Twisted Two-Face Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Well, i was doing my daily rounds at action-figure.com when i just happened to come across a new little article. Further reading concluded that it has a very good chance of getting started shortly, and that a bunch of us space-loving fanboys are going to be enjoying the role of the probable villain this time around; Typhoid Mary. Star Wars?? Nope. Star Trek?? Nope. Space Jam?? Close, but nope. This spacey-series i am referring to is a little known show called Battlestar Galactica, with a certain Blonde Angel trying to be Mary...er TYPHOID Mary... Yup. Katee Sackhoff. Come on; you know for a fact that she can handle crazy. Article: Back in the tail end of 2008, Fox execs dropped little hints all over town that they'd like to see Daredevil get a reboot since Hulk proved so successful... We are positive this was to test the waters and see if fans even cared about such a thing. The answer? Oh hell yes. Now Golden Apple Comics report in on a visit from a certain blond haired ex space fighter whose gunning for a role... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So we got a little visit in our comic shop last week by Katee Sackhoff, also known as Starbuck for her role on BSG. She proceeded to grab all the Typhoid Mary comics we had and has hopes to get a part for a marvel movie.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thumbs up from us! I have a feeling she can play crazy juuuust fine. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From MARVEL.COM: Typhoid Mary is an enemy and former lover of Daredevil with psionic powers, including telekinesis. She is also truly gravely mentally ill, and not entirely responsible for her actions as a result. Suffering from dissociative identity disorder, Mary Walker has 3 other abnormal personalities in addition to her seemingly healthy one. Her "Mary" personality is a timid, quiet, pacifist; her "Typhoid" personality is adventurous, lustful, and violent; and her "Bloody Mary" persona is brutal, sadistic, and hates all men. Aside from highly developed martial arts skills, Walker also possesses telekinetic powers and, more dangerously, pyrokinesis, the ability to set people or objects in her immediate vicinity aflame. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We know Katee can play it crazy..and tough..and kick some ass while rolling it all together and still end the day maintaining her sexuality. While we Katee our full endorsement, we also point out Fox's notorious ability to muck things up. Knowing their track record and what they seem to like in a film (Marvel especially), I'd say they'll go for a model type for Mary. All flash and no substance. Sort of sounds like Wolverine, doesn't it? At any rate, We'll be crossing our fingers for Katee and using our spooky mind powers to make Fox listen to Marvel a bit closer this time around. Just a bit. One more interesting point...Typhoid Mary has also popped up in the Deadpool comics. Could this be casting for the already green lit Deadpool movie? I'd say this is more likely than a new Daredevil movie popping up in the next 2 years. Fox has a full plate with Deadpool and Wolverine 2. Follow us on Twitter and get updates sent right to your cell You go Katee; be our Typhoid-induced psycho. Bring the Daredevil franchise success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Donster Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 You know I was watching the season ender of Smallville and thought Justin Hartley would be a great Matt Murdock. It was the funeral scene and he had some cool shades on and fits the physical profile for Daredevil. Who would you like to play DD? As much as I like Stantham, I don't see him as that role. I'm hoping they go with an unknown or limited fame for the title role this time. I am one of the guys that actually liked the original directors cut though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I'm probably one of the few people that didn't think Daredevil was that bad. Yes, there were two glaringly bad scenes in the film. The first was that whole "throw my secret id out the window to impress the ladies" fight in the playground. Lord have mercy there had to have been another way to break the ice there. And then there's DD letting a man die. The Matt I'd ben reading about to that point would have been nearly suicidal if he thought he'd caused someone's death. But silly chic-flick scene and way too badass scene not withstanding, the movie was just trying to do to much in the time alotted. The meet Daredevil and his world movie should have been a separate flick from the death of Elektra movie and the fal of the Kingpin. But you could tell they thought they were only getting one shot at Daredevil so they tried to cram as many of their favorite DD momments as they could into 2 hours. What they got was an overcrowded film, too rushed for you to give a tinker's cuss about any of the characters. I'd say that a reboot is almost the only way to move forward. Katie should rock as Typhiod Mary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I actually agree with the bulk of Mirymate's post. . .except that I don't think Sackhoff would be a good Typhoid Mary. I can't quite put my finger on why, but I just can't picture it working. If you could go back in time and get that woman who played Trinity in Matrix, I think she would work fantastically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquis de Carabas Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I also loved the daredevil movie, sans the playground scene. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I also loved the daredevil movie, sans the playground scene. haha That and the scene where he basically murders a guy (referenced by Mirymate) really threw me. I actually didn't mind the CGI too much, I guess because the movie was so dark. I also thought Bullseye's costume was pretty stupid, but what can you do? In Marvel movies, it seems like 80-90% of the costumes look more ridiculous than their comic counterparts somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Harris Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I haven't watched DD, since I thought it was crap. Never gave it a try and don't feel so in near future. Same goes for the not-Edward-Norton-Hulk movie. But you could tell they thought they were only getting one shot at (any comic-character's name) so they tried to cram as many of their favorite (any comic-character's name) momments as they could into 2 hours. What they got was an overcrowded film, too rushed for you to give a tinker's cuss about any of the characters. I guess that is the main problem of most movie adaptions with only a handfull bright exceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I haven't watched DD, since I thought it was crap. Never gave it a try and don't feel so in near future. Same goes for the not-Edward-Norton-Hulk movie. The Ed-Hulk movie is pretty good. they basically fused what worked in the old TV show, and merged it with the bronze age comic. Most of what they were trying to pull of worked. And the acting was passable. Okay, it was probably better than passable, but I preffered the Rosses casting from the Ang Lee film. (Just about the ONLY thing I liked about the Ang Lee film) The CGI was MUCH better, and the ending less ridiculous. If I had one real complaint, it was that they went with more of a Ultimate Abomination design than the 616. Daredevil... if you decide to give it a try, see the extended addition. The additional scenes help to flesh out Matt and Foggy as characters and that helps some with the pacing. Not saying it makes it a great movie, but it goes toward helping with the movie's pacing problem. I'm not sure what kind of channel selection you get in your part of Germany, but stateside the FX channel seems to run the DD movie every couple of months, especially if there's another superhero movie coming out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Yeah Bob, the Norton Hulk movie is actually quite good. Probably not as good as Iron Man, but not far from it, in my opinion. Great atmosphere, great acting, great action scenes, decent enough story, just a solid movie all the way around. Going further off topic in critiquing the casting of the Hulk movies, regarding Ross, I like both Elliot and Hurt quite a bit, so am agnostic on that front. Similarly, I think that Bana did a fine job with the role, though I have a soft spot for Ed Norton because of Fight Club and was glad to see him take over. I actually think Connelly was better as Betty than Steven Tyler's daughter, though I think both did decent enough jobs. In other words, I don't think the casting was the problem in that movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM2 Dinobot Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I recently went back and rewatched DD. It. Wasn't. Bad. The film itself is okay. The acting doesn't even suck as much as people say it does. Here's the problem is the soundtrack. When you get a kids movie about a crime fighter that's almost exclusively rap, hip hop and pop music in theme, you've got issues. The entire thing needed a better score. Musical. Batman-esk. That's just my take on it. I liked DD. I liked the first Hulk movie better than the second. And while we're at it, can I point out how much I HATE cinematic reboots? they don't work. The general audience doesn't understand them. The Hulk turned out well, because they treated it as "Okay, the first movie happened, but we're ignoring it for the most part". If you're going to do a DD reboot, treat it like that. (Elektra had a lot more problems, but I love Jen garner, so there. Hah!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 And while we're at it, can I point out how much I HATE cinematic reboots? they don't work. The general audience doesn't understand them. Sooo the whole Batman Begins / Dark Knight thing didn't work for you? One more film for Clooney and Silverstone would have been okay? Maybe My problems with the first Hulk movie were many. The two things that stand out the most are the whole "madder-he-gets-bigger-he-gets" and the fact that really the movie was more about David Banner and his story than anyone else. YMMV Do they have to reboot Daredevil... not really. After 5 years though, and as few people actually saw Daredevil, I can see where they might want to start over fresh. And while I could see what the director was trying to do with that music... yeah it needed a better score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Daredevil is one of my guilty pleasures when it comes to films. I thought Affleck was great! Agree with both Mirymate on his two scenes in the film which were bad, and also with TM2 on his "needed a proper score" point. Although I do have the Daredevil soundtrack, it's got some goods stuff on it, in a dark and gritty film like that you did need a Zimmer-esque score, in the same way that Batman Begins/Dark Knight benefited from their amazing musical score to underpin the scenes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gambitron Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I also liked Daredevil and I love Sakhoff so I am all for what ever might come of this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Donster Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I don't think they need a reboot of DD. They could do what they did with the new Hulk, it didn't ignore or acknowledge the previous film, it just kind of did it's own thing. Bob, the directors cut is the way to go. It definitely fleshes out the characters a bit more and makes more sense in the grander scheme of Kingpin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM2 Dinobot Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) No matter what they do, I would totally advocate the return of Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin. Yes, he's black. Get over it. He's the only man with power enough to fill that roll. Things I would also like to see: *Whoever plays Black Widow in IM2 to show up *reference to that "masked menace" (possibly by JK Simmons in a taxi) This would do 3 things. Tie DD1 and 2 together, tie the Fox Avengers in with Spiderman, and go on to be a good movie from there. You can forge on with the future, but