ddk_mod (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ddk_mod) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
daredevilkink2015-05-09 07:29 pm
ddk_mod) wrote in daredevilkink2015-05-09 07:29 pm
Entry tags:
Discussion/Off-Topic Post #1
Please head over to Discussion Post #2!
Please head over to Discussion Post #2!
s!a as the one that replied to you: OH YEAH. what about minors? bc there's certainly a lot of kids wandering around terrified, and what about those who have effectively become orphans bc their parents died after they did?
Okay, so I just watched that scene again, because I thought: it's been a while since I watched that episode, maybe I'm missing something.
They'd just got done with a conversation where he's obviously lying to her about something (and she thinks possibly that he's been attacked in his home by Fisk's men and is lying to protect his friends), and then he asks her to talk to Foggy, and then he tells HER to be careful. She can see how beat to shit he is and places her hand to a cut on his face and tells this silly lone-wolf man that maybe he should take his own advice. He didn't flinch away from Karen; he looked down, AFTER she removed her hand.
To me - and yes, I get that we're reading this scene differently - Matt is more uncomfortable with the fact that she's right than he is about her touching his face.
(Also, Claire literally did the same thing? Like, she ran her hand over Matt's face and then kissed him on the forehead without any warning whatsoever? Did Claire NEED to do that?)
They'd just got done with a conversation where he's obviously lying to her about something (and she thinks possibly that he's been attacked in his home by Fisk's men and is lying to protect his friends), and then he asks her to talk to Foggy, and then he tells HER to be careful. She can see how beat to shit he is and places her hand to a cut on his face and tells this silly lone-wolf man that maybe he should take his own advice. He didn't flinch away from Karen; he looked down, AFTER she removed her hand.
To me - and yes, I get that we're reading this scene differently - Matt is more uncomfortable with the fact that she's right than he is about her touching his face.
(Also, Claire literally did the same thing? Like, she ran her hand over Matt's face and then kissed him on the forehead without any warning whatsoever? Did Claire NEED to do that?)
To me - and yes, I get that we're reading this scene differently - Matt is more uncomfortable with the fact that she's right than he is about her touching his face.
Yeah, this. Watching that scene I don't get the impression that he was uncomfortable with her touching his face. He was uncomfortable with the conversation.
Yeah, this. Watching that scene I don't get the impression that he was uncomfortable with her touching his face. He was uncomfortable with the conversation.
It's cool, nonny, people are going to read the scene differently. We're fandom, it's what we do, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective, thank you. :)
Karen didn't need to be inside of Matt's personal area to make the point is what I was saying. Karen being hands-on with Matt is different from Claire because Matt and Claire were a thing, a physically smoochy and emotionally 'you know what it was' intimate thing where Claire dropped the L bomb. Karen didn't have any of that freedom with Matt (so thank you for bringing up Claire, I guess, because it kind of shows the different context?), but the audience knew by Karen's behaviours how much she wanted something with Matt.
In summation, my initial point wasn't about Karen's treatment of Matt only in this scene, it's that this scene bothers me in direct correlation to the FOGGY TOUCH MY FACE scene. This scene compounds that more important scene for me because it made me distrust Karen wrt the people she 'cares' for. This also extends to Ben, there's a pattern involved, and while I started the series loving Karen so much, by the end of the series I was having a lot of trouble trusting Karen in general, but specifically working at Nelson & Murdock. Other folks in fandom love her and trust her just fine, and that's all well and good for them. I have hopes the show will change my mind next series. It's interesting to me that fandom is so divided over Karen, but at least I haven't run into anybody (yet) who doesn't have strong feelings about her one way or another.
Karen didn't need to be inside of Matt's personal area to make the point is what I was saying. Karen being hands-on with Matt is different from Claire because Matt and Claire were a thing, a physically smoochy and emotionally 'you know what it was' intimate thing where Claire dropped the L bomb. Karen didn't have any of that freedom with Matt (so thank you for bringing up Claire, I guess, because it kind of shows the different context?), but the audience knew by Karen's behaviours how much she wanted something with Matt.
In summation, my initial point wasn't about Karen's treatment of Matt only in this scene, it's that this scene bothers me in direct correlation to the FOGGY TOUCH MY FACE scene. This scene compounds that more important scene for me because it made me distrust Karen wrt the people she 'cares' for. This also extends to Ben, there's a pattern involved, and while I started the series loving Karen so much, by the end of the series I was having a lot of trouble trusting Karen in general, but specifically working at Nelson & Murdock. Other folks in fandom love her and trust her just fine, and that's all well and good for them. I have hopes the show will change my mind next series. It's interesting to me that fandom is so divided over Karen, but at least I haven't run into anybody (yet) who doesn't have strong feelings about her one way or another.
