Daredevil: Born Again is Marvel's last chance to save its disastrous streaming run
Titles rarely come more loaded than Daredevil: Born Again. Disney+'s latest series is a reboot and continuation of Daredevil, the well-regarded Marvel show that aired on Netflix between 2015 and 2018. Charlie Cox returns as the blind crime-fighting lawyer Matt Murdock, while Vincent D'Onofrio is Kingpin, a villainous mafioso with a bald head and the dimensions of a mid-range people carrier. Amid a churning sea of superhero content, Daredevil managed to find its footing; it was gritty, modest in its ambitions, and beloved by fans.
The title Born Again is both an homage to a beloved 1986 Daredevil comic arc and a nod to the fact that this is a revival series. But there's another metatextual meaning here. The past four years have seen Marvel try and fail to replicate its cinematic dominance in the world of streaming; Daredevil: Born Again is the 15th Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) series to hit Disney+ since 2021. Marvel will be hoping that the series can itself be a rebirth – that the company's misguided forays into the world of streaming can be transformed, phoenix-like, into something capable of flight. If Daredevil, a tried-and-true formula with a built-in fanbase, can't do it, then I'm not sure anything will.
In the early days of the MCU – that is to say, between the theatrical release of The Incredible Hulk in 2007 and the launch of Disney's proprietary streaming service in 2022 – the TV arm of the MCU was an entirely different beast. It began on traditional broadcast television: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013-2020), the sci-fi series co-created by Avengers ' Joss Whedon, ran for seven seasons on AMC, while Agent Carter (2015-16), a period spy series focusing on Hayley Atwell's Captain America character, ran for two. When the TV ecosystem began its pivot to streaming, Disney turned to Netflix to licence another run of shows – Daredevil, Jessica Jones (2015-19), Luke Cage (2016-18), Iron Fist (2017–18), The Punisher (2017-19) plus the The Defenders (2017), which brought together all the series leads into one crossover miniseries.
These series were nominally set in the same world as the Marvel films – with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter even enlisting including some of the MCU's lesser-known film actors as cast members. But they were also conventionally televisual: more modest than the movies in scope and budget. Absent the mass appeal of the theatrical films, these TV shows attracted more of a niche audience of genre fanatics. Avengers might have been an event, but Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.? This was just another night of network television.
Disney, though, had higher ambitions. When the company decided to launch its own streamer, Disney+, in late 2019, it fixed upon a starkly different approach to Marvel's TV slate. By this point, the MCU had distended beyond its wildest ambitions. It was now more than 20 films deep into its theatrical franchise, and more popular than ever. Just as their movies had monopolised the industry, so too, they thought, would their new streaming series. A whole roster of shows were announced, featuring high-profile actors from the movies, bigger, cinematic budgets and production values. And they were going to be released in formidable quantities.
Call it hubris. Call it folly. Call it a simple miscalculation. But – while their initial effort, the inventive and worthwhile WandaVision, proved a hit – the last four years of Marvel's streaming output has been underwhelming to the point of disaster. Series after series has come and gone without lasting impact, save for the attention of comic-book purists: The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Loki, Secret Invasion, Ms Marvel, Moon Knight, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, and the recent Echo among them.
The fact that some of these series cost more than most blockbuster films (She-Hulk a mind-boggling $225m) and recruited some bona fide A-listers (Oscar Isaac in Moon Knight; Samuel L Jackson in Secret Invasion), made no difference. Critical responses largely ranged from damning to indifferent – a vast soundboard of voices all intoning the word 'meh'. And while each fresh venture brings with it a core of diehards insisting that, no, really, this one is worth your time, they're yet to convince the bulk of the TV-viewing public. Where once Marvel's TV shows were sort of like nerdy younger siblings to the core cinematic franchise, or perhaps a shabby but endearing uncle, now the Disney+ relations descend upon gatherings as a swarm of gauche and ill-adjusted cousins, dressed like spivs and poisonous to the vibe. And, what's more, they won't stop procreating.
It's worth noting too that Marvel's streaming slump has coincided with a drop-off in interest in its cinematic slate, and industry-wide 'superhero fatigue' – even if the garish phenomenon of Deadpool vs Wolverine last year proved there's still gold somewhere in them thar hills. Which brings us back to Daredevil: Born Again.
I don't know if Daredevil: Born Again will live up to expectations, if the pulpy appeal of the Netflix original will have survived the transition to Disney+. There's certainly a chance it could have: Marvel's head of TV Brad Winderbaum has said that Born Again (along with last year's Agatha All Along) represented a conscious pivot towards more thriftily budgeted series – a production model more in line with traditional TV than the blockbuster sprawl of, say, She-Hulk.
