Fox Readies DAREDEVIL Sequel; Ben Affleck Not Involved

In Movie Sequels No One Wants News, The Hollywood Reporter says that 20th Century Fox is readying a sequel to Daredevil, the 2003 film that starred Ben Affleck as Daredevil, his future wife Jennifer Garner as Elektra, Colin Farrell as Bullseye, and Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin.

Time must have been running out for them to make another film without losing the rights to the characters. Fox isn't doing this because the first one was such a hit, it only grossed $179 million dollars off of a production budget of almost $80 million,

Fox is in the very, very early stages with the as yet untitled sequel. It doesn't even have a writer yet. What it does have is David Slade who is currently "in talks" to direct the film. David Slade — who is NOT David Spade, as I first thought when I saw the headline — directed 30 Days of Night and Twilight: Eclipse and is a veteran music video (they still have those?) director.

The Hollywood Reporter points out that Ben Affleck is not involved in the sequel talks.
 

Comments

  1. Rob Liefeld is pissed that Slade passed the Deadpool movie for this. Could not stop laughing it over twitter.

  2. ajmortys ajmortys says:

    ehhh ok. I personally think this franchise needs a reboot not a sequel but I’ll give it a shot. I hope they don’t try to redo elektra though…

  3. j206 j206 says:

    This is why those old deals Marvel made with the studios are such a bad thing. Not only do Fox, Sony, and Warner milk the sacred cows dry when they are successful. In cases like this, Ghost Rider, and F4, they keep making more and more of the failed movies simply to keep hold of the rights. Not wanting them to go back to Marvel, who now has it’s own studio. Ensuring that we the viewers either getting too much of a good thing, or more than we want of the bad stuff.

  4. NawidA NawidA says:

    I wish Affleck would direct and it would star his brother. And set it in Boston for good measure. It would be awesome.

  5. ericmci ericmci says:

    I am no fan of this movie
    but in what world is over 100% profit not considered a success especially by todays box office standards.

  6. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @ericmci  In the world of Hollywood. A film isn’t usually profitable until it makes 2-3x its production budget, if that.

  7. mikegraham6 mikegraham6 says:

    Where’s Bendis with his R-Rated reboot idea?!?! GET ON IT!

  8. stuclach stuclach says:

    Interesting.  I like the character, but haven’t like many of his stories.

  9. mguy77 mguy77 says:

    Well bleep Thor, I will watch this Marvel movie instead.

    Matthew

  10. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    @mguy77  You’re skipping a movie in 2011 in order to see a different movie which may come out as early as 2013? 

  11. JesTr JesTr says:

    Yet another sign that 2012 is the coming of the apocalypse.

  12. @conor But the film did do 2x its budget in terms of the box office…

  13. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @TheNextChampion  Yes, that’s why I put the 2 at the low end of the spectrum. We don’t know how much the martketing budget was, and that runs into the tens of millions. We don’t know how much the development budget was. We don’t know if Affleck got any backend points. All of these things are factored in. A big time superhero movie with a big time movie star that grosses under $200 million worldwide is not a hit.

  14. Paul Montgomery PaulMontgomery (@fuzzytypewriter) says:

    Hehe, “backend points.” 

    Anthony Edwards as Ben Urich! 

  15. Andrew Andrew says:

    @stuclach  I’m sure this is a dumb question, but have you read the first couple trade’s worth of the Bendis and Maleev run? Just curious.

  16. NawidA NawidA says:

    @conor

    Isn’t that more in the world of Hollywood accounting? 

  17. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @NawidA  …. Hollywood accounting IS in Hollywood.

  18. Bryce31 Bryce31 says:

    I really liked the 2003 film, granted I was only 13. Hope this one is better.

