Daredevil TV Show Debuts; Early Reviews Positive

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Daredevil TV Show Debuts; Early Reviews Positive

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday April 11, 2015 @12:02PM from the sight-for-sore-eyes dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Daredevil has been a staple of Marvel's superhero lineup since the 1960s. But Daredevil's most recent on-screen legacy was a terrible film in 2003 starring Ben Affleck. Since then, Marvel has gotten a lot better at adapting comics to the big and small screen. Yesterday saw the debut of a new Daredevil television series. It's a Netflix original, which means the whole first season went up at once. Early reviews of the show are quite complimentary. Slate praises the acting, and adds, "Daredevil is a bloody show that also bleeds: It has more interest in human bodies than much recent Marvel fare, and more interest in human beings as well. It's remarkably patient, resisting the urge to tell its viewers everything at once, a restraint largely enabled by the binge-y sprawl of the Netflix format." Ars Technica says the violence can be a bit over-the-top at times, but praises how the choreography and cinematography reflect the main character's blindness. The Verge simply says Daredevil raises the bar for superhero television, even though many new shows have found success recently.

67 of 114 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Terrible Film? Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 12:09 · Score: 1

I hadn't read any of the comics when I went to see the Daredevil movie in the theater. I enjoyed it. Why do I keep seeing people online say it sucked? Probably the same tools who didn't like the Thomas Jane Punisher movie, which was also good.
1. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  The theatrical release wasn't that great, but that was largely due to executive meddling. The Director's Cut is much, much better but many people don't give it a chance because they disliked the one they saw in the theater or on TV.
2. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by circletimessquare · 2015-04-11 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the film is fine
  people feel entitled to dramatic opinions about mediocre topics
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by TWX · 2015-04-11 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  It does seem like the less the topic really affects them, the stronger they feel about it and the more noise they make on it...
  
  I enjoyed the film version. I tend to compare a lot of superhero/comic-book movies to the 1989 version of Batman, and I found the villain and the setting both more plausible in Daredevil, and while there are fantastic elements to the hero, they were certainly no more out-of-line than other comic-book movies.
  
  If I remember right, the movie came out in that period when the Affleck/Lopez relationship was in the news a lot, so I suspect that some negative thoughts were reactionary to all of the crap on TV and in the tabloids at the time.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
4. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by circletimessquare · 2015-04-11 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  exactly
  the opinions are usually predicated on issues that have nothing to do with the movie, or have to do with the movie, but are obsessed with stupid details
  for example: people bellow hatred for the scene in indiana jones 4 where he survives a nuclear blast in a refrigerator
  as if the first 3 movies were models of realism, or as if realism is the point in going to see an indiana jones movie
  most movies are ok. if they stink, you forget about them. not talk about them constantly. if someone has a loud, boorish, shallow opinion they need to trumpet like it's life or death, it tells you the quality of the opinion is low
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
5. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by quantaman · 2015-04-11 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  I hadn't read any of the comics when I went to see the Daredevil movie in the theater. I enjoyed it. Why do I keep seeing people online say it sucked? Probably the same tools who didn't like the Thomas Jane Punisher movie, which was also good.
  It's a big budget Hollywood film, popular opinion isn't necessarily correlated to quality.
  There's nothing worse than seeming to be one of the uneducated masses, if all the cool people decides that X is terrible then saying you like it just tells people you have poor taste.
  For what it's worth I saw the apparently bad theatrical release and I recall enjoying it, then again I might have terrible taste in movies.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
6. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by hairyfeet · 2015-04-11 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't get it, it was a perfectly ok film. It wasn't Captain America or Iron Man 1 great but it sure as hell ain't Fantastic Four terrible, it was pretty much just an "I watched an ok superhero flick" for me...maybe THAT is why its hated? Because it didn't turn out to be the epic that the uber fanboys wanted?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by AmiMoJo · 2015-04-12 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  The movie was awful, even if you don't care about the comics. One of the worst parts was when Daredevil is rejected by Electra, so beats her up until she likes him. It was the same as when Bond did the same to Pussy Galore in Thunderball, as if nothing had changed in 40 years.
  More over the acting was terrible, somehow being blind gave him matrix vision style sonar, and the CGI looked rubbish.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by circletimessquare · 2015-04-12 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  you can level such nitpicking at any movie ever
  pick your favorite movie in your mind
  i can level a dozen same whiny self-important "devastating" opinions at it
  the simple fact is that there are billion ok movies, and a few that are truly awful, mostly on technical terms. that's it. the movies you and i might call great is simply trendy subjectivity that will come and go over time
  your opinion simply is not as important nor authoritative as you imagine it is. that's just a blind ego talking
  but people like to come in as some sort of self-imagined heavy authority on the quality of movies or lack thereof because it fills them with a sense of importance missing from mediocre lives
  watch movies, enjoy them
  no one gives a fuck about your common shallow opinions, and they carry no weight
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
9. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by BennyX · 2015-04-12 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think people who go into a movie expecting to be entertained rather than expecting a movie to be 100% faithful to a comic-book generally walk away satisfied. It's the die-hard comic book fans with the high expectations that are usually more vocal about their opinions regarding movie adaptations.
10. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by BennyX · 2015-04-12 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  the film is fine
  people feel entitled to dramatic opinions about mediocre topics
  haha, you're absolutely right about that!
11. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by BennyX · 2015-04-12 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I may be in the minority, but I didn't find any of the Fantastic Four movies to be terrible. I went in expecting a brief respite from reality, popcorn in hand, and I got exactly that. Mind you, I have yet to watch the Roger Corman FF film. I'm sure that is terrible.
12. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by hairyfeet · 2015-04-15 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The pacing and editing was terrible, as well as the writing for Dr Doom. With every bad guy in the GOOD Marvel movies you felt like you knew why they did what they did and why they would do it that way, whereas Dr Doom was just "yeah...he's evil, just roll with it". They couldn't just let moments happen or tension build, it was like the director had ADHD and couldn't stand letting the camera linger.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Gore by Etherwalk · 2015-04-11 12:23 · Score: 1

