First of all, I would like to say that I rather enjoyed this series and if you did not watch it then you should. It's actually pretty good. It's well acted (vincent d'onofrio does a particularly good job), well choreographed, well shot, and generally well written. However, in this post I will be spoiling the ending to the season 1 story arc soooooooo you've been warned.
Basically, I didn't like the end of the Kingpin story arc of season 1. I'm not arguing that it was bad just that it overlooked an element to the Kingpin and Daredevil's relationship that is more interesting than the conclusion we received.
So what do I mean? Well, the story basically ends in a fist fight. We have these two characters antagonizing and dancing around each other for much of the season and their climactic finale ends in with a blind superhero beat up an older fat guy. Which is somewhat ok, but it is not that interesting. I mean, once you've watched the hero fight a blind warrior who is part zen master part Spartan watching him go fisticuffs with the weird guy from full metal jacket just isn't as stimulating or interesting. Why? It has to do with the central conflict surrounding these two characters.
The central conflict had nothing to do with combative prowess or with martial might but with philosophy. Now, stay with me. What made the conflict between Daredevil and Kingpin interesting was the fact that in their own ways they each had similar goals. Both wanted to make the city better, but they fundamental differed on how such a task should be performed. Daredevil was the boy scout arguing that things should be done "the right way" where Kingpin argued that sometimes you need to get your hands dirty. This conflict of philosophy is the central tenant of their relationship, and this is what makes Kingpin such a fun and unique adversary. However, in their final altercation no such issues arise. No philosophical debate occurs (metaphorical or otherwise). In fact, they try to toss aside the entirety of Kingpin's philosophy with a single speech, and either way the argument is rendered mute because Daredevil is better at punching. This makes the ending unsatisfying.
As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm having a difficult time explaining the problem because I'm trying to describe the absence of something. Thus, I will provide an example for contrast.
The Dark Knight is a rather popular superhero film with one of people's favorite baddies, the joker. I will now proceed to spoil it... warned. The Joker and his philosophy are core to all the events surrounding the movie, and the conclusion reflects this in a very satisfying way. Sure, batman does punch the joker a bunch, but that isn't his victory. His victory is with the boats, and even after punching the joker he suffers a defeat by the corruption of Harvey Dent (aaron eckhart does not get nearly enough love for his performance here).
Let's backtrack a little first. You might be asking yourself, "The joker has a philosophy? but he's chaos... that's not really a philosophy." Well, he does tend to represent chaos, but he himself does carry a particularly important philosophy central to the film that he openly states and sums up rather well:
"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
The joker's argument here is that all people are fundamentally prepared to commit horrible acts. He argues that it's easy to maintain a moral code when there is no pressure, but in reality people will always lie, cheat, steal, kill ect. in the event that it will benefit them. Basically, he's arguing that any man hungry enough will steal food, than any man put in a room with a beautiful enough woman will cheat on his wife, that any man desperate enough will kill. At it's core he is arguing against the good of people and the moral status of the populous. Batman, obviously argues the opposite (after all that's why he saved the whole city in the previous film).
Then, in the end, the joker puts it all to the test. He places the bombs on the two boats and tells them that the only way to survived is to blow up the other boat. This is interesting as now we have batman's philosophy "people are basically good" vs the joker's "people are basically bad" play out against each other. Even if you don't recognize this openly it resonates with your subconscious and sets up a more interesting and satisfying conclusion to the movie. (also, please note that the ending does not resolve the issue as both sides draw metaphorical blood. however, the issue is directly addressed and thus the ending is satisfying)
Daredevil skips this very important element, and simply has a fight between two characters when it is philosophy that separates them. Now, you could have a simple brawl be a somewhat satisfying ending, but not when you've played up the importance of the ideological difference between the antagonist and protagonist. The importance of addressing ideological differences in a finale can be seen across history and genres. From Les Miserables to Trigun, story tellers have recognized the need to address a narrative's emotional core upon reaching its conclusion. In my opinion Daredevil does not do this very well.
All I'm saying is that it could have been a bit better.