  19. Jordan0061 Jordan0061 says:

    I agree with stuclach, love the character, particulary the costume but hate the stories. Bought the the three massive Miller and Jansen trades that covers their whole run that I am slowly working my way through. When I say slowly I mean it, it is kinda boring and I read so much else in between. Never reading Bendis/Brubaker run on that character, hate Alex Maleev’s art for one thing, just despise it. As for the movie, it was ok. It wasn’t too fantastical, used the core characters well, apart from Bullseye, the dartboard on his head was stupid, as was making him Irish (no offense but made no sense whatsoever). Trouble is if you reboot, it will be a lot like the original unless you throw in Stick and focus on his training, which you could do in flashbacks in a sequel anyway. Hmmmm

  20. BC1 BC1 says:

    @j206: I am waiting for the day when Papa Disney opens the checkbook and says to these studios “Give us a number. Ha, funny, now try again…”

  21. I suppose it might not matter who’s actually directing, what with how heavy the producer’s hand is with Marvel movies. Brett Ratner in charge of X3 was not the worst thing ever mostly because he had little room to exercise his freewill with Lauren Schuler Donner. Also, the talented Gavin Hood was not able to make a workable film out of Wolverine for the same reason.

  22. wulfstone wulfstone says:

    I believe the term these days is a requel a reboot/sequel

  23. Nate Nate says:

    David Slade also directed “Hard Candy” which was pretty badass, and as far as Twilight movies go, I found Eclipse to be quite cool. The battle at the end made the rest of it tolerable. 

  24. Meanmrmustid Meanmrmustid says:

    I hope this comes out just so they release a Daredevil Omnibus of the first three Daredevil Masterworks.

  25. snake101 says:

    the” extended cut” daredevil is good!

  26. while the first one was obviously awful, i think the character is one that lends itself well to the screen. As ever, it’ll depend largely on the script

  27. ccarney ccarney says:

    This is gonna suck like the Punisher Warzone. Studios wanting to keep the rights and put out dead end movies is just doing an injustice to a) the movie going public B) fans of the character and C) us comic fans in general. Hopefully this never gets off the ground.

  28. mguy77 mguy77 says:

    @PaulMontgomery  Correct.  I dont care too craps about Thor.  Daredevil on the other hand was a good movie — Directors Cut.

    Matthew

  29. Neb Neb says:

    While the first DD wasn’t amazing, the director’s cut is a much more solid experience.  I’d feel better if a proven director was attached to the project.  A music video guy just doesn’t seem like the right direction for this project, especially after how under performing the first one was.  It’ll be interesting to see this one develop.  I think a version of Born Again or Man Without Fear would be pretty rad.

  30. Hornhead Hornhead says:

    As a huge Daredevil fan I really don’t want to see FOX make another failed movie just so they can keep the rights. Please, please just give it back to Marvel so they can give the character the respect it deserves.

  31. Crucio Crucio says:

    @Conor: Yeah you’re 100% right that you need to make alot more money. Also it only made 100 mill of it’s total gross domestic and the other 80 worldwide. Hollywood weighs domestic gross as more important then world wide and Daredevil wasn’t a bomb but if you throw in 30 to 50 mill in marketing and it’s movie chump change.

  32. JLA1 says:

    I actually enjoyed the Director’s Cut version if you took out the rock music and replaced it with a score instead it would have been a better overall movie. Ben Affleck was a decent Matt MurdockDareDevil in my opinion, Joe Pantelino I believe is his name was a decent Ben Urich, Jon Favrou was really good Foggy Nelson, Colin Ferrel he overdone it as Bullseye, Michael Clarke Duncan was a good Kingpin, and Jennifer Garner was a okay Elektra Natchios I think they could have casted a better Bullseye and Elektra. 

  33. Dan Dan says:

    I’m OK with this. The Affleck movie wasn’t that bad – it’s no Catwoman. I would like to see Colin Farrell back as Bullseye if they go that route.

  34. Franktiger Franktiger says:

    Twilight + Daredevil = please NO!!! 

    Colin Ferrel was an awesome Bullseye, that was the only positive of the movie! 

    I agree it needs a reboot rather than a sequel, although I do give Affleck credit for being sucha huge DD fan, which is what made him want to do the movie so badly in the first place.

  35. Sorry Fox, but given your track record, the best thing you can do is sell it back to Marvel. Your best and only bang, X2, was what? 8+ years ago?

