Talk:Daredevil (film)

message: The article was pretty poorly written. I just did some major revising.
The article lacks of positive reviews of the film. And the 2nd worst movie tag is just an opinion and gives the reader a wrong idea of the movie
:Agreed, but then who are you? (Username) and when did you do that? There remain parts to be cleaned / revved up. For instance, tha part about "Box office performance": I doubt there's any single section in the whole of Wikipedia that's more stupid. Who cares if the film was banned in Malaysia??? This rubbish, this useless discussion about Malaysia fails to hide the fact that whoever wrote the section had nothing to say. I think Daredevil was banned in Antarctica, too. So what?? Just what was the real Box office performance??? It doesn't say. --AVM (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable, and received coverage. So stop trolling, and try to improve the article. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy

message: Are there any plans for a sequel to this film? After all, the ending was rather ambiguous, and the Elektra film isn't really a part of the Daredevil continuity. BugEyedMonster 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a quick search yields nothing concrete aside from rumour and general speculation. Also, Elektra is part of it, like it or not. Unless they decide to otherwise erase events that transpired in that film in order to better incorporate her resurrection (which was obviously hinted at during the end of Daredevil when he found the braille necklace) into the story. --71.156.91.239 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: Is Elektra (2005) even intended to be in the same universe as Daredevil? Other than the same actress playing the same character it seems to have absolutely no connection to this film. No shared backstory, no mention etc. --2605:A000:1E02:C05D:7535:ACC4:D26E:FDE9 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elektra 

message: I always thought that daredevil first appeared as a vigilante in a spiderman comic.  Spiderman thought he was a bad guy and was after daredevil for sometime.  After realising that Daredevil was in fact a good guy who just had not-so-good tactics, they eventually became friends and spiderman convinced daredevil to change his methods.  This is very similar to the movie only without spiderman.  I wanna see daredevil and spiderman together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.7.151 (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't be Toby.173.58.64.64 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vigilante 

message: The Kingpin kills the whole family. So he personally killed Jack Murdock. Why did he let Matt live? Even in the present, Kingpin knows that "The blind lawyer from Hell's Kicten" is the son of Jack "The Devil" Murdock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.43.180 (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's either "Falen" (according to the closed captioning) or "Fallon" (according to the IMDB page).  I don't know which to consider authoritative (I believe he's not mentioned in the credits), so for now I've left the latter spelling used by a previous editor.  Joule36e5 (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kill the family

message: The following scenes were deleted that were featured in the PG-13 cut of the film:
The confession booth scenes between Father Steven and Matt Murdock. 
The love scene between Elektra and Matt Murdock (Ironically, some critics had praised the realism of this scene, in which Matt would follow his desire rather than vacuously fighting crime). 
The scene where Elektra and Matt walk through New York and briefly discuss their origins 
The look on Elektra's face when Bullseye stabs her. 
The scene where Matt is told by Urich how Elektra is a target of the Kingpin, it is replaced with him learning this from a corrupt cop.
Does this simply mean that these scenes were featured in the theatrical version but not in the director's cut? I'm sorry but for some reason this baffles me... Ultimatemarvel 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not so sure I understand this... 

message: :Image:DDlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DDlogo.jpg

message: here's the 'trivia list', let's get it off the main page and incorporate what actually matters, leave the rest. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: In addition to stripping out Numerous trivia lists, I'm hoping to turn this into a decent article. Not GA or FA, but certainly a decent article, to at least fit in with all the well done Marvel films and Comics films in general. To that end, I'm starting a section with various problems to be fixed. If you add to the list, please sign the adds, so we can find you to check if we've fixed it, wher doubt might otherwise show. ThuranX (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around for this quote, but unless it was published in a magazine it's not out there (as a reliable source... oddly enough this quote is on many sites, presumably lifted from from this article). What was the actual context of the line? As in what mistake is he referring too? -- Harish - 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was referrign to the mistakes made in Daredevil, and not repeating them in Ghost Rider. As to 'which mistake'?I'd wager 'everything about daredevil, LOL' ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. I hope it's fine, but given the time and my urge to just finish asap at the wish of my headache - I have a feeling it needs editing for a better finish. It was a gruelling piece of work, and I wish that on no one. -- Harish - 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The DVD would be useful as a source for the 'rpoduction' section', which differs from Development in slight ways. Development is 'how did we get to the point where we have a deal, a script, and a cast', production is 'how do we actually make the film now that we have a deal?'. We should ideally have both, but i'd settle for a combined production section if we need. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I haven't responded up until now, I'm just letting you know I'm working towards it. Just need several hours to spare for that and I'll squeeze it for what it's worth, hopefully jotting down all the useful info I can. Just gotta get that time, given university and my personal life keeping me pretty busy at the mo. -- Harish - 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I have to say, this article's the perfect palce to practice, LOL. Give the rewrite a shit, and if it's good, i'll compliment you, if it's bad, I'll help you fix it. This is a great article to learn the writing one because no one's reading it, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hahahaha, y'know - I never thought of it like that but GOOD POINT!!! lmao! -- Harish - 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on revising the Cast section. Good use of sources and prose! ThuranX (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ThuranX! ...and now for my next trick: to try my hand at being neutral with the critical reaction. -- Harish - 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, yet againj. I don't know what you've been worried about, you're doing a great job with this. At this rate, i'll be encouraging a GA review! ThuranX (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ThuranX! You're very encouraging and I appreciate that... considering the film that's getting all the effort lol. I guess it's ok, but I was particularly unsure about the TV Guide line at the end of the 2nd paragraph. I was aiming so that the review moved from positive to negative, though I felt that his review point was a notable one. Wasn't sure where to place it, and it kinda seems outta place (to me). What do you think? -- Harish - 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there area  lot of quotations there, maybe too many, but the p[lacement of that one is fine to me. you might want to check some ofthe similar films that are already FA or GA status for some ideas on how else to handle mixed reviews... Hulk might be a good one. ThuranX (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (Unindent) Hey boss, just updating. I had a crack at it - I tried comparing to current FA articles, and researched so by looking at Casino Royale, 300, Alien vs. Predator, and even Battlefield Earth!!! (OMFG, it's at FA status!!!! Hell, there's hope for even this article... anyway...) whilst it's not as extensive as some of these, I think to some degree it's sort of on the same level. -- Harish - 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisions: 

