ceterisparibus116

[ceterisparibus116]

YESSSS

that one deborah ann woll interview talking about krysten ritter coming back in born again and she's like "yeah i'm super excited I never get to interact with women" CLOCK ITTT

[ceterisparibus116]

Charlie Cox on the set of Daredevil Born Again Season 2

[ceterisparibus116]

BLOODSTAINS?

Charlie Cox on set of Daredevil: Born Again S2

not mine!!! but this came across my FYP on TikTok and uhhhhhh had to share, I couldn’t find these photos anywhere on tumblr

all credit to https://www.tiktok.com/@jess__00_?_t=ZP-8xAyqDZYlep&_r=1 (if you see this and you want me to take this down I can!!!)

[ceterisparibus116]

Thank you. That take absolutely baffles me. If Foggy were Matt's moral compass, Matt wouldn't be Daredevil and would probably still be working at L&Z!

people saying foggy is matt’s moral compass is so funny. matt is his own moral compass, that’s why he is the way he is. foggy is his anchor, on the other hand. his normal human person to compliment and contrast all of matt’s… matt-ness. he’s the realism to matt’s ideals. foggy is his own moral compass as well, but matt is the magnet that guides it, i’d say

[ceterisparibus116]

Did you mean...Matt Murdock?

And Karen Page?

The most human thing a character can do is contradict themselves.

The cynic who still carries a childhood stuffed animal.

The liar who craves honesty.

The overthinker who makes reckless decisions.

The heartbreaker who believes in soulmates.

The pacifist who holds lifelong grudges.

The tough guy who cries during old movies.

The thrill-seeker who's terrified of commitment.

The grump who’s unfailingly polite to waitstaff.

People aren’t consistent. Your characters shouldn’t be either.

[ceterisparibus116]

Heck yeah lol.

YOU want to see that man in a fit of despair. I also would like that but I want him in a church about it

[ceterisparibus116]

I wanna go to a training session with them.

i’m fucking ready for season 2

[ceterisparibus116]

DAREDEVIL 1.12 | The Ones We Leave Behind 2.10 | The Man in the Box 3.01 | Resurrection

[ceterisparibus116]

love this parallel between them

the absolute crux of the kastle bond is that they were both the protectors/providers of their families and they both carry around the guilt and blame of failing that responsibility. it's why karen starts crying literally anytime he starts talking about his family and how they were better off without him, she's not just being empathetic she knows from experience how it feels (she's the guy that jumps down in the hole with you because she's been there before and knows the way out)

[ceterisparibus116]

MY BELOVED!

Eeep!

[ceterisparibus116]

My guy!!!

wilson bethel as benjamin “dex” poindexter aka bullseye on the set of daredevil born again season two tonight

[ceterisparibus116]

One of my fav things about 2.05 is Deb's choice to have Karen biting her lip and watch Matt's lips while he talks.

Girl same.

[ceterisparibus116]

Yay I love reasoning! XD

I'll focus on watsonian reasoning for now.

My parents (both clinical psychologists) like to say: "Opposites attract, but commonality stays together." So let's talk about what Matt and Karen have in common.

Values: Matt and Karen both intensely value justice, and value it to a degree that requires them to take action. Both of them regularly risk their lives (and their careers) in their pursuit of justice and bristle at being told to stay on the sidelines. Related to that, both of them oppose killing; Karen is willing to do it in the Westley situation, but is clearly not settled within herself about whether that was the right thing to do, and she warns Matt against going down the same path, and Matt, of course, agrees. However, neither of them is opposed to manipulation, whether that's indirect (like Karen threatening Jasper Evans) or direct (like Matt torturing people into talking).

Weaknesses: Matt and Karen have incredibly similar weaknesses. Both struggle with honesty - Matt obviously keeps Daredevil a secret, but Karen also keeps Westley and her brother a secret. Both lie to the other to protect themselves from the other's possible judgment. Both also lie to the other to try to keep the other safe. With Matt this is perhaps more obvious, but we see Karen lying to Matt to protect him when she lies about keeping the Union Allied file. Related to that, both Matt and Karen are terrified by the thought of other people being hurt "because of them," which leads them to lie as well as to run off and do things in secret that cause the people they love to worry about them.

Joy: what brings these two characters joy? They genuinely enjoy each other's company in numerous aspects. Matt loves listening to her voice, laughs at her jokes, and is happy (perhaps even turned on) to see her succeed in her career as a journalist. Karen loves looking at Matt, laughs at his jokes, and is happy (and definitely turned on) when he succeeds in his career as a lawyer (see that one scene in the end of S1 if you're in doubt). They enjoy working together to secure justice, like when they worked together on cross questions for the Castle trial. They enjoy the "cheap stuff," like cheap, hidden restaurants and takeout. They love the city and all its hidden/unique features. They really enjoy intellectual/philosophical conversations - obviously either one of them can get tripped up when the conversation suddenly becomes too personal and if one of them is not being honest with the other, but still. It's not hard to imagine what they would do in their day-to-day lives to enjoy each other.

Equality: goodness, these two can spark off each other so well! They can go toe-to-toe in the aforementioned intellectual/philosophical debates, and neither is outgunned.

Respect: their appreciation of the other's similar values is also what leads them to respect each other. Karen desperately wants Matt to think of her as innocent; Matt desperately wants Karen to think of him as competent and good. This is significant because both of them are characters who are more than comfortable at aggravating other people; they're definitely not people-pleasers! But the approval of the other means everything to them. This is also why they will actually listen to each other. We see how much it means for Karen in DDS3 when Matt assures her that he thinks she was brave in how she handled Westley; we see it in how Matt in DDBA backs off from what would otherwise be a suicide mention when she warns him against it.

