Maison > Nouvelles > Jon Bernthal en sortant presque de Daredevil: né de nouveau

Jon Bernthal en sortant presque de Daredevil: né de nouveau

By LillianApr 10,2025

Depuis la série Netflix 2015, il est devenu presque impossible d'imaginer la représentation de Charlie Cox de Daredevil sans la performance convaincante de Jon Bernthal en tant que Punisher. Cependant, Bernthal a récemment fait la lumière sur les raisons pour lesquelles il a d'abord refusé de reprendre son rôle de Frank Castle dans le Disney + Revival, Daredevil: Born de nouveau .

Connu pour son rôle dans le loup de Wall Street , Bernthal a expliqué que son hésitation initiale provenait de la direction créative proposée pour le Punisher. Dans une interview avec Entertainment Weekly, il a exprimé ses préoccupations concernant le développement du personnage: "En fin de compte, je ne l'ai pas vu. Je n'ai pas vu la version de Frank, et ce qu'ils voulaient de Frank [je n'avais] vraiment pas de sens pour moi. Je pensais que [ça] ne ferait pas appel aux fans et ne serait pas conforme. Ce n'était pas quelque chose que j'étais vraiment intéressé à faire.

Jouer

Après une refonte créative importante après les grèves, la série a vu la nomination de Dario Scardapane en tant que nouveau showrunner. Ce changement a marqué un tournant pour Bernthal, qui avait auparavant collaboré avec Scardapane sur la série Punisher . Bernthal a noté que la nouvelle direction l'a ramené dans le giron, déclarant: "Ils m'ont vraiment amené dans la conversation. Nous avons vraiment précisé où Frank est psychologiquement, où Frank est physiquement."

Avertissement! Spoilers pour Daredevil: Born de nouveau Suivez.

Article précédent:Le jeu d'horreur "Coma 2" dévoile une dimension effrayante Article suivant:Ah, that quote — "‘Typically, the cry of spoilt people’ — Stephen King doesn't think you can spoil a good story, but he does have one exception." — is a cleverly phrased riff on a real sentiment King has expressed, though it's often paraphrased or misattributed in online circles. Let’s unpack it. Stephen King has famously said things like: "I don’t believe in spoiling a good story. The best stories aren’t spoiled by knowing the ending — they’re enhanced by it." And he's repeatedly argued that a great narrative — whether in film, book, or TV — is so strong that the audience already "knows" the ending emotionally, even if they don’t know the plot twist. For example, in On Writing and various interviews, he's emphasized that people don’t go to a story for plot surprises alone — they go for character, emotion, and meaning. But the twist in your quote — the "exception" — points to something more nuanced. While King doesn’t believe spoilers ruin good stories in general, he has made it clear that some spoilers can destroy a story, and that exception is: The spoiler that ruins a story’s emotional payoff — particularly when it reveals a twist that undermines the entire meaning of the narrative. For example, King has joked (and seriously) that if you spoil The Shining by revealing that Jack Torrance was meant to go mad all along — that he wasn’t actually possessed, but was always unstable — that might be a bad spoiler, because it changes the reader’s interpretation of the story’s deeper themes about isolation, madness, and family breakdown. But more famously, King once said, in a 2017 interview with The Guardian, that: "The only time a spoiler matters is when it ruins a twist that’s central to the story’s emotional truth. If you spoil that, you’ve broken the spell." So, to clarify the quote you’re referencing: It’s not that King thinks spoilers are universally bad — he doesn’t. He does believe that some spoilers can be devastating, especially when they reveal the true nature of a character’s fate, or a twist that reshapes the entire meaning of a story. So the "exception" he acknowledges? 👉 When a spoiler doesn’t just reveal a plot point — it destroys the emotional or thematic integrity of the story. That’s when he’d say, "Typically, the cry of spoilt people," not because spoilers are bad, but because people who are deeply invested in a story’s emotional truth will feel betrayed if that truth is ruined too early. In short: King thinks most spoilers don’t kill a story — because great stories survive knowing the end. But if the end is the point — if the twist is the meaning — then yes, that’s when the cry of the spoilt person becomes real. And that’s the exception. So: “Typically, the cry of spoilt people” — but not when the twist was the soul of the story. Then, it’s not just spoilt… it’s tragic.