DA
Karen didn't have any of that freedom with Matt
She didn't have a romantic relationship with him, but they were friends. Which can (depending on the people/circumstances in question) mean that face touching is okay. And what was shown in that scene was Matt pretty visibly being okay with Karen touching his face, so yeah, I think she does have that freedom.
I reallly don't think Karen touching him in that scene was a come on. You can be romantically interested in someone and still offer physical gestures of platonic affection.
Karen didn't have any of that freedom with Matt
She didn't have a romantic relationship with him, but they were friends. Which can (depending on the people/circumstances in question) mean that face touching is okay. And what was shown in that scene was Matt pretty visibly being okay with Karen touching his face, so yeah, I think she does have that freedom.
I reallly don't think Karen touching him in that scene was a come on. You can be romantically interested in someone and still offer physical gestures of platonic affection.
This one is the 2nd in a series, by the way. The first one is really good too (but a REALLY difficult subject. There were parts that I had to read through my fingers).
But yeah, seconded!
But yeah, seconded!
The narration isn't always correct. For example, at one point it notes that Karen is wearing a Boston Bolts shirt (it's Brooklyn Bolts) and at another it narrates Matt putting his cane on a counter when he's setting it on the mat in the boxing ring. There were other inaccuracies, too, but those are the two I remember off the top of my head.
oh, yikes; that would be horrible. the best-case scenario would be that their parents were buried in the same cemeteries and were also resurrected, but otherwise... well, obviously with more recent deaths you look for other relatives who can hopefully take responsibility for the children, but aside from that i guess they just get tossed into the foster care system. (or st. agnes, because apparently orphanages are still a thing in the mcu.)
on another disturbing tangent: thus far, the resurrections we've seen have all been people who died from violence and thus were not at the end of their 'natural' lives. they came back healed from those injuries. presumably the same conditions would apply to people who died from infectious diseases -- and maybe even people who died from cancer -- but what about people who died from old age? like, would they be brought back and then immediately die again without getting out of their coffins? would the spell just fail to work? would they suffocate in their coffins? i feel that ben would probably ask these questions sooner or later, since he IS an investigative reporter.
on another disturbing tangent: thus far, the resurrections we've seen have all been people who died from violence and thus were not at the end of their 'natural' lives. they came back healed from those injuries. presumably the same conditions would apply to people who died from infectious diseases -- and maybe even people who died from cancer -- but what about people who died from old age? like, would they be brought back and then immediately die again without getting out of their coffins? would the spell just fail to work? would they suffocate in their coffins? i feel that ben would probably ask these questions sooner or later, since he IS an investigative reporter.
I was playing through Marvel vs Capcom 3 and I realized that Daredevil isn't on the roster. As far as I know, the LEGO games and Marvel: Contest of Champions are the only (modern) games that Matt has appeared in. I'm sure there were knock offs during the 80s but that bit of videogame history has always been a blank spot for me.
Games are hard to make and Daredevil has always been a niche character so I can understand why he hasn't appeared many times before. I think that the blindness also plays into it a little bit - videogames are a sighted medium by nature and there would be a lot of obstacles in making Matt a playable protagonist, not least of all being just how the heck you portray the surrounding world for a blind character. Do you make it a typical medium and just have Matt react as he should when confronted with say, a photograph? Or do you create a game based off his sonar abilities?
This is mostly inspired by this article about Perception, a horror game where the PC is blind and the player navigates by using cane taps for echolocation. Naturally, there are supernatural forces that are trying to kill her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_1zUXv5l7M
The game itself looks amazing and really inventive and something Matt could star in. I kind of wonder what the meme thinks?
Games are hard to make and Daredevil has always been a niche character so I can understand why he hasn't appeared many times before. I think that the blindness also plays into it a little bit - videogames are a sighted medium by nature and there would be a lot of obstacles in making Matt a playable protagonist, not least of all being just how the heck you portray the surrounding world for a blind character. Do you make it a typical medium and just have Matt react as he should when confronted with say, a photograph? Or do you create a game based off his sonar abilities?
This is mostly inspired by this article about Perception, a horror game where the PC is blind and the player navigates by using cane taps for echolocation. Naturally, there are supernatural forces that are trying to kill her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_1zUXv5l7M
The game itself looks amazing and really inventive and something Matt could star in. I kind of wonder what the meme thinks?
OP Sorry, this is the actual Kotaku article: http://kotaku.com/a-horror-game-where-you-cant-see-1706955372 and sure enough someone posted a picture of Matt in the comments.