They of course also have their differences, but those differences are complementary, rather than fundamental.

I'm a very inquisitive person and because I don't ship anyone in Daredevil, I was wondering what makes y'all ship people, particularly Matt and Karen.

Hit me up with your thoughts, your reasoning (:

[ceterisparibus116]

DAREDEVIL (S2.E05, S3.E11, S2.E05,S1.E13, S1.E11)

DAREDEVIL: BORN AGAIN, S1.E09

[ceterisparibus116]

daredevil 1x08 | 2x11 | 3x11 (sensing a pattern here)

[ceterisparibus116]

Ooh, I did not remember hearing the resolution to the appeal! Thank you so much, @appellatedefender!

I have to admit, it's still kind of bugging me that we don't know how Fisk got out of prison and has a restored reputation since DD season 3.

Responding to you and @ladymaigrey who also asked about this: yes, it's frustrating and feels too comic-book-ish.

I might pick up on more details as I rewatch the show. But my understanding at this point is:

He's appealing his charges and/or sentence from S1; and

He was acquitted of his charges from S3.

The implications of this are huge.

First, if Fisk successfully appeals his charges, that would mean the prosecutor would likely have to start over and present the case again. It's possible that the prosecutor would simply not do so because it would be too much work, because it would be against public opinion, because Fisk bought them off...maybe the appeal would be based on bad decisions from a judge, and the prosecutor knows that Fisk has bought the judges off, so bringing the case again is fruitless...maybe it's just that Fisk's lawyers have so much money that they bury the prosecutor's office in frivolous motions and the prosecutor can't justify spending so much of their budget on one man....

As for his charges from S3, an acquittal means Fisk went to trial and the jury found him not guilty. Which, oh my goodness. If the reason he was acquitted was "because of the FBI," that suggests that the jury...got confused, and thought the FBI's corruption meant Fisk wasn't guilty? Or perhaps the jury was pissed and engaged in jury nullification and acquitted Fisk because they were angry at the FBI's corruption? Or perhaps the jury just hates prosecution and will always find any defendant guilty because they think the system is broken, and that got interpreted as an acquittal because of FBI corruption? Or maybe someone in the jury was bought off, and persuaded everyone else to acquit, and then claimed that it was because of the FBI to hide the fact that they were bought off?

Lots of options, really.

And I am fascinated by the idea of Fisk being acquitted. I love juries, but goodness, they are just twelve random people and they they can be dumb. The average reading level in the U.S. is 7th-8th grade. The average attention span of an adult is 45 seconds. Jurors can completely fail to connect two logical points; they can stop paying attention and miss key information; they can conflate issues; etc.

Juries can (and do) also choose the absolute wierdest possible hills to die on and think jury duty is an opportunity to make some kind of statement. "I hate the FBI [or the police or prosecution or The Government™ or whatever] and therefore I'm going to find this person not guilty" is absolutely a thing that happens.

I love juries, I really do, and I would never want to replace our jury system with anything else. But they are fallible.

[ceterisparibus116]

I have to admit, it's still kind of bugging me that we don't know how Fisk got out of prison and has a restored reputation since DD season 3.

Responding to you and @ladymaigrey who also asked about this: yes, it's frustrating and feels too comic-book-ish.

I might pick up on more details as I rewatch the show. But my understanding at this point is:

He's appealing his charges and/or sentence from S1; and

He was acquitted of his charges from S3.

The implications of this are huge.

First, if Fisk successfully appeals his charges, that would mean the prosecutor would likely have to start over and present the case again. It's possible that the prosecutor would simply not do so because it would be too much work, because it would be against public opinion, because Fisk bought them off...maybe the appeal would be based on bad decisions from a judge, and the prosecutor knows that Fisk has bought the judges off, so bringing the case again is fruitless...maybe it's just that Fisk's lawyers have so much money that they bury the prosecutor's office in frivolous motions and the prosecutor can't justify spending so much of their budget on one man....

As for his charges from S3, an acquittal means Fisk went to trial and the jury found him not guilty. Which, oh my goodness. If the reason he was acquitted was "because of the FBI," that suggests that the jury...got confused, and thought the FBI's corruption meant Fisk wasn't guilty? Or perhaps the jury was pissed and engaged in jury nullification and acquitted Fisk because they were angry at the FBI's corruption? Or perhaps the jury just hates prosecution and will always find any defendant guilty because they think the system is broken, and that got interpreted as an acquittal because of FBI corruption? Or maybe someone in the jury was bought off, and persuaded everyone else to acquit, and then claimed that it was because of the FBI to hide the fact that they were bought off?

Lots of options, really.

And I am fascinated by the idea of Fisk being acquitted. I love juries, but goodness, they are just twelve random people and they they can be dumb. The average reading level in the U.S. is 7th-8th grade. The average attention span of an adult is 45 seconds. Jurors can completely fail to connect two logical points; they can stop paying attention and miss key information; they can conflate issues; etc.

Juries can (and do) also choose the absolute wierdest possible hills to die on and think jury duty is an opportunity to make some kind of statement. "I hate the FBI [or the police or prosecution or The Government™ or whatever] and therefore I'm going to find this person not guilty" is absolutely a thing that happens.

I love juries, I really do, and I would never want to replace our jury system with anything else. But they are fallible.