So... How come so many was peeved over the Mark Waid Daredevil run?

One would think it was the equivalence to One More Day based on all the smack it gets in forums.

What is so wrong with that series?

Nothings wrong with it. It's just that it is a drastic departure from what came before, and that inevitably means it won't appeal to all of the previous fanbase. And those people talk smack about it. Others don't. Overall I'd say it is one of the five most critically well received Marvel runs of the past five years. But it definitely alienated some old fans.

Just because something is different or new doesn't automatically make it good by default

Waid tried to reivent the character that didn't need reinventing

@fallschirmjager: Not sure I would say that Waid reinvented him.

I've started to be [slightly] interested in Daredevil thanks to Waid run [and the Netflix Series]

@waezi2: He tried. Just look how he had Matt handle the exposing of his identity - he turned it a circus jokefest. One of the most traumatic things to happen to DD and he's making jokes about it

@fallschirmjager: That's because he decided to be "Happy Matt" as a way to deal with his messed up life, pretending that he is a wisecracking hero.

It was sloppy

It was out of character

It was disrespectful to the continuity.

It took a unique book like Daredevil which is typically Marvel's only darker themed book and turned it in to a generic quippy saturday morning style superhero book just like pretty much every Marvel book on the shelf.

It was also the lowest selling Daredevil run in decades.

@waezi2: Which sounds like the usual way DD acts (sarcasm)

@fallschirmjager: That's the point; it was not usual. It was an unhealthy way to tackle the problem. And he weren't all happy, even if he tried to convince himself that he was. He watched as arsenic blinded and almost drowned a crippled Bullseye, and only saved him so that he would live the rest of his life without being able to move, speak, hear and see.

Yeah, nothing dark happened in it, like the return of Bullseye, Moleman robbing a graveyard, someone stealing Spot's powers in order to take human trafficking to a whole new level, the children of the Purple Man, Foggy having cancer...

@waezi2: I remember a couple months ago you wrote a review for Alias where you stated that you did not like retcons. Well, Mark Waid made many retcons to Daredevil. He changed the relationship with his father, turned his gifts into "superpowers"(before his enhanced senses were said to be somthing anyone could achieve, which is why Stick has them as well. The radiation only awakened his enhanced senses and did not create them.) and he retcon'd a few members of the rogue's gallery.

Waid wrote Matt differently from the many recent writers before him. The Daredevil book was always described as a "Noir crime thriller," which is somthing it ceased to be under Waid. His run was disappointing from the start. We were expecting a continuation of the events of Shadowland, but instead we got Daredevil with a smile on his face fighting the Spot and kissing brides.(we did later get the fallout to Shadowland in Reborn.) Daredevil always felt like a mature realistic book, but under Waid it became cartoonish.(example: In the more realistic Daredevil by Bendis Matt was arrested after being outed as Daredevil. Under Waid after outing himself they essentially said "well you've done a lot of good so you're free to go.") "Happy Matt" the way Waid wrote him, made no sense. Instead of giving a reason to be happy Waid essentially turned Matt's depression into manic depression in order to have a scapegoat for "happy Matt." The writing felt campy as well. It was like Waid was overlooking everything that writers like Miller, Nocenti, O'Neal, Chickhester, Bendis, and Brubaker had put into the charecter and instead continued off from Stan Lee's or Gerry Conway's runs.

Waid himself has even admitted that he did not know Daredevil very well and said his first instinct when offered the job of writing the charecter was to say no. For some reason, he decided to do it. He also stated that he was actually surprised by his positive reviews. Somthing a lot of his positive reviews had in common was a line that went somthing like, "I never really read Daredevil before Waid." Not saying that all of Waid's fans were new to the charecter, but it seemed like a large portion were.

That said, there is nothing wrong with liking Waid. He is not a bad writer, he is actually a good writer for his style. It's just that a lot of fans think his writing style should stay far away from Daredevil. Some long term Daredevil fans like him as well. It is possible to be a established Daredevil fan and still enjoy Waid's run for what it was, but there is no denying that it was a completely diffrent take on the charecter that alienated a lot of long term fans.

No, it was not dark. It had a couple dark themes, but it handled them in a colorful manner. There is nothing wrong with liking it, but don't act like it was the same old Daredevil.