message: *I'd like to be able to contribute if possible. I received the Daredevil 2-disc DVD as a gift if that can help, but id it's useful, I'd probably be better at being guided on the information wanted rather then adding what I see as relevant. Also I put this under a new heading should good sources be found and it's unknown as the best way to add the info for whoever finds it. i dunno if it's a good idea. -- Harish - 12:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The DVD would be useful as a source for the 'rpoduction' section', which differs from Development in slight ways. Development is 'how did we get to the point where we have a deal, a script, and a cast', production is 'how do we actually make the film now that we have a deal?'. We should ideally have both, but i'd settle for a combined production section if we need. ThuranX (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I haven't responded up until now, I'm just letting you know I'm working towards it. Just need several hours to spare for that and I'll squeeze it for what it's worth, hopefully jotting down all the useful info I can. Just gotta get that time, given university and my personal life keeping me pretty busy at the mo. -- Harish - 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I have to say, this article's the perfect palce to practice, LOL. Give the rewrite a shit, and if it's good, i'll compliment you, if it's bad, I'll help you fix it. This is a great article to learn the writing one because no one's reading it, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hahahaha, y'know - I never thought of it like that but GOOD POINT!!! lmao! -- Harish - 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work on revising the Cast section. Good use of sources and prose! ThuranX (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ThuranX! ...and now for my next trick: to try my hand at being neutral with the critical reaction. -- Harish - 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, yet againj. I don't know what you've been worried about, you're doing a great job with this. At this rate, i'll be encouraging a GA review! ThuranX (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ThuranX! You're very encouraging and I appreciate that... considering the film that's getting all the effort lol. I guess it's ok, but I was particularly unsure about the TV Guide line at the end of the 2nd paragraph. I was aiming so that the review moved from positive to negative, though I felt that his review point was a notable one. Wasn't sure where to place it, and it kinda seems outta place (to me). What do you think? -- Harish - 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there area  lot of quotations there, maybe too many, but the p[lacement of that one is fine to me. you might want to check some ofthe similar films that are already FA or GA status for some ideas on how else to handle mixed reviews... Hulk might be a good one. ThuranX (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (Unindent) Hey boss, just updating. I had a crack at it - I tried comparing to current FA articles, and researched so by looking at Casino Royale, 300, Alien vs. Predator, and even Battlefield Earth!!! (OMFG, it's at FA status!!!! Hell, there's hope for even this article... anyway...) whilst it's not as extensive as some of these, I think to some degree it's sort of on the same level. -- Harish - 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Can we get a source for when the rights revert? thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion date? 

