(Commentary) It was a relatively light week for mail, but what came in was interesting. Tim O'Neil wrote in to comment on yesterday's impromptu Daredevil review in Sunday Scraps:
"Have to say I agree with your assessment of the Daredevil movie. Went to see it on Friday afternoon myself (didn't have anything better to do). I think I was inclined to give it more leeway than you eventually did but I was stil quite disappointed. In my eye the major problems sprang from the fact that the director couldn't direct his way out of a paper bag -- we see this in the way the fight scenes are unintelligable and in how every scene, especially in the important, character-building first half of the movie, is about half as short as it would have needed to be to build any sort of mood or tension.
"But you didn't mention the incessant and highly distracting use of heavy metal music. I don't know about you, but I always pictured Matt Murdock as more of a Mahler fellow, maybe some jazz as well -- but certainly not whatever type of horrible Puddle of Mudd rejects they had him blasting in the movie. The use of heavy metal in almost every major scene in the first part of the movie seriously distracted me.
"So -- I think we agree it could have been a much better movie if there had been another director. Armchair filmmaking is a useless occupation but if this movie is popular enough to spawn an inevitable sequel I have but one name for you: David Fincher."
I think Tsui Hark would be a better choice, myself. Actually I would have been happily willing to overlook the soundtrack, the sometimes-wooden dialogue, the endless plotholes (if Matt Murdock's a defense attorney, why is he prosecuting a rape case?), and a host of other sins if the fight scenes had been up to par. I can dig "leave your brain at the door" action films as well as the next guy; come on, I'm a Jackie Chan fan, for crying out loud! The lack of well-done fight scenes was what ruined Daredevil for me.
To an extent, I think you'll be able to pick out which of the upcoming Marvel movies will do well (and keep the company propped up) by the choice of directors. So far, in addition to Daredevil we've had two marketable films: X-Men by Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects) and Spider-Man by Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, A Simple Plan), both of which did well with the public and avoided censure from the critics. By contrast, we had Blade by Stephen Norrington (1995's forgettable The Death Machine), which was able to coast by in its first outing on the basis of star Wesley Snipes before bombing hard in the sequel, and now Daredevil, which comes from the "genius" behind Grumpy Old Men and pretty much speaks for itself. It did well enough on it's opening weekend, of course, but then it had no real competition for the "guy flick" dollar. Given how bad this film is, I'm still unwilling to give up on my other prediction -- that the ticket sales will drop off sharply after a week or two -- but then, I'm zero-for-one at the Cassandra game at the moment.
I think Ang Lee's Hulk will do better than Daredevil, but after that? Norrington's behind two upcoming funnybook films -- the non-Marvel League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and the planned Ghost Rider film -- but while the director brings little to the table, there are wild cards in each. League has Sean Connery and a decent budget going for it, but the changes already announced have me seriously wondering about the turkey factor, while Ghost Rider's about a biker with a flaming skull for a head; it'll take work to make these two unmarketable, but then Norrington's not exactly a remarkable director. The Punisher is to be directed by Jonathan Hensleigh, who as a writer has penned both vacuous but successful films (Armageddon, Con Air) and vacuous franchise-ending turkeys (Jumanji 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance); this is his first film as a director. Neither Iron Man nor Man-Thing have directors attached to them yet. We shall see, but I suspect the dollar signs will descend according to ability.
Okay, no more about Marvel movies, I promise -- let's talk Marvel comics, instead. Hey, what can I say? Needling the House of Other People's Ideas brings in the responses. My offhand comment in last Monday's Mailbag about the possibility of Marvel setting up another Epic-style line brought in several comments. Only a couple of emails, alas, came without the words "not for publication", and here's the one I'm running:
"You wrote, 'Missed question: if Marvel's so gung-ho to try new things in an effort to boost sales, why isn't it launching creator-owned titles?'
"I suspect no one asks about this anymore (I and others used to ask about it all the time, actually) because it's obvious that Marvel is more interesting in owning marketable multi-media properties than in publishing comics per se. Publishing is simply a means. But since Q and J are never going to admit to that, any 'answer' is assumed to be more of the smoke and mirrors we got when we still asked, which gave rise to rumors that Marvel might resurrect its Epic line.
"There was also talk early on that Max might include some creator-owned books, and Q and J have abandoned that, too, if they were ever serious about it."
Here's what I can tell you about the remaining emails: several people reasonably close to the proceedings wrote in to tell me that yes, Marvel is in fact drawing up plans to revive Epic. Whether creator-owned titles are on the table is another matter entirely. More on this as leads develop.
Look at me, I'm turning into Richard Johnston! Hoo HAH! (Speaking of whom: click that last link for your one-stop shopping on nasty gossip about the recent DC housecleaning party). Like the sidebar says, send email to weblog@tcj.com -- all email is considered anonymous unless you volunteer otherwise, and assumed printable unless you say otherwise.
Update, 6:35 PM: Yes, I ran that last email in last week's mailbag. No, I don't know where the hell my brain was.