It wasn't what dedicated fans were expecting or accustomed to so they hated it. It was a fun ride. It was something new. It did well because of that. But, the series failed because it wasn't the norm.

I'm glad it happened. Change is good even when it is not because it complements the original. My brother loves Frank Miller's DD and he loves Waid's DD.

Players Play

Haters Hate

Shakers Shake

Muahahahahahjaja

@goblinalghoul: "fun" is completely subjective

I dunno..I thought it was pretty darn good myself. But..opinions and all that. Daredevil #7 from the first numbering was one of the best issues ever IMHO.

I love gritty Daredevil, but Shadowland is the single worst thing to ever happen to the character. More or less pretending it never occurred was the best thing Marvel could've done.

For me..(been reading DD since the early 80's) I admit it was different, but I'm okay with that. I've seen Superman, Batman, WW, Flash, Hulk, Spider-man the FF etc.....all change in that same time. Heck, when I first started reading Spider-man during Conway's run, Parker never cracked a joke. It was a deadly serious book, I'd even say it was dark and gritty. Comic characters have many writers over the years and often go through radical changes, to me, that's the norm. For a character to be the same all the time, year after year, is the exception.

@manwhohaseverything: You have a point. Even Batman had to get less dark to keep being interesting. He went from dark loner to... well, he was still not a partybomb, but he made a "family" of a sort.

That is a perfect analogy considering they were both hated for the same reason; they felt like a giant step backward.

No, that is a terrible analogy. The changes in Batman were subtle and came a little bit at a time, just like the many changes in Daredevil did up until Waid decided to rewind it to the silver age. Imagine if the next Batman writer wrote the book like Batman 66. Because that is basically what Waid did to Daredevil.

@hellsangel: Morrison did that, actually.

And Waid wouldn't be the first writer to try and give life to Silver Age characters. Johns does it all the time... or he used to, anyway.

And Waid didn't do that. He still made sure that the series would have plenty of dark moments. And unlike OMD, Waid's DD series DIDN'T ignore his history, and made plenty of references to it.

Yes it did. It ignored everything that Frank Miller did to the Daredevil. It made many retcons to him to basically act like pre bronze age Daredevil. It reestablished silver age villains like Stilt-Man who was retired. The flashbacks Waid would always use was always the silver age, it was obvious where he was getting his inspiration from.

Morrison's Batman did not have a silver age feel to it. He made references to the Silver and gold age, but it was not written like a silver age book. He also did not drastically change the personality of the Batman.

@hellsangel: In that case, you might as well say that Miller's DD sucks because HE made a lot of retcons(some of them I found pointless) and then we have a whole chicken-and-the-egg discussion

Miller's Daredevil was taking steps forward, Waid took steps backward. That is a huge difference. The retcons Miller made saved the book. Acording to a interview by Jim Shooter, he had to fight to keep the book on the shelf every month. Then Miller turned it into one of the best selling titles at Marvel. It is very possible if it was not for Miller, Daredevil would of been canceled in the 80s. Basically the thing is that no one cared about Daredevil before Miller. Miller had no choice, it was either change or get cancelled. Miller's changes turned Daredevil into one of the best selling books at Marvel. Waid's changes put the sales at a all time low.

@hellsangel: I agree, Miller's DD was revolutionary. Not only did it make DD popular, it also brought back the Kingpin.

Are you saying that because something doesn't sell well that it is automatically bad? And that only good things sell well?

@waezi2: No. I am just pointing out how Waid made half of the Daredevil fanbase drop the book.

It was bad, but it did leave a lot of unanswered questions. Although looking back on it, it is easy to say that it can be overlooked.

I enjoyed it myself. People are entitled to their opinions but the book was consistently entertaining and was critically successful. To say the Waids run was horrible is ridiculous.

@jonny_anonymous: Yes! On all points. It was a low point indeed, I didn't feel like I was reading Matt or DD at all. It was like a Jetsons and Scooby-Doo cartoon mix with a Sopa Opera.

@immolation: Bravo good sir this is an very excellent post. You summed up Waid's run completely and why it is overrated and horrible.

It was polarizing among fans because of the jarring shift in tone and aesthetic. Still, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Because it wasn't what they expected or wanted. Great book though. It really isn't that polarizing, except on this site, for the most part.