message: Does anyone know how long Fox will have the copyrights to daredevil and characters tied up? Where could I find out this info? The Spectacular Spiderman cartoon on right now doesn't feature Kingpin because the cartoon airs on CW and Fox still has the tv and film rights for Kingpin tied up.---Thurs. June 19, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimeradave (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  film Rights... 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: An IP keeps insisting on adding flowery prose about the genius of a watch company in creating a vaguely tied in watch. Unfortunately, the material is not sourced to an acceptable source, (the IP uses the product's website page, a primary source), and tie in products aren't notable in general, otherwise we'd have screenlengths of nonsense about beach towels handcrafted by indonesian child labor, mexican factory produced plastic toys, and so on. The IP hasn't asserted notability. UNless he can do so, the material should not be added. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, I don't think it's really notable, considering it's not like they had a promotional campaign for the watches like movies do with Burger King or McDonald's. It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but how was a watch "integral" to the movie's plot? In addition, your first source from AllBusiness.com says nothing of a major promotional campaign. Seems more like product placement to me, which isn't notable IMO. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It was "integral" to the plot because the primary character could not tell time without the specially crafted timepiece, that highlighted his heightened sense of touch.  It is notable because during the movie the character Matt Murdock (Daredevil) uses a special prop was made by Hamilton specifically for the movie, this was a one of a kind watch.  Below is the quote from the marketing journal that specifically notes the National advertising campaign.   "The tagline in Hamilton's national ads, which features the Daredevil "DD" logo and a large picture of the watch, reads, "When justice needed to be done, Hamilton was there."  I believe it is notable, especially if look at other information in the marketing section that is considered notable such as Kraft, Gameboy Advance, etc. Wooglins (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then in the sentence with Kraft and Wal-Mart, add "and a marketing campaign with such-and-such a company, who designed the watch Murdock wears in the film." Two sentences or more are not necessary. And your explanation of "integral" is not integral. The movie would not have been radically different if that watch hadn't been there. Be careful not to put too much weight on something this small. This is a minor thing IMO, something that shouldn't need any more than a sentence. Anakinjmt (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the excellent advice.  I will make the edit in the way suggested.   That is much more consise. Wooglins (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to offer suggestions. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link on primary and secondary sources.  It is quite helpful, and I appriciate the assistance towards improving content I add on Wikipedia.   I think you will find when I took Anakinjmts' advice I only used a primary source. Wooglins (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you used only the Secondary Source, as you are expected to. Please read up on that link again, to understand the difference between Primary and Secondary. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, the link I needed to read was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, and it illuminated the subject well.   It was common sense (should have thought about it), primary being basically eyewitness, secondary being one step removed from primary sources, and tertiary being a compendium of both primary and secondary sources such as an encyclopedia.  Wooglins (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  product placement. 

message: Here's some info:
*http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117991696
*http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5566&Itemid=99
Wildroot (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reboot 

message: Hey guys, I wanna work on the Director's Cut section but the only sources I keep coming across are reviews. If anyone can help me get sources on the release information (enough to at least cover what's written) it'd be greatly appreciated! -- Harish (Talk) - 23:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The commentary track on the DVD is the best source.–FunkyVoltron talk 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Director's cut - please help get sources 

message: Ok currently on the article the lengths of the cuts are "theatrical 107 min. Director's 127 min.". However I've been on this article in the past and i know that the cits once read 108 theatrical and 138 director's. Also it states at the top that the Director's Cut offered 30 minutes of additional footage. If you do that math based on the current article, it doesn't add up. Also I've seen the theatrical cut and it's 108 minutes. So what happened? I just need some clearification here.MrInhibitor (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Cuts 

message: This assertion showed up a few days ago, but I do not believe that this is yet the case.  My understanding is Fox had a 7 year option, so they have until the end of the year to produce a new Daredevil movie, or else then they revert.  I'm happy to be proved wrong by anyone with a source on this.  Otherwise I'm going to schedule this for deletion by Feb 1. Whillice (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan 2011 Reversion of rights to Marvel discussion 

message: Afleck said he wouldn't don a costume any time soon as noted on the daredevil page. Now afleck is casted as the batman.
Majinsnake (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afleck as the new batman 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daredevil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a306113/matt-damon-i-almost-played-daredevil.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201193238/http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/daredevil/michael.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/daredevil/michael.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216102800/http://www.ugo.com:80/channels/filmtv/features/minorityreport/colin.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/minorityreport/colin.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228231257/http://www.ugo.com:80/mini/tombstone/johnson.asp to http://www.ugo.com/mini/tombstone/johnson.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Daredevil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/minorityreport/colin.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allbusiness.com/services/museums-art-galleries-botanical-zoological/4359100-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014185743/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Feb_3/ai_97184686 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Feb_3/ai_97184686
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527051626/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Feb_26/ai_98082015/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Feb_26/ai_98082015
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ugo.com/mini/tombstone/johnson.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This topic pretty clearly has strong national ties to the US, considering that this is a US-made film. Therefor US customary units are primary, as specified by WP:UNITS and WP:STRONGNAT. I am correcting this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daredevil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907011940/http://www.bnonews.com/inbox/?id=1075 to http://www.bnonews.com/inbox/?id=1075
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Daredevil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204154559/http://movies.ign.com/articles/385/385217p1.html to http://movies.ign.com/articles/385/385217p1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304102649/http://slate.msn.com/id/2078582/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2078582/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164740/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5566&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5566&Itemid=99
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mark Steven Johnson Had Confirmed That In A 2019 Interview With E! News That Sam Spider-Man’ Fox’s Fantastic Four, X-Men, And Ghost Rider Where All In The Same Universe . The Punisher Film And The Blade Trilogy Where Also Part Of This Shared Universe, Hugh Jackman Even Filmed A Cameo For Spider-Man 3 But That Was Cut Due To Fox’s Ownership Of The Movie Rights To The X-Men And This Universe Only Lasted A Few Years Before Being Replaced By The MCU In 2008 2601:5C2:C400:D110:74B0:AC7A:793C:931B (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Connections To Other Marvel Films