never forget the past. Even the worst movies have redeeming qualities. They happened, but just move on. Edited May 28, 2009 by TM2 Dinobot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 No matter what they do, I would totally advocate the return of Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin. Yes, he's black. Get over it. He's the only man with power enough to fill that roll. Oh I totally agree with that statement. Or I'll amend to say only well known acter who could pull off the roll. Unfortunately, I believe that MCD said he didn't want to do Fisk again because he just felt too unhealthy putting on that much weight again. Things I would also like to see: *Whoever plays Black Widow in IM2 to show up *reference to that "masked menace" (possibly by JK Simmons in a taxi) This would do 3 things. Tie DD1 and 2 together, tie the Fox Avengers in with Spiderman, and go on to be a good movie from there. You could have DD in a Fantastic Four movie, or meet Wolverine, but I think even refrenceing Spider-Man or the Avengers would require legal and monetary headaches to get the rival studios to play nice. I mean, I read an article after SM3 were a Sony exec thanked Marvel for their "contributuions" to their hit movie franchise. And it was this attitude on the part of the big studios they had sold the film right too, and the fact they could keep more of the profits, that was the emphasis for Marvel forming it's own film studio and to look for the big studios to distribute the films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Harris Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Thanks for the recommandations. So, whenever I get my hands on the DD director's cut, I'll give it a try. Those legal issues you pointed out Miry, really suck. It's rational in terms of a capitalistic system of rival companies and studios, but I don't like it and I don't think it's reasonable in respect of (potential) stories. I guess we have to accept it as different Marvel Universes where everything Spidey is in one, mutants in another and everything Avengers in just another universe. I mean, actually we are used to look at the whole MU in those ways, aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM2 Dinobot Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm not sure I get it. I thought Columbia had Spidey and Fox had the rest? Why can't the Fox guys just play together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Marvel Studios (Iron Man, Hulk, Cap, Avengers, etc.) is its own entity, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Harris Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Jap, that's what I guess as well. We have - if you want to call it like that - the Sonyverse with everything Spidey, the Foxverse with everything mutant (as well as Daredevil?), the very small Universal Universe (with Eric Bana Hulk) and Columbiaverse (Nicholas Cage Ghostrider) and the Marvel Studios Universe with the Avengers (Iron Man, Hulk so far and Cap, Thor, Ant Man upcoming). Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirymate Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Bob's right on the breakdown. It's not unlike the late 90's Marvel when the comics company thought they were going to go under, and they segmented their universe in anticipation of selling of sections. (Which Marvel was on the verge of doing before X-Men, Spider-Man, and Blade saved their bacon with a big box office payday) Starting with Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, Marvel became it's own studio and retains control of any new (anything not a sequel to an existing franchise) projects going forward. It's complicated, but before Iron Man, Marvel would sell their characters to big studios for a certain number of films. While they had some advisory input, the final product was ultimately up to the studio execs. And once they sold the rights for Spidey to Sony, they lost the right for them to use him anywhere else. If they wanted to put even a swinging Spidey into a background shot of say, Iron Man 2, they would have to get Sony's permission, and pay Sony to do so. In the case of the Hulk, Universal sold the rights back to Marvel after the Ang Lee film did disappointingly. I am not sure if the same thing has happened with Daredevil. (though after all these years since the first movie, I would not be shocked) Sony's Spider-Man deal is up with Spider-Man 6. I would be stunned if Marvel doesn't take Spidey in house after that. (if only for cameos in other people's films) I am also not certain if, after to luke warm FF movies, if those rights haven't come back to Marvel as well. Fox and the X-men... Marvel was so desparate for cash in those days I'm not certain what Faustian bargin they struck for the rights to the X-verse, but it seems pretty open ended. Which again points to WB's general incompetence with their DC properties. They own the DCU lock, stock, and barrel. They have no one to argue with oer rights, they can put any combination of characters in any film they like. They own them. And what have they done with it? Very, very little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gambitron Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That is such a good point that WB hasn't taken advantage of what they have. They need to get crackin on something cause the have some great stuf they could do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karamazov80 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) DC/WB is doing well with the Animated movies, right? I say let Bruce Timm start making the big business decisions if they want to make movies and profits. Edited May 28, 2009 by karamazov80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM2 Dinobot Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Wow. Thanks for that breakdown Mir. Ghost Rider is still retained by whoever has him as GR 2 is coming out soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPL Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Check this out. Looks like there's a chance Daredevil is headed back into the hands of Marvel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.