Yes, some of the violence is utterly overdone. But overall the series seems to be done pretty well.
1. Re:Gore by SternisheFan · 2015-04-11 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  I just found a YouTube of a brutal, but well done hallway fight scene. I'm not familiar with the show, one of the YT comments is, "It's a reference to the korean movie Oldboy, which has a hallway fight Daredevil was inspired by."
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. Re:Gore by slaker · 2015-04-11 13:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The fight choreography is wonderfully deliberate and brutal. They ramped up the audible component of it as might befit a character with super-human hearing while eschewing the shaky-cam (e.g. Bourne Ultimatum) style and using the excuse of poor lighting. I got a sense that most of the people doing the fighting we actually reacting instead of responding in some programmatic fashion and I very much liked that evidence of injuries sustained remained, even several episodes later.
  I did take exception to the idea that Daredevil said that he did not kill. I saw a lot of things that would result in pretty serious head trauma or internal injuries and I'm thinking not everybody made it to the nearest E.R.
  
  --
  -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
3. Re:Gore by koan · 2015-04-11 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  I was surprised, I've seen 3 epi's and it was pretty good.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
4. Re:Gore by AdamStarks · 2015-04-11 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take the lack of head trauma resulting in eventual death and file it alongside the guy whose lack of sight gives him the powers of echolocation and touch so sensitive that he can sense micro-vibrations in the air.
  Fun show!
5. Re:Gore by Blue+Stone · 2015-04-12 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  I like the fact that they really acknowledge the fatiguing aspect of fighting. Makes it seem so much more real.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
A BIG thumbs-up so far! by dixonpete · 2015-04-11 12:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've seen 3 episodes so far and it's been enough to make me wonder why regular TV is such crap in comparison.
1. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you have not noticed the absence of commercials. It is amazing how much more enjoyable a story line can be when you are interrupted constantly.
2. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Phrogman · 2015-04-11 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I am really enjoying it. Only watched the first 3 episodes so far, but I am trying to make it last a few days at least, or I would just sit and watch the whole thing.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
3. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by DextAU · 2015-04-11 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  I actually thought the same thing, its really good watching TV but not TV and thinking, how are they going to advertise to me now? I use adblock, no script, ghostery and netflix to get my entertainment, I do not buy newspapers or magazines? Am I officially off grid for MSM advertising now? I think yes and its liberating.
4. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by quantaman · 2015-04-11 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  Part of my gut says budget, I suspect they have a small budget and I honestly feel a lot of screen action is ruined by a big budget. The more money you get, the more fancy stuff you throw in, and the less you can empathize with what's happening to the characters.
  I truly find a lot of action films boring, when I see a guy who can defy the laws of physics get punched it's hard for me to empathize. But if I see a guy who's just a really good athlete get thrown into a wall I can actually relate to how that feels.
  The other part is whatever random assortment of actors and writers they threw together is actually working really well, I even enjoyed the lame "lets show the character's personal lives so we can let the actors emote and be all actory" scenes.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
5. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by hcs_$reboot · 2015-04-11 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's pretty good, and reminds me of the Daredevil comic books I read 30 years ago. Nostalgia. The story and characters depth and development is not Breaking Bad or The Shield grade, though. Entertaining, still, but they use (well, must agree) a lot of the known recipes to make something watchable nowadays. In other terms, the show is a good marketable product, not a piece of art.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
6. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 16:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yeah, regular TV is shit! What with their Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, The Wire, Sopranos, The Shield, Justified, The Americans, Black Sails, Vikings, Fargo, Game of Thrones, Its Always Sunny in Philidelphia, Halt and Catch Fire, The Leftovers, Walking Dead, and True Detective! Fuck TV and all its shitty shows that are shit!
7. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by hcs_$reboot · 2015-04-11 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! Nice list AC.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
8. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Guspaz · 2015-04-11 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  These are not low-budget productions. They've got a budget of $200 million for the Marvel Netflix stuff, which comprises four shows and a miniseries over roughly three years, or around 60 episodes. That's higher than most non-network shows, like Breaking Bad or Mad Men or The Walking Dead. Not quite Game of Thrones level, but these are still not small budgets... especially considering the limited set building and VFX compared to a show like GoT.
9. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  I actually thought the same thing, its really good watching TV but not TV and thinking, how are they going to advertise to me now?
  Product placement.
10. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  As a pirate, I haven't involuntarily seen a commercial for over 5 years. Much love to the release groups who strip all that out for me. Those guys make TV worth watching.
11. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by AmiMoJo · 2015-04-11 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen the same three episodes and I have to agree, except to say that it's a bit slow in parts. I don't mean there is a lack of action - House of Cards wasn't "slow" but had zero action. When it's good, it's really good though.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by CastrTroy · 2015-04-11 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix has a couple huge advantages. First, they don't have t worry about censors. They can put whatever they want in the show and Nobody can say a thing. Network TV can't do that. Also they don't have to think about how long an episode is. Obviously they want the episodes to be within a certain range, but they don't have to choreograph the entire episode into exactly 42 minutes so they can fit it into an hour timeslot with all the required commercials. Also, with commercials, most shows write with the expectation of commercials at different points throughout the show. Netflix doesn't have to do that, and helps the shows be a lot better. I find you see HBO and other pay TV shows with content that is just as good, but they can do most of the same stuff Netflix can.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
13. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by blackraven14250 · 2015-04-11 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  That's higher than most non-network shows, like Breaking Bad
  I looked up info about this, and it was around $3m per episode in season 4 for BB. Mad Men was somewhere between $2m and $2.5m. $3.3m, as per the Netflix deal, seems on the high end, but not out of the ordinary, especially for a Marvel property rather than a random one-off show. Also to consider is that it's a Netflix show, which AFAIK usually have higher budgets than the Marvel deal (House of Cards is $4.5m, OITNB is just under $4m, Marco Polo was $9m). Netflix almost getting into HBO territory with their spending on shows.
14. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by tlhIngan · 2015-04-13 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen 3 episodes so far and it's been enough to make me wonder why regular TV is such crap in comparison.
  Ratings, aka eyeballs. And these aren't the L+SD/L+3/L+7 (Live+Same Day, +3 days, +7 days) numbers you see reported in the papers, no ,the netowrks buy the C versions of the numbers, usually C3, sometimes C7 (the difference is the program's rating is removed - the C ratings solely consist of ads). The programming+commercials numbers are provided for free, while the C numbers are provided by cost (it's how companies like Neilsen fund themselves). There is a little correlation - the C3 numbers generally correspond to L+SD numbers, but never quite exactly. So a programs' commercial viability is basically (as us mere watches are concerned) to those who watch it live, or within 24 hours of airing.
  Network TV is funded solely by advertising so every show they put up has to attract the eyeballs. And when attracting eyeballs, going for the lowest common denominator means you have the widest market of eyeballs available.
  Going after tech-savvy intelligent people is entirely stupid, as they're more likely to either download the show (no ratings), use a DVR and skip ads, both of which don't contribute to the C ratings. It doesn't matter how good a show does on Netflix - that's not the numbers the networks care about.
  Netflix, OTOH, is funded by subscribers, and not commercials. So they need to generate good programming to keep subscribers coming back and paying their $9/month. Here the economics are different - Netflix needs to find out who its customers are (and in general, they're more affluent, tech savvy, and want programming that makes them think, or appeals to geek/nerd culture, etc), and produce that kind of programming to keep the money flowing in. Same goes for other subscription oriented channels like HBO. It's also why public TV (e.g., PBS) or state-funded TV (e.g., BBC, CBC) generally has better programming.
  Now, if you look closely, you'll probably figure out why a la carte channels probably will be a race to the bottom - they need to attract cable subscribers, and those in general are more like network viewers so you cannot produce much high quality content as those don't gather eyeballs as much as the latest reality show featuring some big celebrity would. At least when they were bundled those speciality channels were insulated a bit from having to produce content that appeals to the masses and could spend money to make better programming. When it's instead all about getting as many subscribers as possible, well, you can see where it's headed.
  As the demographics of Netflix change, so will the programming. Luckily this will take a long time so a show like Daredevil will be on for a while. Netflix will have to broaden its original programming in order to not just maintain its subscriber base, but to increase it.
15. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by darkmeridian · 2015-04-13 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  The OP's point was probably a criticism of the sad state of network TV. Most of the shows you cite are on basic cable (AMC/FX) or premium cable, not basic over-the-air network TV. Thus, your criticism only underscores how pathetic network TV has been by comparison. I mean, as far as network TV goes, we only have Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and then what else? Jane the Virgin? Fresh Off the Boat?
  AMC: Mad Men; Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Half and Catch Fire, Walking Dead
  HBO: The Wire, The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, True Detective
  FX: The Shield, Justified, The Americans, Fargo, It's Always Sunny,
  Starz: Black Sails
  History: Vikings.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
16. Re:A BIG thumbs-up so far! by DiEx-15 · 2015-04-13 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen 3 episodes so far and it's been enough to make me wonder why regular TV is such crap in comparison.
  
