Spoilers Daredevil: Born Again season two discussion


log in or register to remove this ad

But yeah, no matter what last shots you get off, you're still dead. So to me, there had to be another more reasonable explanation (i.e. the reason for the time spent with his mom).
Well, I would say both can be true and both were meant to be true in the show.

The scenes with Daniel's birthday party and BB meeting his Mom were part of the development of the Daniel and BB plot, but also showing that other side of Daniel that does not come in to the City Hall/Fisk narrative. I could even argue that the reason Daniel lets BB go in the end is that he finally realizes she does care about human life in a way everyone around him at City Hall does not. While she was using him, she was not the same kind of transactional "operator" as the Fisk empire is. I think the tipping point was the buying the supplements/ponzi scheme rainbow/gift bag from Daniel's mom. Not that he realized it right away, but that was the tipping point when it finally came down to it. Yes, he cares for BB, but in the end it is not that (or only that) which shapes his decision.

And yes, his deathbed/last speech does shake Buck in a way. But I don't think he went in with the intention of trying to sway Buck. He helped Buck chop up a body, he knows that stepping inside is death. He goes in to give BB time, but also to save his mother (as he alluded to in the conversation with BB in the car about what would happen if he let her go). Now the final comments were pithy and on point, but were likely meant to be Daniel accepting his fate and "off the cuff" not part of some great plan. Well-executed by the writing team and the showrunners.

Cheers :)
 

I think it is partially about the opposing arcs of Buck and Bullseye, and the fact that this B plot went this way at all may have to do partially with giving Buck a reason to not be the one carrying out the hit on the governor.

Anyway - this show kind of seems to be all about boundaries. Matt refuses to kill, Karen and Jessica do not. This conflict is a classic trope, but maybe because this show is so focused on the law it suddenly occurs to me that maybe the thing we have missed in comics is that we argue why the heroes do not kill but we do not really pay as much attention to other people do not kill either. Like, why does the state, or literally any random cop, not kill Joker after Batman has incapacitated him? The decision not to kill is a team effort in these scenarios.
 

I think it is partially about the opposing arcs of Buck and Bullseye, and the fact that this B plot went this way at all may have to do partially with giving Buck a reason to not be the one carrying out the hit on the governor.

Anyway - this show kind of seems to be all about boundaries. Matt refuses to kill, Karen and Jessica do not. This conflict is a classic trope, but maybe because this show is so focused on the law it suddenly occurs to me that maybe the thing we have missed in comics is that we argue why the heroes do not kill but we do not really pay as much attention to other people do not kill either. Like, why does the state, or literally any random cop, not kill Joker after Batman has incapacitated him? The decision not to kill is a team effort in these scenarios.

Matt is a Devout Lawyer, big on Redemption and Justice despite his brutal methods.
Frank is a Soldier with PTSD who saw his entire family murdered and now views bad guys as The Enemy in an endless war.

Daredevil believes he is fighting for a better world, while the Punisher has given up on that world, choosing to destroy evil rather than reform it

Batman is very much like Matt and seeking righteousness over fury

Sam Vimes gives an perspective in THUD when he tells the Summoning Dark of the Guardian Dark that "I am not here to keep darkness out. I'm here to keep it in".
 
Last edited:


Matt is a Devout Lawyer, big on Redemption and Justice despite his brutal methods.
Frank is a Soldier with PTSD who saw his entire family murdered and now views bad guys as The Enemy in an endless war.

Daredevil believes he is fighting for a better world, while the Punisher has given up on that world, choosing to destroy evil rather than reform it

Batman is very much like Matt and seeking righteousness over fury

Sam Vimes gives an perspective in THUD when he tells the Summoning Dark of the Guardian Dark that "I am not here to keep darkness out. I'm here to keep it in".
I'd say it's more simple than that and goes back to The Comics Code. Good people don't kill. It's only in the '70s, with the rise of the anti-hero, that we start seeing characters like The Punisher who mete out justice at the end of a gun barrel. And even he started as a villain. Even now that The Code is long dead, the tropes largely remain.
 

I'd say it's more simple than that and goes back to The Comics Code. Good people don't kill. It's only in the '70s, with the rise of the anti-hero, that we start seeing characters like The Punisher who mete out justice at the end of a gun barrel. And even he started as a villain. Even now that The Code is long dead, the tropes largely remain.
I wouldnt consider Punisher a villain though. In his debut he was trying to kill Spider-Man because he had been told Spidey was a murderer. By the end of that story though he learns that he had been manipulated and fed false information by the actual villain so he makes a truce with Spidey. Punisher is a misguided and unstable killer but not a villain

You do make a good point about the Comics code though, and the anti-heroes of the 70s
 




Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top