But even loyal fans will have their doubts: there's every chance that Born Again will fall into the same pit of forgotten content that's claimed the rest of Marvel's streaming efforts. Crucially, though, they're going to tune in and find out. If the MCU is striving to be born again, to wash away its sins, there may never be a better chance. Can I get a 'hallelujah'?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Mystery illness nearly derailed my career – I was told to give up acting, reveals Gavin & Stacey star Laura Aikman
The actress also reveals a surprising career change away from the camera in a bid to 'help society' LAURA'S BATTLE Mystery illness nearly derailed my career – I was told to give up acting, reveals Gavin & Stacey star Laura Aikman Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) AS a young actress, Laura Aikman would get so stressed about her career she was advised to walk away to rescue her health. The Gavin & Stacey star, now one of Britain's most in-demand actresses, suffered a mystery pain for years. Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter Sign up 6 Laura Aikman would get so stressed about her career when she was younger that she was advised to walk away to rescue her health Credit: Shutterstock Editorial 6 Laura as bad girl Sonia alongside James Corden in Gavin & Stacey Credit: BBC 6 The star appeared on Disney+ drama Suspect: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes Credit: Des Willie She was finally diagnosed with autoimmune disease ulcerative colitis, made worse by the worry she faced between roles. But Laura stuck with the job and is now having her best year to date, appearing in BBC gangster series This City Is Ours and Disney+ drama Suspect: The Shooting Of Jean Charles de Menezes, in which she plays whistleblower Lana Vandenberghe. Laura has also a found a work-life balance to keep her condition, which causes inflammation and ulcers in her colon, under control. The 39-year-old said: 'It took me a long time to get diagnosed. Before I got the diagnosis I was very, very unwell and I didn't know why. 'I'd been to the doctors a lot and they kept telling me that it was probably piles, without examining me, and giving me cream because I had blood in my stool. Nothing worked. 'And then I went to a homeopath and she asked me all of these questions about when I'd been poorly and she was like, 'Listen, I've written out a timeline here of when you've not been working, and that is when you've been at your most unwell'. 'She was like, 'Can you do another job?'. And I said, 'No, it's my whole personality.' 'It was a big wake-up call that it was literally making me unwell, the stress of not working and feeling like I wasn't good enough or didn't have anything going on. 'Blame and shame' 'I placed so much of my self-worth and my confidence and even who I was on being an actor and whether I was working. 'Going to family parties at Christmas, everyone's saying, 'What are you up to?'. Like, absolutely nothing. And it can feel like you're letting everyone down. Watch the moment Gavin and Stacey actress Laura Aikman's family found out she was in the finale after keeping it secret 'I think if all of your self-worth is wrapped up in working and then you're not working, you feel like you don't deserve anything. 'I had to actively find other things in my life that gave me self-worth or made me feel important, so I could keep going regardless of whether I was working.' Laura was back as bad girl Sonia in the BBC's hit Christmas special of Gavin & Stacey last year, while in 2023 her role as Dyan Cannon in Archie, an ITV series about Hollywood icon Carey Grant, saw her on billboards in New York's Times Square. To outsiders, her career has hit the heights, but the North London-born actress says that for years she felt a cycle of 'blame, shame and punishment' because she was not quite 'perfect enough'. She told the Women & Wellbeing podcast: 'When you're starting out, you're like, I have to be everything they want. I have to change who I am to fit. I need to be perfect. 'I kind of struggled up until I was maybe in my mid-twenties with what people wanted me to be as a girl, a woman, in this industry and how I needed to present myself. 'I can remember going to auditions and needing to do the lines exactly as they wanted in the blandest way possible, to try to fit whatever I thought the mould was. 'I probably wasn't getting the best parts when I was doing that. I never would, when I was younger, even speak to a producer. 'I would just try to stay under the radar, do my job. I kind of struggled up until I was maybe in my mid-twenties with what people wanted me to be as a girl, a woman, in this industry and how I needed to present myself 'I'm sure I missed out on loads of work because I did absolutely zero networking. But it was that kind of thing — you're lucky to be there, shut up, look pretty, leave. Find everyone very funny, especially the men, and then go home.' With her 40th birthday coming up later this year, Laura has found a new sense of freedom. She explained: 'I feel like where I am now people are almost disinterested in how I look. 'So lucky' 'I've been so lucky with the parts that I've played recently where, even though some of them have been very glamorous women, it's not about me looking beautiful. 