  36. stasisbal stasisbal says:

    The last Daredevil wasn’t terrible but wasn’t very good either.  Garner and Affleck were bad casting IMO.  Obviously its too early to know anything but like First Class I won’t expect anything from it until I see a trailer.

    It’s a shame if they can’t get it done right.  Daredevil seems like a relatively easy property to translate to film.  Just combine a ninja movie with a crime movie.  And if Batman Begins and Dark Knight don’t need an R rating this doesn’t either.

  37. Fox must be desperate to get a new Marvel film out. Cause they know in a few years they are going to lose all of the rights to make a film and they want to squeeze as much life out of the superhero trend as possible.

    Although with this, a new FF movie, and a new X-Men film it might all bite them in the ass at the end of the day. 

  38. edward says:

    fantastic news! let get that kick-ass daredevil movie that we all know could happen going

  39. Minion Minion says:

    Wait… It ONLY made back twice what it cost? How is that in any way a flop?

  40. The problem with judging blockbusters and flops in Hollywood is that, apparently, almost all films are considered flops in the eyes of accountants. Because of they way they divide up the overhead (or expensives) into three areas, it is almost impossible for a film to truly be a hit in the eyes of Hollywood. Accounts look at the Production, Distribution, and Marketing of any film.

    So films like Forrest Gump, Rain Man, Batman (Burton’s film), and independent money makers like My Big Fat Greek Wedding is massively in the red.

    Basically with this research I did I am saying that: Almost all films in Hollywood is considered a ‘flop’ in terms of profit. 

  41. @Minion  – i know it sounds dumb but thats hollywood. Did you know that movies like Spiderman, All the Harry Potter movies, The Matrix, LOTR all officially lost money? (hint it has to to with taxes and back end profit sharing) Hollywood accounting at its finest. 

    AND the studios have plenty of crap movies on the shelf waiting to be released that are designed to offset studio profits incase they have a Harry Potter type thing come out that year. If you see a movie that was released 4 yrs after it was filmed, thats what it was. 

    They dump lots into advertising and media buys, phantom production cots etc. Its not uncommon to spend the same amount as the production budget on that stuff if the movie is big enough (or projected to flop) Plus the published budgets that you see on places like IMDB, aren’t always the actual budgets. Hollywood is tricky that way. 

  42. azrael1981 azrael1981 says:

    on the subject of sequels nobody wants. what do you guys think about the ghost rider getting another spin…..why?

  43. I want a direct sequel. I loved Affleck in the role. Think I’m very much in the minority on that though.

  44. The biggest joke about the Daredevil (besides how awful it is) is that the person standing next to Ben Affleck in 90% of all known photos would make a perfect Matt Murdock. (Not Jennifer Garner or Phil Helmuth) Matt Damon. 

  45. I enjoyed the first one just fine; I still like watching it. But this needed to be a reboot like The Incredible Hulk.

  46. @TheNextChampion  There is no accountant on th planet that could prove My Big Fat greek Wedding is in the red. That movie had a budget of $5 million dollars and grossed over $240 million in North America alone. A movie that makes almost FIFTY TIMES it’s budget is a hit. One of the biggest hits in the history of Hollywood. 

    I thought the first Daredevil was pretty decent. I enjoyed it. People trashed it because Affleck was tabloid fodder at the time and everything he did got trashed, regardless of it’s quality. The director’s cut was even better.

    I thought 30 Days of Night was a pretty good movie too. I loved the look of it, and thought the directing was better than these types of movies usually warrant. I would definitely be interested in the same guy doing a Daredevil film.

    I’m not going to trash him just because he directed a Twilight movie. I’ve never seen a Twilight movie, so I cant judge it. 

    Just because somebody directs one movie doesn’t mean that’s all he can do. director’s CAN adapt their style to fit the specific film they are doing. Alex Rodriguez directed family film schlock like Sharkboy and Lava Girl, but that didn’t stop Sin City from being awesome.

