Daredevil Remake news is buzzing! Why? I don't know.
It all started with an interview IESB did with 20th Century Fox CEO villian Tom Rothman. Fox owns several Marvel Properties that have helped them make money over the years but they have been really sloppy with them recently. Who knows what X-Men Origions Wolverine is going to turn out like. It is going to make an ass load of money even if the movie sucks. The original Daredevil even made over $100 Million at the box office. After the X-Men 3 turd that Fox dumped on the fans, who knows if people will come back. I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of complaining from the fans.
So in this interview IESB asked the question:
One of the brands that has made Fox a lot of money is Marvel. Recently, there was a reboot of the Hulk, which was alright, but I think it was mainly to get it ready for the Avengers film coming up. But there are two Marvel properties you control amongst others, Daredevil and Elektra. Both films didn't do too well but...reboot maybe?
First of all the Hulk remake was awesome! Second of all I don't think they just made it to get ready for the Avengers film. Here is how the rest of the conversation goes:
Tom Rothman: A Daredevil, to use your words, reboot, is something we are thinking very seriously about.
What other words would he use? remake? re-invention? re-do? re-imagining? Does Tom have some other more prestigious word? Is reboot not up to his vocabulary level?
IESB: Soon?
TR: Soon?
IESB: I have to ask.
TR: You've lost a lot a weight now Robert and you are going to live for a long time, this is the movie business, nothing is soon.
Yes nothing is soon in the entertainment industry. But what the hell does it have to do with Robert loosing weight?
IESB: But there aren't any issues rights wise you would have to look into?
TR: No. We've got all the rights. And yes, I think that the thing the Hulk showed although, it did what it did, is that it is possible, that if you really do it right the audience will give you a second chance. That it is possible. And I think that you see that when they did Batman Begins, the first Nolan movie, that you can have made some mistakes along the way or movies that the audience wasn't that crazy about and then given the proper amount of time and the right creative vision behind it, you can, to use your word, reboot.
There he goes again! "to use your word, reboot." Why does he keep saying that?! is he to good to use that word or something? What the hell?
IESB: And Iron Man proved that a second tier hero done right can make lots of money.
TR: Correct, but these are good properties and I am actually encouraged by both the Hulk experience and particularly by what they did with Batman, after the relative disappointment of what the last Batman was [1990's incarnations].
What the hell was wrong with the Tim Burton version of Batman? That movie is great! What film geek doesn't like that movie? Yeah it is very 90's but it was awesome to watch.
IESB: Would you do Daredevil as dark as The Dark Knight?
TR: Would it be as dark? I don't know because what it really needs is, it needs a visionary at the level that Chris Nolan was. It needs someone, it needs a director, honestly, who has a genuine vision. What we wouldn't do is just do it for the sake of doing it. Right? What we try to do is to get a creative engine for it, that really had a great vision for it, that's what we would look for.
I love Tom Rothmans vision of a perfect director for this movie, because it is everything that Brett Ratner isn't, and they brought him on to make X-Men 3. So what the hell? If you think that guy is a visionary director, and didn't do it just for the sake of doing it, I hate to imagine what other directors you might bring in, for any of their movies. Plus I am sick of this whole "dark" thing! People seem to forget that the original Batman was "dark"!
Whatever. If Jason Statham get's to play Daredevil I'm in no matter what. If not it all depends on everything else.
Venkman Out