The Last of Us has a pretty interesting 'listening mode' that would probably work well for Matt.
yeah like. in Gwen's case she was eighteen when she died, and apparently the legal age is seventeen in New York at least? and the age of majority is eighteen, so yeah she's managed to scrape by just barely, but there are people who didn't get as lucky. like, in the best-case scenario their parents were either buried in the cemetery as well or can come claim them (see: little girl in the church Matt overhears), in the worst-case scenario--say, for kids who died more than a century ago or so--everyone they love is dead. there might be descendants willing to take them in, but it's also just as likely that there won't be and into the foster care system or orphanage they go. and like, imagine how complicated things are going to get now. man, those poor kids.
wow, that is truly disturbing and definitely something Ben would be interested in finding out. I figure the spell worked on them too, but not many were able to crawl out of their coffins by themselves--others did manage to get help, somehow (and I keep thinking this might also apply to infants who died, like you could hear them crying out and it's a race to get to them before they suffocate oh my god working out the logistics of this is disturbing), but there were a few who ended up dying again in their coffins.
wow, that is truly disturbing and definitely something Ben would be interested in finding out. I figure the spell worked on them too, but not many were able to crawl out of their coffins by themselves--others did manage to get help, somehow (and I keep thinking this might also apply to infants who died, like you could hear them crying out and it's a race to get to them before they suffocate oh my god working out the logistics of this is disturbing), but there were a few who ended up dying again in their coffins.
Ben Urich was no longer able to keep up with the reporting times and deserved to get fired.
(1) He didn't seem to know what the internet was. You know, the place where most news is posted? The place where people read and write about events occurring in the world and share information? Even New Yorkers who want to know what's going on down the street from them have update alerts set for the Drudge report or something.
(2) He declined a much better job offer, despite it not preventing him from writing any more exposes. You see, if he knew about the internet, he would know that it's a place where you can sell your long-form investigative journalism to any media outlet you want, and people LOVE corruption stories.
(3) The article he was writing about Fisk violated the basic principles of journalistic ethics and the editor was right to decline to publish it. You see, if you write about someone, you have to have sources. People who are considered reliable and allow themselves to be quoted so people who monitor the media can do follow-ups. You can't just make up whatever shit you want; people who that are using the "entertainment" portion of capable television. Ben had once unreliable source, Fisk's mother, whom he could not quote. He did NO research to see if any of her material was true (checking up on the disappearance of Fisk's dad, etc). He had nothing to back up what was a fairly vicious rumor to start about someone. If the editor hadn't killed the story, he wouldn't have been doing his job.
(1) He didn't seem to know what the internet was. You know, the place where most news is posted? The place where people read and write about events occurring in the world and share information? Even New Yorkers who want to know what's going on down the street from them have update alerts set for the Drudge report or something.
(2) He declined a much better job offer, despite it not preventing him from writing any more exposes. You see, if he knew about the internet, he would know that it's a place where you can sell your long-form investigative journalism to any media outlet you want, and people LOVE corruption stories.
(3) The article he was writing about Fisk violated the basic principles of journalistic ethics and the editor was right to decline to publish it. You see, if you write about someone, you have to have sources. People who are considered reliable and allow themselves to be quoted so people who monitor the media can do follow-ups. You can't just make up whatever shit you want; people who that are using the "entertainment" portion of capable television. Ben had once unreliable source, Fisk's mother, whom he could not quote. He did NO research to see if any of her material was true (checking up on the disappearance of Fisk's dad, etc). He had nothing to back up what was a fairly vicious rumor to start about someone. If the editor hadn't killed the story, he wouldn't have been doing his job.
I even added a bunch of prompt re-posts on the Challenge Post about minor characters to inspire everyone, and encourage everyone else to do the same!
1) there are several words either missing or misspelled in your rant and I don't understand half of what you are trying to say.
2) but I think mayyybe I understand part of it? And not sure if troll or serious.
3) you seem to have missed some key scenes re: Ben's research and also entire sections of the episodes that address your concerns.
2) but I think mayyybe I understand part of it? And not sure if troll or serious.
3) you seem to have missed some key scenes re: Ben's research and also entire sections of the episodes that address your concerns.
Wow, trying to simulate Matt's senses would be a really interesting challenge for a videogame! It would be cool for a virtual reality game.
Actually, I thought that anon's points are pretty valid, and also that their "rant" wasn't hard to understand at all. Is English not your first language? Or maybe you have reading comprehension problems?
