Marvel's Daredevil Loses Director/Showrunner

Marvel's Daredevil Loses Director/Showrunner


Drew Goddard unexpectedly departs major Marvel project - is Sony's Sinister Six to blame?

Only one day after the shocker high-profile split of Edgar Wright from Marvel Studios' Ant-Man project, the superhero powerhouse has another unhappy headline to deal with: Multiple sources now report/confirm that Drew Goddard has stepped aside as the showrunner for their in-development Netflix series Daredevil.

Planned as the first of four made-for-streaming series (with Luke Cage, Iron Fist and Alias: Jessica Jones to follow) set to culminate in the team-up miniseries The Defenders, series is set to follow the adventures of blind NYC attorney Matt Murdock, who uses his unusually-heightened remaining senses to fight crime as a costumed vigilante. Unlike Wright, Goddard (who was to direct the first episode along with showrunning) is not leaving Marvel entirely - he will stay with the series as an executive producer while his longtime colleague Steven DeKnight (formerly of Buffy, Angel and Spartacus) will step into the top spot.

No reason was immediately given for the move. However, movie news website Cinema Blend is reporting that another Marvel hero may have contributed to the difficulty: Spider-Man. While by no means an outright flop, Sony's expensive Amazing Spider-Man 2 is struggling at the U.S. box-office and is now expected to only barely turn a profit overseas, casting serious doubts on the viability of other projects in what the studio had planned as a multi-film franchise to rival Marvel's Avengers and Warner Bros upcoming Justice League.

Along with his Daredevil duties, Goddard was set to write and direct the villain-centric Spidey-spinoff The Sinister Six for Sony. Though originally planned to release after Amazing Spider-Man 3, rumors have swirled for weeks that Part 2's disappointing box-office and lukewarm reviews were had the studio wanting to fast-track the ambitious Six - which is being described as "The Avengers, but with villains" - for a January 2014 start date. If so, it's possible that Goddard's exit was partly due to wanting to focus on that bigger, more demanding project.

Daredevil is still on track to begin shooting in July, for a projected 2015 release date.

Source: Latino Review, Variety, Cinema Blend


I'm still a bit shaky on the whole "disappointing box office" thing here. The movie is worse than the first, it's not a great film and it certainly didn't do as well in the US, but when the same happened to Tintin, Bob dubbed it the dawn of a new age, when films don't need to do well in the US to be seen as a success.

This thing doesn't look like it'll break a billion, but it's well past $600 million right now. It may be behind Fox's expectations. More likely, it's on the low end of their predictions (pundits have been calling the shots on it pretty accurately so far, except for a slightly larger slump than anticipated on week 2). It definitely hasn't lost money, and even assuming a $250-350 million production budget, it will certainly make a profit after marketing expenses and before home releases. In fact, I remember other similarly schaudenfreude-driven statements from similar sources when the first film failed to beat any of the previous trilogy ones, but that didn't seem to make much of an impact on this one.

Now, don't get me wrong, Fox realizing they don't have a billion-dollar-per-movie franchise in the vein of Iron Man might very well change their long term plans, and the cast starting to show some unrest about coming back long term could also make a longer franchise less appealing. We'll also have to see how the well reviewed X-Men does instead. They may decide that's their superhero tentpole now, even though it opened roughly on par with ASM2. But... well, there's a difference between all of that and what is reported here. Frankly, Fox's attempt to duplicate The Avengers using just the Spidey IP seemed shaky to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if they dialled it down regardless, especially if the more natural fit of X-Men proved to still have some legs despite having struggled in the last few instalments.

Keep in mind, First Class made half the money in its entire run than ASM2 has so far, and The Wolverine did only marginally better. Even knowing that both are far cheaper, it's no wonder Fox execs decided to cash out of that and into Spidey instead, despite having to shoehorn the whole "shared universe" thingy. A clean slate, a new cast, good reviews and financial success on the mutant front would make that seem a lot more interesting.

The thing about fast tracking the sinister six is it will have 6 villians. Not all of them known to the film going public. Would have been better to make all 6 appear in various spidey movies and then they team up. We would then know them and it would be great. But given spidey 2 was mediocre and the glimpse of the dr ock arms and vulture wings, i just think they will rush it. Give random baddies the wings and arm (like with rhinos suit) and off they go. No real character building or anything. With Avengers we got prequel movie for each Avenger so we got their character history etc then in Avengers there was no need to worry about histories and how each became a hero. With Sinister 6, they cant fit all 6 back histories into one movie.....which is why i wonder if they will all be generic villians given new powers because osborne hates spidey. If they release S6 instead of Spidey 3 then do they have anything planned at all or are they just making it up as they go?

But then Spidey is making money when you look at world sales, and a movie lives and dies by its script. So who knows.


I can't be sure but I think you've credited Fox with Spider-Man when Sony owns the rights not Fox (two different studios).

"The Avengers, but with villains"

Wouldn't you have to... you know... actually have had to introduce the characters in their own popular movies for that to even vaguely resemble reality?

"the studio wanting to fast-track the ambitious Six - which is being described as "The Avengers, but with villains" - for a January 2014 start date. "

Januaray 2014? Wow, then they'd better hurry up!
OT: It's probably a good thing, because ASM 3 is pretty much guaranteed to be another big flop, but Sinister Six sounds quite appealing to me.

I...I don't want to see what Sony plans to do with Kraven. Ugh.

I was kind of hoping that superhero movies would continue to build success upon success, and one day, maybe someone would actually pay John Ostrander to write a Suicide Squad film. That's never going to happen though. Sigh.

Yup, you guys are totally right. That post-credits zinger totally threw me off :)

First part still applies, though. The film is still tracking okay.

Wasn't there someone that predicted that this sort of thing will eventually happen? Movies tend to go in trends. For a while, one type of movie is a huge success and everyone makes that type of movie. But eventually the market becomes over saturated with those movies and people stop caring about them.

Now, it is possible that the Marvel movies can buck the trend, but one major reason is that they tend to be "fun" movies and Guardians of the Galaxy certainly seems to be tons of fun. The Marvel movies also have a definite connection and involved story going on between them and might encourage people to watch them as well. However, it's entirely possible that Marvel's movies will suffer the same fate.

Mind you, as someone said, not even Amazing Spider Man 2 seems to be losing money. It's just not making "Avengers money".

Not sure if the "Justice League in all but name" movie can do the same, but it does have two of the most well known heroes headlining it and that can help.

You know I trust Marvel will find someone and this will turn out ok some how, even if it takes a few tries. Spider-man however, is more of a concern. You know for all these super hero franchises and their respectively attached studios there seems to be one over arching theme either directly contributing to their success or conversely detracting from it.
In marvel's case there is a certain lack of shame and pride in the material. For Fox it is more of a "how do we make this content feel real, " but for Sony, it seems to be "go big or go bigger."

Every terrible decision from Sony seems to be based on this idea that simple is bad, and that small is worse. So they cram more villains, more spectacular set pieces, more personalities into Peter Parker, Hell they had so much trouble juggling three villains in Part 2 that making it 6 now is almost sure to be ridiculously dumb. I have little doubt of that.

You know what would be cool for the next part of Spiderman?
A movie adaption of "Family Business," The story itself is already almost written like a movie script and instead of being about ridiculous set pieces, it might actually just be a good movie.


Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here