I hope you enjoyed reading this, and if you would be interested to hear more of my thoughts on the series or what have you please let me know. I'm not asking that you agree with me, just that you hear me out and think about it.
Have a good one.
Basically, I didn't like the end of the Kingpin story arc of season 1. I'm not arguing that it was bad just that it overlooked an element to the Kingpin and Daredevil's relationship that is more interesting than the conclusion we received.
So what do I mean? Well, the story basically ends in a fist fight. We have these two characters antagonizing and dancing around each other for much of the season and their climactic finale ends in with a blind superhero beat up an older fat guy. Which is somewhat ok, but it is not that interesting. I mean, once you've watched the hero fight a blind warrior who is part zen master part Spartan watching him go fisticuffs with the weird guy from full metal jacket just isn't as stimulating or interesting. Why? It has to do with the central conflict surrounding these two characters.
The central conflict had nothing to do with combative prowess or with martial might but with philosophy. Now, stay with me. What made the conflict between Daredevil and Kingpin interesting was the fact that in their own ways they each had similar goals. Both wanted to make the city better, but they fundamental differed on how such a task should be performed. Daredevil was the boy scout arguing that things should be done "the right way" where Kingpin argued that sometimes you need to get your hands dirty. This conflict of philosophy is the central tenant of their relationship, and this is what makes Kingpin such a fun and unique adversary. However, in their final altercation no such issues arise. No philosophical debate occurs (metaphorical or otherwise). In fact, they try to toss aside the entirety of Kingpin's philosophy with a single speech, and either way the argument is rendered mute because Daredevil is better at punching. This makes the ending unsatisfying.
As I'm sure you've figured out by now, I'm having a difficult time explaining the problem because I'm trying to describe the absence of something. Thus, I will provide an example for contrast.
The Dark Knight is a rather popular superhero film with one of people's favorite baddies, the joker. I will now proceed to spoil it... warned. The Joker and his philosophy are core to all the events surrounding the movie, and the conclusion reflects this in a very satisfying way. Sure, batman does punch the joker a bunch, but that isn't his victory. His victory is with the boats, and even after punching the joker he suffers a defeat by the corruption of Harvey Dent (aaron eckhart does not get nearly enough love for his performance here).
Let's backtrack a little first. You might be asking yourself, "The joker has a philosophy? but he's chaos... that's not really a philosophy." Well, he does tend to represent chaos, but he himself does carry a particularly important philosophy central to the film that he openly states and sums up rather well:
"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve."
The joker's argument here is that all people are fundamentally prepared to commit horrible acts. He argues that it's easy to maintain a moral code when there is no pressure, but in reality people will always lie, cheat, steal, kill ect. in the event that it will benefit them. Basically, he's arguing that any man hungry enough will steal food, than any man put in a room with a beautiful enough woman will cheat on his wife, that any man desperate enough will kill. At it's core he is arguing against the good of people and the moral status of the populous. Batman, obviously argues the opposite (after all that's why he saved the whole city in the previous film).
Then, in the end, the joker puts it all to the test. He places the bombs on the two boats and tells them that the only way to survived is to blow up the other boat. This is interesting as now we have batman's philosophy "people are basically good" vs the joker's "people are basically bad" play out against each other. Even if you don't recognize this openly it resonates with your subconscious and sets up a more interesting and satisfying conclusion to the movie. (also, please note that the ending does not resolve the issue as both sides draw metaphorical blood. however, the issue is directly addressed and thus the ending is satisfying)
Daredevil skips this very important element, and simply has a fight between two characters when it is philosophy that separates them. Now, you could have a simple brawl be a somewhat satisfying ending, but not when you've played up the importance of the ideological difference between the antagonist and protagonist. The importance of addressing ideological differences in a finale can be seen across history and genres. From Les Miserables to Trigun, story tellers have recognized the need to address a narrative's emotional core upon reaching its conclusion. In my opinion Daredevil does not do this very well.
All I'm saying is that it could have been a bit better.
I hope you enjoyed reading this, and if you would be interested to hear more of my thoughts on the series or what have you please let me know. I'm not asking that you agree with me, just that you hear me out and think about it.
Have a good one.