  I've seen 3 episodes so far and it's been enough to make me wonder why regular TV is such crap in comparison.
  I have seen more than three. It isn't good. It's GGGG-Great!
WTF by Hognoxious · 2015-04-11 13:03 · Score: 1

the binge-y sprawl of the Netflix format
The fucking what, man?
[Aside: I'll have a pint of what he's been snorting]

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:WTF by Okian+Warrior · 2015-04-11 13:14 · Score: 2
  
  the binge-y sprawl of the Netflix format
  The fucking what, man?
  [Aside: I'll have a pint of what he's been snorting]
  Netflix sometimes releases the entire season of a show all at once, allowing people to download the entire season and binge-watch. Hence "binge-y".
  IIRC, they first started with "House Of Cards" as an experiment, and found that a lot of people liked the ability to watch it all in a weekend, or 2-3 episodes per night for a week, or whatever.
  Having to wait a week to see the next episode allows peoples' interest to wane. Also, for complex plotlines (see: "Lost"), people tend to forget important events that happened weeks prior and have trouble keeping up with the plot. If the event 5 episodes ago was last night (or the night before), people have a better time keeping immersed in the plot.
2. Re:WTF by ganjadude · 2015-04-11 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  it was either house of cards or orange is the new black. I cant recall which was first
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
3. Re:WTF by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-04-11 14:54 · Score: 2
  
  Also, for complex plotlines (see: "Lost"), people tend to forget important events that happened weeks prior
  In my day, we had to remember dialog from three years back to appreciate B5. Might be why it got cancelled a few times...
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:WTF by jander · 2015-04-11 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was the "next" season of Arrested Development (At least, if memory serves me, was the first Popular "Episode Dump" that I remember...
  
