Various Authors, �Daredevil� Various titles
- Stan Lee, et al, Essential Daredevil Vol. 1 (Started July 23 � Finished July 29, 2003, 544 pages)
- Jeff Loeb and Tim Sale, Daredevil: Yellow (Started July 23 � Finished July 23, 2003; 144 pages)
- Bruce Jones, et al, Daredevil: The Movie (Started July 29 � Finished July 29, 2003; 128 pages)
The first step for addicts, I�m told, is to admit you have a problem.
I have, and as of now, have read issues 1 � 21 of Daredevil in three different formats. I have the original 1960s issues, and read them. I have two collected hardback �Masterworks� anthologies, and read them. I now have a paperback reprinting of issues 1 - 25 that is published on cheap paper in black and white. And I read it.
Now I say owning all these different formats isn�t a problem in itself. It would stand to reason that I don�t want to open up 21 individual issue of 40 year-old comics just to reminisce. The hardback anthologies look great, featuring quality reprints, but they are going for an inexcusable high collector�s price now, and I don�t really want to read them while I eat greasy chicken.
So this cheapo reprint would seem to be ideal, something I can read whenever I wanted to, without affecting the value. No, the real problem is that I bought three different formats for issues that I don�t like very much at all.
My name is Dean Carrico, and I�m a dork.
Anyway, with the Daredevil movie being released on video and DVD today, I figured now would be a good time to go over the origins of the character. (And no, I didn�t wait outside of some store for 24 hours to buy it. In fact, I didn�t buy it, but only because I�m much too poor to buy anything that won�t keep me alive at this point.)
Since I have way too many graphic novels to get through (on my fiction �to read� section, 28 out of 90 of these books are graphic novels.), it�s a good thing I have so many different origins that I can justify reading three different books.
Stan Lee, creator and first writer for the series, is the worst of the lot � but just barely. With an origin borrowed from a four or five other characters throughout the comic world, Lee is the epitome of the �more of the same� mentality. He�s stolen more ideas than I can possibly point out. From Burroughs�; (Edgar, not William) Tarzan to Man-thing (A lame knock off of DC�s Swamp Thing), Lee would never make it past today�s anti-sampling and intellectual property laws.
Quite frankly, I don�t know how these characters caught on in the first place. Cornball-eye rolling groaning in pain dialogue intermixed with forehead slapping stupid fanciful plots, with the cheesiest 60s soap opera love interests, these issues are LAME. How lame? One villain named, in a stroke of mediocrity, Leap Frog, has fastened springs on his feat, ala Wile E. Coyote and the ACME corporation. Apparently, all you need are these springs to pull a successful bank heist.
But I�ve complained about Lee�s work before with the reviews for the two Masterworks reviews from last year. Eventually, Frank Miller came around and turned the character from a quip-happy goofball into a dark brooding character who concentrated more on the street thug aspect of crime fighting � a Dashiell Hammett character in tights. Jeff Loeb realized this, and retold the story making it grittier while still respecting the original origin.
Loeb is new to me; I haven�t read anything he�s done before. I�m not sure I will seek out other things by this guy, but I do have an amount of respect for a guy who can stay true to the general theme of Lee�s conception, while making it less dated, less corny, and therefore, more timeless.
Which brings us to the movie. Joe and I are going to argue this until the end of time, but the simple fact of the matter is I�m right and he�s wrong. Daredevil was a really good superhero movie. The reason I don�t like the movie Spider-Man (and this fits for the last two Star Wars films as well) is that those franchises had all the character recognition around the globe.
Hell, the promotional posters didn�t even use the Spider-Man title, instead just letting you see the costume. Everybody knew who it was, and everybody was going to go see it. It was the same thing with Star Wars. Who doesn�t know about or like Star Wars? Both of those films were guaranteed money in the bank. So what do the directors do? The safest formulaic story lines possible. There were no surprises in either film, and worse, lots of parts seemed filmed only for future merchandising.
Daredevil, on the other hand, has only a smallish legion of fans and a low recognition factor. (�Oh, the blind guy, right?� said one person who went with us on opening night.) It�s because of this that I accept some of the parts of the film that comes off as slightly pandering toward the mass audience. The rock video workout with Jennifer Garner springs to mind.
But this adaptation for the film makes little to no sense. I didn�t expect a word-for-word reenactment, but this book left out entire scene that tied the entire film together, as well as the best lines. And why change the costumes of Daredevil, Bullseye and Elektra, and go so far as to change the race of The Kingpin, but not change the appearance of the reporter, Ben Urich?
Most egregious is the change in the tone. Daredevil, in the film as well as the current incarnation of the comic, is dark and conflicted and essentially kills two people. The entire film is based upon contradictions with the vigilante aspect. That�s all tossed aside for some reason in this book, which makes it worse than a throwback to Lee�s days, and the only reason I�m not saying it�s worse that Lee�s early work is that I know the original material as presented in the film. This book however is a rushed, confused piece of work not worthy of the character or the movie.
---
School Progress: Got the application for Stanford. Ordered transcripts from De Anza. Read Chapters 2 � 4 for the GRE preparation.
---
Rating: �Essential� Worth working in a used bookstore and getting for cheap.
�Yellow� Worth new
The movie adaptation: Worthless. But I�m still keeping it. I�m a dork.