'It's about how that person presents themselves.' But she still never takes anything for granted, saying: 'I feel like possibly the last few years I've been able to play some bigger roles in slightly higher profile shows. 'You go through those peaks and troughs in your career where you think, 'Oh, maybe this is it', then it isn't. So I thought, 'Oh, maybe' at the moment, and then I'm sure I'll slide back down again soon.' 6 Laura in her 2023 role as Dyan Cannon in Archie Credit: Planet Photos 6 The in-demand actress also starred in This City Is Ours Credit: BBC Laura grew up in an acting family. Her dad, Stuart Aikman — known as Stuart St Paul — is a stunt director and her mum Jean Heard is also an actress. She is married to actor Matt Kennard, 43, who has appeared in Emmerdale and Coronation Street. Laura got her big break in 1996 film Surviving Picasso, opposite Anthony Hopkins, before going on to appear in a string of movies as well as TV series including Casualty, Death In Paradise and The Split. Despite her struggles with confidence, she loves playing fiery and dominant women, saying: 'My dream is to play women that are as different as possible. "I feel happiest when I'm the furthest away from myself. These last few jobs have been big swings, especially Rachel in This City Is Ours. She's the ultimate Scouse girl, she's tough. 'I do think when you play someone like that and then you step out of it, there's part of you that's like, maybe I could be a little bit more tough. 'They sort of rub off on you a little bit, just like you learn from your friends.' Away from the camera, Laura has trained to become a counsellor with mental health text service Shout. Be kind to yourself when you're not feeling good and just try and do the things that make you feel good She said: 'It's brilliant. You can do a shift whenever you want. People text in when they're in crisis. 'Obviously that's more helpful to society than me getting a job in a TV commercial.' And she concentrates on exercising for her health — not just for her body image — to help deal with her ulcerative colitis. She added: 'I drink less now. I'm no saint, I absolutely get smashed at least once a year, I just fall completely off the wagon. But I will always leave a night out early these days. 'I'm just a bit more boring than I used to be. But overall, it really makes me feel much better.' When she is not working, Matt, who she married six years ago, encourages her to relax. She said: 'He is so chilled out and very even-keeled, he's a cool guy. 'I think he has also been really instrumental in encouraging me to allow myself, if I've not got anything on, to be like, 'Why don't you go to the cinema?'. 'I'm like, 'Just go and spend money on a day when I haven't got a job?'. He'll be like, 'Yeah, just go and do something nice for yourself'. And she has taken notice. Laura said: 'I think you can be so fooled by hearing other people talk about what they do, to think that they're perfect — and they're not. They're probably falling spectacularly off the wagon. 'So I think be kind to yourself when you're not feeling good and just try and do the things that make you feel good.' 6 Laura in the BBC's hit Christmas special of Gavin & Stacey last year
Daily Record
2 hours ago
- Daily Record
Meghan and Harry's eye-watering bills laid bare in new show as 'income dries up'
Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to delve into the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's finances since quitting The Firm. Prince Harry and wife Meghan Markle are set to see their incomes dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, experts have said. After they decided to quit the Royal Family back in 2020, Harry's father, King Charles removed all financial support from them as they relocated to America. After this, Harry told Oprah Winfrey during that explosive interview that his dad "literally cut me off financially" . Now a new Channel 5 programme called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? is set to shine a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. The documentary also delves into the multi-million pound deals the couple have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their huge outgoings, according to The Mirror. Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' After they moved their lives over to the US, the couple bought a lavish family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. Prince Harry has also been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' In order to fund it, Harry and Meghan famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has since come to an end with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal planned. Before they left their royal roles, which was famously branded 'Megxit', the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. But when they departed The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she sadly passed away in a car accident in 1997, Diana left £6.5m to each of her two sons, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. In his interview with Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' Meghan & Harry: Where Did The Money Go? Airs on Saturday 14th June at 8.30pm on Channel 5.