  47. stuclach stuclach says:

    @Andrew  I enjoyed that and I enjoyed Kevin Smith’s stuff, but most of Daredevil’s stories (including most of Frank Miller’s work) doesn’t work for me. 

  48. edward says:

    @TheNextChampion  there’s no accountant on earth that could prove Tim Burton’s Batman is not red either. think next time

  49. ctrosejr ctrosejr says:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

    Good article on why a movie that makes 2X its production cost is still a loser.  

  50. @JohnV I’m sorry man but here is an article that shows just why My Big Fat Greek Wedding I’d technically in the red for profit loss.

    http://www.helium.com/items/1891205-harry-potter-return-of-the-jedi-and-lotr-all-reported-to-lose-money

  51. Also for anyone not believe Batman is still in the red in terms of profit, here’s an article stating just that. Also along with it comes Spider-Man, Iron Man, all three LoTR films, and a recent film with Alice in Wonderland.

    http://m.syfy.com/inf/infomo?site=syfy&view=blastrstoriesdetails&feed:a=stories_blastr&feed:c=stories_blastr_channel&feed:i=29.74018

  52. Smasher says:

    Saw Get him to the Greek last night. Now I can’t help but think of “Blind Medicine” when I read this news.

    Jason Siegel as Matt Murdock? Jonah Hill as Foggy?

    Muahahahaha! 

  53. I’d like to more details before going in blind.

  54. houseian houseian says:

    So it’s a different writer, director and actor… sweet.  I’ll happily watch this before a reboot!  This way there is no need for origin and it can’t be worse than the previous one.

    And Daredevil was considered a success, otherwise they wouldn’t have made the Elektra film.

  55. brattyben brattyben says:

    Slade also did Hard Candy which was an excellent film.  The first time I heard of either Ellen Page or Patrick Wilson.  
    Excited to hear he’s tentatively attached.  He could really bring some grit to the franchise. 

  56. PotatoPope PotatoPope says:

    As long as its not another origin story I’m cool with it. Indeed the Directors cut of the first DD was superior to the theater cut.
    Hollywood just needs to remember there are more stories out there then just the origin.

  57. kennyg kennyg says:

    I liked the Affleck DD movie pretty well. I like the character and have read it since the Bendis run, with a few older things like Guardian Devil and some Miller stuff too. I’m not a PASSIONATE fan, like I am with Batman, so I am probably much more forgiving than some folks here

  58. edward says:

    @TheNextChampion  I don’t know what you or the guy in his mother’s basement that wrote that article throught but it says Batman made ten times what it cost to make.

  59. If those films did not make money, then no film makes money and we wouldn’t even be talking about films because the industry would not exist.

  60. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @ScorpionMasada  There’s a difference between net profit and gross profit and the studios employ every trick in the book to minimize or wipe out net profit so that they don’t have to pay anyone with profit sharing points. The studios certainly make a ton of money on the films that TNC listed.

    This discussion is not relevant to Daredevil, however. It didn’t make enough money.

  61. @ScorpionMasada  – thats a very simple rationalization of a very complicated shell game. 

  62. I recall actors bitching about the same such thing when they had contracts that had net points. I’m aware of the net/gross game.

    What I wasn’t aware of was that people actually believed that these movies don’t generate profit, which is what I guess people who have a problem with my simple analysis seem to believe.

    Shell games are never complicated. Neither is the net/gross distinction.

    Therefore, it is very easy for me to disregard people who claim successful movies did not make money.

    I think it is more important to factor in the other budgets, specifically advertising like stated above.

    El Mariachi was made for something like 8K but Sony put in another 30K or so into post production and more into advertising.

    If that movie only made 40K, I could understand someone saying it took a loss.

  63. @TheNextChampion  Your argument for why a movie lost money is an article that says the film had a 5 million budget, it grossed 369 million dollars, and nobody knows where it went. I don’t think that really proves anything.

    The whole Hollywood accounting thing is BS anyway. Movie making is a business. if movies lost money, the studios would be out of business, not sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into budgets for more movies.