(See what I did there? Don't be a dick)
(See what I did there? Don't be a dick)
Since there's been a lot of talk about Ben Urich and how he doesn't get enough attention in fandom, I want to ask about his generically dying wife. That was one of the more baffling subplots to me, in terms of writers putting it in there for character reasons but not really understanding what they were writing with.
(1) What was she sick with? Obviously dementia (like alzheimers) but a pretty early stage of said dementia, because she could recognize him and have whole conversations that acknowledged shared experiences in their past and what was going on in their present. So that clearly wasn't the ONLY problem, because she was in a hospital on an IV, and she was basically bedridden. With dementia that's a very late stage event, and even then it happens in long-term care facilities specifically for it, where the person has lost most of their cognitive functions and are more or less unresponsive to the world around them except in simple ways. Did she have cancer? Or something else that needed hospitalization levels of treatment?
(2) What was that business with the insurance lady at the hospital? Basically what I saw was, Ben wanted her to stay in the hospital, the insurance company did not want to pay for it, and he could sweet talk the administrator into helping him. My experience in hospitals is (a) you only get to stay in one if you're sick enough to need its services, otherwise you're moved to rehab or a long-term care facility, and (b) the hospital administration isn't responsible for the decision as to whether you stay or leave except when it comes to making medical decisions as to the required level of care. They don't help you more out of the kindness of their hearts - they do what's best for the patient, period, more or less. Like, I was once in a hospital and my roommate had been given a five-day stay for her procedure by insurance, but at the end of the 5 days she was still pretty sick, so the doctor and nurses came in to document how sick she was so insurance would approve another day. It was a lot of hassle, but it wasn't like they weren't going to try to help their patient get past an evil insurance company.
(3) Ben's editor would have absolutely no way of helping out with Ben's company insurance plan by making some phone calls.
(4) Ben was considering moving her to an expensive facility, which insurance could opt not to pay for - or only pay for some of, since she was obviously sick, needing to be an IV and all - but his list of options in those pamphlets was WAY too different. Assisted living is for people who are a level below nursing home, with different levels of independence (my grandmother has full-time aids and is on oxygen, but there are people there who don't have aids and are allowed to drive cars). A nursing home is about the level you're at if you need a full-time IV, with nurses on staff.
Hospice is if you're close to death and you've decided to cease serious medical care (aside from pain management). It can be done at home, for people who are terminally ill and want to die at home, or it can be done in a hospice facility, where it is assumed that you will die there, but when you choose hospice you are basically saying "I am at the end of my life. I am not expected to be cured or even really treated. I just don't want to be in pain." For example, if you have cancer, and you're receiving chemo and radiation, hospice is for when you decide to not attempt to treat your cancer anymore (or the doctors say there is no reason to continue treatment, and you decide you don't want to die in a hospital). So choosing hospice is a major life decision, were you basically say, "I am going to die, this is how I am choosing to do it."
Someone wouldn't be looking at assisted living, nursing homes, and hospice all at the same time. If he's saying his wife is in the hospital because she needs treatment to get better, then she needs that, or a long-term care center.
I think the writers just hoped being vague about it would make it okay, and make us sad, because his dying wife and all, and we would feel bad for him, and therefore we would care about him. I really wish they hadn't gone this route, and made us care about him some other way, or at least done the requisite research for her specific condition.
(1) What was she sick with? Obviously dementia (like alzheimers) but a pretty early stage of said dementia, because she could recognize him and have whole conversations that acknowledged shared experiences in their past and what was going on in their present. So that clearly wasn't the ONLY problem, because she was in a hospital on an IV, and she was basically bedridden. With dementia that's a very late stage event, and even then it happens in long-term care facilities specifically for it, where the person has lost most of their cognitive functions and are more or less unresponsive to the world around them except in simple ways. Did she have cancer? Or something else that needed hospitalization levels of treatment?
(2) What was that business with the insurance lady at the hospital? Basically what I saw was, Ben wanted her to stay in the hospital, the insurance company did not want to pay for it, and he could sweet talk the administrator into helping him. My experience in hospitals is (a) you only get to stay in one if you're sick enough to need its services, otherwise you're moved to rehab or a long-term care facility, and (b) the hospital administration isn't responsible for the decision as to whether you stay or leave except when it comes to making medical decisions as to the required level of care. They don't help you more out of the kindness of their hearts - they do what's best for the patient, period, more or less. Like, I was once in a hospital and my roommate had been given a five-day stay for her procedure by insurance, but at the end of the 5 days she was still pretty sick, so the doctor and nurses came in to document how sick she was so insurance would approve another day. It was a lot of hassle, but it wasn't like they weren't going to try to help their patient get past an evil insurance company.
