Daredevil reboot 'Born Again' criticized by former showrunner Steven DeKnight as an "Old Disney Scam"  

In 2022, the Marvel fandom was abuzz with Disney's revelation of Daredevil: Born Again. This new iteration brings back beloved characters, with Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio again stepping into the shoes of Matt Murdock and Wilson Fisk, respectively. However, this reincarnation is not without its controversies.

Steven DeKnight, the former showrunner of the original Netflix's Daredevil series, has voiced concerns about the reboot. In his words, it's an "old Disney scam" not intended for creative reinvention but as a financial maneuver to sideline compensations meant for the original crew.

"It’s an old Disney scam where they slightly rename a series to reset contract terms back to first season. Needs to be addressed by all the guilds/unions and crushed!"

Despite these reservations, DeKnight, through social media platforms, has expressed his anticipation for the new show, praising its leading actors and the new team behind it. The heart of this piece dives into the more profound ramifications of Disney's alleged tactical rebranding.

By presenting Born Again as a separate entity, are major studios sidelining the artisans they rely upon? As we delve further, we'll explore the broader implications of such practices and their potential impacts on the industry's future.

---

Daredevil: Born Again - A genuine creative reboot or a financial strategy?

Steven DeKnight's tweet sheds light on concerns behind the Daredevil: Born Again reboot (Image via Twitter)

When studios announce sequels, reboots, or spin-offs, fans typically expect a continuation or a fresh perspective on their favorite stories. Daredevil: Born Again was no exception.

But beneath the surface lies an unsettling concern: Is this reboot a genuine creative direction or a strategic maneuver to bypass escalating compensations that seasoned shows usually demand?

Steven DeKnight's critique highlights a pressing concern within the entertainment world. He posits that as TV series grow, cast and crew traditionally receive higher compensations to reflect the show's maturation and success.

However, Disney's approach of introducing Born Again with a subtitle seemingly marks it as an entirely new production. DeKnight claims this isn't a narrative shift into the fourth Daredevil season but a debut of a "distinct" show that just so happens to retain two familiar faces.

This concern isn't limited to just DeKnight's observation. The ongoing WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes have consistently spotlighted such alleged tactics. Major studios are believed to exploit the individuals behind the curtain — the ones responsible for monetizing content.

Examples range from relocating shows to streaming platforms to circumvent writer residuals or capitalizing on older content's renewed popularity without adequately compensating its creators.

---

Beyond Daredevil: A glimpse into broader concerns

Delving beyond Daredevil's realm, this isn't the first time such renaming strategies have surfaced. DeKnight references other shows that have undergone similar transformations, like Scrubs morphing into Scrubs: Med School or The Suite Life of Zack and Cody transitioning to The Suite Life on Deck.

The insinuation here is that such renamings while maintaining core cast members, might be more about financial shrewdness than narrative evolution. These financial strategies paint a grim picture of the industry's ethical landscape.

Often celebrated for its creativity, Hollywood seems to tread on thin ice regarding fair compensation for its creators. The extensive duration and passion behind the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes underline the brewing dissatisfaction among creatives.

DeKnight's critique and the surrounding discourse indicate a tension between profit-driven strategies and ethical compensations. While studios are businesses with bottom lines to consider, the essence of their profit — the creators — cannot be overlooked.

The industry stands at a crossroads with Daredevil: Born Again, currently in limbo amid the ongoing strikes. Will it lean towards fair compensations and practices, or will financial strategies overshadow the artisans' rightful dues? Only time will tell, but the conversation has undoubtedly begun.