I was insane.
But essentially a completely sound-proof little capsule where you can go in, close the door, set the temperature whatever you wish (18 degrees!), and then sleep without light or sound waking you.
This is the first video game to have a "movie" appeal. Fans of other cross-media formats, such as comic books, often will watch the movie simply because they were a fan of the series - even if the consensus is that the crossover is absolutely and completely terrible, and also hear as much from their most trusted referrals (see: Daredevil).
Because of the aging of this game and the story behind it, this sequel has taken on a similar quality - showing that maybe the thing that creates the appeal isn't the media format presented, but rather, the duration of time between one notable appearance and the next.
I think this is an excellent point and really gets into what David was talking about in his (absolutely inspiring) Startup School presentation and how it relates to this post.
To many people, being in a startup is about selling the same thing to the same people - eyeballs to VCs or Google. That's it. There frequently isn't a lot of concern over what exactly it is that draws them there. In these situations, long hours are required (or at least mandated) because the target moves so frequently because someone has a "better idea" or needs to implement "just this one thing" to appease some VC who ends up not funding you anyway. This lack of focus and constraints leads to middle of the road products that can only be worked on by people working 14 hour days to adapt to the ongoing changes.
It's sort of like when Hollywood is out to make a "blockbuster." They buy a popular comic book character, get a dozen hack writers to work on it - even while the scenes are being shot - and they put in a bunch of crap special effects. Sure, sometimes it works, but most of the time it's a bunch of dreck that will never make back its $200 million budget. Contrast that to the lifestyle business - er, independent film - being written and directed by the guy who LOVES what he's doing and making it for himself and you get Pulp Fiction.
Me, I'd much rather make "Pulp Fiction" than "Daredevil."