(3) Ben's editor would have absolutely no way of helping out with Ben's company insurance plan by making some phone calls.
(4) Ben was considering moving her to an expensive facility, which insurance could opt not to pay for - or only pay for some of, since she was obviously sick, needing to be an IV and all - but his list of options in those pamphlets was WAY too different. Assisted living is for people who are a level below nursing home, with different levels of independence (my grandmother has full-time aids and is on oxygen, but there are people there who don't have aids and are allowed to drive cars). A nursing home is about the level you're at if you need a full-time IV, with nurses on staff.
Hospice is if you're close to death and you've decided to cease serious medical care (aside from pain management). It can be done at home, for people who are terminally ill and want to die at home, or it can be done in a hospice facility, where it is assumed that you will die there, but when you choose hospice you are basically saying "I am at the end of my life. I am not expected to be cured or even really treated. I just don't want to be in pain." For example, if you have cancer, and you're receiving chemo and radiation, hospice is for when you decide to not attempt to treat your cancer anymore (or the doctors say there is no reason to continue treatment, and you decide you don't want to die in a hospital). So choosing hospice is a major life decision, were you basically say, "I am going to die, this is how I am choosing to do it."
Someone wouldn't be looking at assisted living, nursing homes, and hospice all at the same time. If he's saying his wife is in the hospital because she needs treatment to get better, then she needs that, or a long-term care center.
I think the writers just hoped being vague about it would make it okay, and make us sad, because his dying wife and all, and we would feel bad for him, and therefore we would care about him. I really wish they hadn't gone this route, and made us care about him some other way, or at least done the requisite research for her specific condition.
it isn't mentioned verbally, but in episode three when matt's sitting on the bench by the church you can see a sign behind him that has "Holy Eucharist" written on it. i'm totally dense about religion so i'm not sure if that could be the name of the church or if it's the name of a service or something else that happens at a church.
same anon as above here please ignore me, i just googled it and as best i can tell eucharist is the bread and wine, so it's probably not the name of the church. told y'all i was dense about religion!!
I think Vague Wasting Disease is Marvel's new fridging, tbh. They did the same to Peggy.
Peggy's in her 90's. Vague Wasting Disease is what happens to people that age, for real.
this is a very insignificant thing to be wondering but that's not gonna stop me.
re: matt sitting on the bench by the church in episode three (or four, my memory is unideal) was he just sitting on a bench or do you think he might have been listening into the service?? (or was he just being contemplative in front of his church to add to his the-devil-is-in-me angst)
(i could just be reading too far into this, i've been re-watching the series + this is what happens)
re: matt sitting on the bench by the church in episode three (or four, my memory is unideal) was he just sitting on a bench or do you think he might have been listening into the service?? (or was he just being contemplative in front of his church to add to his the-devil-is-in-me angst)
(i could just be reading too far into this, i've been re-watching the series + this is what happens)
It was episode 3. :-) To me, it seemed a little too coincidental for Matt to just be resting on a random bench. I'm sure he was sitting in front of the church for a reason. Interestingly, it never crossed my mind that he might have been listening in to mass, because it didn't seem to me like it was the right time of day for that.
I think this was in the morning, Matt was on his way to work. And there were no other people there. If service had just ended, there would be people leaving the church, wouldn't there? Unless Matt lingered long enough for everyone to be gone. It's certainly possible. Interesting concept for sure.
I think this was in the morning, Matt was on his way to work. And there were no other people there. If service had just ended, there would be people leaving the church, wouldn't there? Unless Matt lingered long enough for everyone to be gone. It's certainly possible. Interesting concept for sure.
OP
I actually agree with you. I like Ben, and I think that the scene where he was fired was heartbreaking--but it wasn't heartbreaking because it was unfair, it was heartbreaking because his editor was rooting for him, and trying to help him, and clearly considered them friends; he'd been working hard up to that point to overlook Ben's behavior, but he just couldn't anymore.
And yeah, Ben was right about Fisk, and about what was going on. But that doesn't make what he was doing good journalism. He was distracted and obsessed, and he couldn't focus on his job anymore. He deserved to get fired.
I actually agree with you. I like Ben, and I think that the scene where he was fired was heartbreaking--but it wasn't heartbreaking because it was unfair, it was heartbreaking because his editor was rooting for him, and trying to help him, and clearly considered them friends; he'd been working hard up to that point to overlook Ben's behavior, but he just couldn't anymore.
And yeah, Ben was right about Fisk, and about what was going on. But that doesn't make what he was doing good journalism. He was distracted and obsessed, and he couldn't focus on his job anymore. He deserved to get fired.
Page 83 of 186
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- »
Page 83 of 186