  --
  An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
5. Re:WTF by houghi · 2015-04-12 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  And that is perhaps why they had to restart V a few times all over. They should take lessons from "The Bald and the Beautifull" (I know what I did) as you can miss several seasons and still pick up what is going on after 17 seconds.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
6. Re:WTF by zippthorne · 2015-04-12 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also, for complex plotlines (see: "Lost"), people tend to forget important events that happened weeks prior and have trouble keeping up with the plot.
  Interesting example, but how do you propose preventing the writers from losing track of the plot?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
2003 Daredevil Entertained Me by Wild_dog! · 2015-04-11 13:20 · Score: 1

I didn't think the Alfeck Daredevil was "terrible".
It was entertaining like a ride all the way to the end, but then again I tend to like most superhero stuff, so I must not be very discerning.
Re:Agreed, 110% - I liked both films you noted... by SJHillman · 2015-04-11 13:24 · Score: 2

Most five year olds choose to watch cartoons over live-action movies as well.
Re:Was I watching the same show? by dixonpete · 2015-04-11 13:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Maybe you have to be a comic book fan. It's pretty rare that a character you've known for decades comes alive in, what is to me anyway, is a believable portrayal.
Yes by koan · 2015-04-11 14:43 · Score: 1

I've watched 3 episodes and the main character is pretty good.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just finished the season by i+work+on+computers · 2015-04-11 15:03 · Score: 1

It is excellent. There were several curveballs that I did not see coming, and several fastballs that I thought were going to be curveballs. It is not Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but it is in the next quality tier for comic book television and film.
Not on TV by Brett+Buck · 2015-04-11 15:08 · Score: 1

This appears to be an internet show, not a TV show, right?
1. Re:Not on TV by hcs_$reboot · 2015-04-11 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you own a modern BD player (eg oppo) it can connect to Netflix. Also nobody prevents you from connecting your computer to a TV.
  
  --
  Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
2. Re:Not on TV by Guspaz · 2015-04-11 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's a Netflix series, but in a TV format, and it'll likely air on TV in the few territories where Netflix doesn't yet operate. Netflix's original content is a lot more similar to cable (like AMC or HBO) than it is to network television, but it's still hour-long episodic content.
Re:Agreed, 110% - I liked both films you noted... by hcs_$reboot · 2015-04-11 15:54 · Score: 1

I agree (but please have your caps lock key checked). The movie was not so bad. For some reasons its rating is rather low (5.3 on IMDb).

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
No "fighting fucktoys" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 19:22 · Score: 1

Know why it's good? There aren't many fighting fucktoys (the modern TV/movie trope that a 120 pound slim waif, if you train her enough and she has enough gurl powah can beat the shit out of well trained 250 pound men using her kung-fu).
A show/movie's general quality is affected negatively by the inverse ratio of the number of hot model broads kicking ass, in other words.
Piracy by Etherwalk · 2015-04-11 21:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a pirate, I haven't involuntarily seen a commercial for over 5 years. Much love to the release groups who strip all that out for me. Those guys make TV worth watching.
Stop it. There's no excuse for piracy of television these days--the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services. If you're paying for an internet connection you have access to lots of media for free. And netflix gives you a pretty big library if you pay for that too.
1. Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  "the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services"
  That may be true for your country, not everyone is so lucky nor treated the same way.
2. Re:Piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-04-11 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  > There's no excuse for piracy of television these days-
  Sez you.
  Piracy is the online tv that respects my privacy and doesn't try to profile me.
  But regardless of that, I fundamentally disagree with the system of copyright. Every dollar I spend into the current copyright system helps to prop it up and helps keep down other funding models.
  So to you I say stop supporting copyright. There is no excuse for copyright these days. We have the capability to do better, we just don't have the political will.
3. Re:Piracy by Etherwalk · 2015-04-11 23:26 · Score: 2
  
  "the free offerings over the internet have gotten too numerous, as have the relatively low-cost online streaming services"
  That may be true for your country, not everyone is so lucky nor treated the same way.
  Yeah, I have no objection to your pirating video in North Korea.
4. Re:Piracy by fluffernutter · 2015-04-11 23:59 · Score: 2
  
