Slashdot Mirror


Daredevil TV Show Debuts; Early Reviews Positive

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.

6 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. A BIG thumbs-up so far! by dixonpete · · 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.

  2. Re:Terrible Film? Why? by circletimessquare · · 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:Gore by slaker · · 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
  4. Re:Was I watching the same show? by dixonpete · · 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.

  5. Re:Piracy by AmiMoJo · · 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:Terrible Film? Why? by circletimessquare · · 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