It was confirmed last week that Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night director David Slade is no longer attached to the Daredevil film reboot for 20th Century Fox. While some might be wondering “who should they get to replace Slade?” a better question might be “should they replace Slade with a new director, or simply let the property revert to Marvel?”. If you saw the title of this article, you can probably guess my answer to that hypothetical question.

With Fox having until the fall to get a sequel into production or risk losing the Daredevil character rights to Marvel, it’d be much more beneficial to them simply let the rights expire.

Here’s some reason’s why they should simply let the rights expire…

 

1. Time Is Growing Short

There’s only about enough time to make a movie as cool as this ugly cheap clock.

The biggest and most unavoidable factor here is that Fox only has a few short months to get a new version of Daredevil into production. That’s less time than Sony had when word went around back in early 2010 (like Feb/March early) that they had to get another Ghost Rider movie rolling by November of that same year to keep hold of the rights. They still spent a few months (until July of that year) humming and harring over whether it was worth actually making another movie before they officially announced that duo Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (of Crank fame) were going to direct it.

Barring a major miracle coup of getting a bad ass director to fill in for Slade and who is ready to pick up the camera and go, Fox won’t be able to get someone capable of handling the difficult task of bringing the Man Without Fear back to the silver screen and doing better than the previous version. Yes, we know that the 2003, Ben Affleck starring version sucked and it shouldn’t be too hard to make a better film, but when you only have a few months to get someone to helm and the film off the ground, it just ain’t gonna happen.

The one objection to cutting their losses that would make a lot of sense (not to fans, but to the people who pay the people that try to please us) is that Fox would stand to lose a ton of money. However, it’s not necessarily as true as it might sound because Fox could still make a lot of dough-re-mi on this flick even if they don’t make it…

Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and GET PAID? Click here to become a contributor.

In this post:

This article was first posted on July 16, 2012