  We have the capability to do better, *there is just no money in it*.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
5. Re:Piracy by AmiMoJo · 2015-04-12 02:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The GP could be almost anywhere outside the US. Even in Europe and Australia we have crippled versions of Netflix. We get Daredevil because it is a Netflix show, but there is a vast amount of programming you can't get online outside the US. There is satellite/cable but they doube dip (charge you a subscription fee and still show adverts) and don't let you subscribe for just a month or two at a time, it's usually 12 months minimum.
  Say you live in the UK and want to watch Game of Thrones. You choice is to pay hundreds of pounds and see adverts with Sky or Virgin Media, wait for box sets and not be able to join in the conversations at work or on social media, or pirate. I'm not saying piracy is morally justified or anything, only that I can understand why people do it. The alternatives suck.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
6. Re:Piracy by Etherwalk · 2015-04-12 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  I often wonder how someone can be so wrong, but still feel so authoritative on a subject as to leave a comment like yours.
  Then, you say there's plenty of free stuff - but then undermine your point by mentioning netflix, which isn't free. Is there so much free stuff we don't need to pirate, or do not need to pirate because Netflix is supposed to provide us everything? Because *that's* a huge joke. I get stuff via torrent that you just can't get other ways.
  Read the comment without having prejudged the answer.
  There is plenty of free stuff--hulu, ctv, the major networks, etc...
  But there are also low cost sources of large quantities of online entertainment, such as Netflix.
  The one point doesn't undermine the other--it provides an additional reason why piracy is not longer reasonable.
  There is stuff you can get via torrent you can't get other ways. That doesn't mean you need to get that stuff. As more stuff becomes available for free or at low-cost, the legitimate arguments for piracy begin to evaporate. It's actually okay to skip a season of Game of Thrones every now and then.
7. Re:Piracy by mjwx · 2015-04-12 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Say you live in the UK and want to watch Game of Thrones. You choice is to pay hundreds of pounds and see adverts with Sky or Virgin Media, wait for box sets and not be able to join in the conversations at work or on social media, or pirate. I'm not saying piracy is morally justified or anything, only that I can understand why people do it. The alternatives suck.
  Its the same in Australia, if you want to watch Game of Thrones you have two choices, $45 a month to Murdoch or pirate.
  
  Given the fact that Rupert Murdoch is a vile, irreprehensible and morally perverse person and this perversion is pervasive throughout all his organisations, paying him is supporting that moral perversion.
  
  Ultimately, things like Netflix are going to kill Foxtel in Oz. Not even having a stranglehold on live sports is going to be enough to save it considering you have to pay extra to get sports and the Netflix restrictions are easy to bypass (and it's fairly obvious Netflix are turning a blind eye to the whole thing).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
8. Re:Piracy by BadgerRush · 2015-04-13 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  No excuse for piracy? What world do you live in? Here in the real world the official offerings are distributed on broken unreliable systems that give you terrible image and sound quality, and frequently stop working in the middle of your watching.
  Yesterday I just had great reminder that there are yet excuses for piracy, when I watched Game of Thrones legally on HBO's own streaming service and had to wait because it was one hour late, and the image quality could be resumed to questions like "that blob is a tree, a dog, or a main character?" and the sound quality as: "what he(she) said?".
I've seen the first one by Sqreater · 2015-04-12 00:16 · Score: 1

So far, emotionally overwrought. And according to the modern way, it humanizes Daredevil to the point that he is just a weird karate guy who just happens to stumble to a win in a fight. I'm waiting for the inevitable feminization of the storyline and the turning it from a male-centered story about a male superhero to a story about women. That seems to be "de rigueur" today. I hope they avoid the incredibly stupid mistake of the Ben Affleck version where the hero gets his ass kicked by a women (boot in the face scene.). The whole thing has a "Dexter" feel to it somehow. As for superheros, a bit of dark is good, but the trend is to make them psychopathic now. Not good. They should avoid that.

--
E Proelio Veritas.
Re:NOT TECH NEWS by Paradise+Pete · 2015-04-12 01:06 · Score: 1

NOT TECH NEWS kthxbye.
It's news for nerds, and this thread is full of 'em.
Re:Was I watching the same show? by LaurenCates · 2015-04-12 08:41 · Score: 1

I'm not a comic fan, don't know much about Daredevil otherwise, and I'm really digging it.
It helps that I can't stop staring at Charlie Cox.

--
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Film was ok by mattack2 · 2015-04-13 10:03 · Score: 1

I never read the comic, but I seem to remember the film being an average or maybe slightly below average of the big budget superhero movies that started (IMHO) with the Tobey Maguire SpiderMan.
I really don't know why everyone hates the movie.. Both of the recent Hulks were watchable too, yet most everyone seems to think at least the first one was horrible. (I watched the two near each other, I think on consecutive days, to compare.)
Thanks for the info. by franciscoeduca · 2015-04-14 20:30 · Score: 1

Thanks, have a nice day ;) http://www.educa.net/fisiotera...