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Meghan and Harry timebomb with eye-watering bills laid bare as 'income dries up'
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have made a fortune since leaving The Royal Family. However, a new Channel 5 documentary reveals the money could run out Prince Harry and his wife Meghan will see their income dwindle and costs soar as their multi-million pound deals dry up, according to experts. After striking their 'Megxit' deal in 2020, King Charles removed all financial support from the couple, with Harry moaning to Oprah that his dad "literally cut me off financially". Now a new Channel 5 show called Meghan and Harry: Where Did The Money Go? shines a light on their finances revealing Harry's surprising inheritances, Meghan's millions and their staggering Montecito mortgage. The documentary counts the multi-million pound deals the pair have cut to sell their story since leaving The Firm - but it also details their astronomical outgoings. Royal expert Norman Baker tells the show: 'There's no doubt in my mind that Meghan and Harry's income is going to decline in the future. It's declining now. They've done the big hits that they could do. They've done the big Spotify event, they've done the big book, there is nothing else to come, nothing else to sell apart from themselves.' Upon moving to America the pair splashed out on a family home costing $14.65 million (£11m). However, they also took out a mortgage of $9.5m (£7m), with repayments in the region of $50,000-100,000 (£73,000 - £37,000) a month. Until now, it's been unheard of for a senior Royal to require a mortgage. On top of that, Prince Harry has been forced to fund his own security, and he rarely travels anywhere public without a four-car convoy. Former royal protection officer Simon Morgan explains the costs of specialist protection, saying: 'It's always very difficult to identify the cost in relation to specialist protection, purely because there's a lot of other factors that go into it. You are looking at somewhere in the region of about £3 million a year to protect somebody who stays at home. As soon as they leave the residence, even if they go down to the shops, that could see that cost double or triple and go from £3m to £6m or £9m or £10m, conservatively. Security is not a fashion accessory, it's a need. You've got to address your needs versus your wants.' To pay for it, the pair famously signed a £100 million five year deal with Netflix in 2020 and a £15 million deal with Spotify. The Spotify deal has already ended with a top exec at the firm dubbing the pair 'grifters', while the Netflix deal is due to end this year, with no renewal in sight. Before Megxit, the Sussexes were earning £2.3m a year as working Royals, receiving money from the then Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall. But when the pair left The Firm that all stopped, leaving Harry forced to live on the inheritance his mum Diana, Princess of Wales left him in her will. When she died in 1997 Diana left £6.5m to the boys each, which had grown to around £10m when Harry received it upon turning 30. Talking to Oprah, Harry said 'Without that, we wouldn't have been able to do this," referring to the family's move to California. Meghan, meanwhile, was thought to be worth around £5million when she met Harry - money built up from her time as an actress on Suits and from her lifestyle brand. His tell all book Spare earned Harry a $20m (£15m) advance and sold an incredible 3.2 million copies in its first week. He's expected to have received a further £7m from the hardback sales. Now PR expert Nick Ede is backing Meghan to become the family's breadwinner. He says, 'Meghan is the best way of making money for the two of them. She is the breadwinner.' Nick believes that having to build her own fortune before she met Harry means she's more savvy with deals than her Royal husband. Nick continues: 'Megan from an early age knew it was very important to be secure. If you're a jobbing actress that means you don't know literally where the next pay cheque will come from and I think that will have added to her drive.' Broadcaster and critic Bidisha Mamat agrees with Nick and admits she fears that Harry has a lot to prove. She says: They are going to run out of ideas before they run out of money. Meghan is going to do fine, Meghan is going to make her money, Harry has the bigger financial, personal and emotional challenge. Harry has to prove he really can have a career.' Following the collapse of the Spotify deal, Meghan did indeed land another podcast deal. This time, however, her deal was with smaller company Lemonada and expected to be worth just $40,000 (£30,000). Meghan is also still coining it in from Suits, from which repeats are thought to have recently added another $200,000 to the Sussex bottom line. Indeed, Meghan might be more savvy with money but Harry has just come into another inheritance - this time from his great-grandmother, Elizabeth, Queen Mother. In 1994 the Queen Mother set up a Trust Fund to benefit her great-grand children and this is expected to have paid out £8m to Harry. It's a tidy sum but royal journalist Emily Andrews reckons Harry doesn't contribute much else to his household. She tells the documentary: 'Meghan gets up at half six, half an hour before the children, then the children gets up and she gets them dressed, gets their breakfast, and then she makes their packed lunch and takes them to kindy (nursery), then at 9 o'clock she sits down and is a girl boss… Where is Harry in all of this? He's not making money, he's not looking after the kids, what is Harry doing?' Emily accompanied Harry and Meghan on their tour of Australia in 2018. She recalls how Meghan moaned to Harry that they weren't being paid for their work. Emily says, 'It has just been announced that Meghan was pregnant. I'm inside the Sydney Royal Opera House with Harry and Meghan and they come out. Meghan turns to Harry and looks at the screaming crowds who are waiting for them and says, 'I can't believe I'm not getting paid for this.' I think that speaks to how she viewed her role in the Royal Family.' Since they left the Royal family, the pair have become more famous than ever and commentator Afua Hagan believes the pair will go on to achieve more and more. She says: 'What is clear about Harry and Meghan is that they are very savvy with their money. America is a good spot for them at the moment because it definitely fits in with their idea of entrepreneurship. Harry and Meghan have proven time and time again that they can stand on their own two feet that they can provide for themselves and their family. Definitely we can never count them out.' The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been contacted for comment.
