Don’t get me wrong here, this might be a fabulous book. And I’ll almost certainly pick it up, because that’s all I do: spend money on comic books. But isn’t the very idea of a Daredevil Noir repetitious at best?

I mean, hasn’t Daredevil been a noir book since Frank Miller redefined it in the ’80s? Certainly, the art for Daredevil, starting with Miller, running straight through the current day with Michael Lark’s take has been characterized by the strong emphasis on off-kilter angles, shadows, and thick, dark lines. Which is, you know, noir.

Then there’s the writing, a steady progression of a regular-ish guy in over his head, lured by troubled dame after troubled dame; corruption and crime always one step ahead of him; and an ending that is often far from happy. Again, you know, noir.

So since Daredevil is already a noir, what makes Daredevil Noir any different from the main title?

Well, nothing actually. It takes place in the 1930′s, and some characters have slightly different names. But Daredevil still has heightened senses, he’s still blind, and still fighting crime. This is the same problem I had with Spider-Man Noir, which also took Spider-Man, transplanted him to the 1930′s, and then didn’t really change anything beyond that (essentially… We can certainly split hairs here, but unlike X-Men Noir, which gave a different focus, and new roles for the characters, Spider-Man is still acting like Spider-Man).

The main question that comes out of this is: what is the focus of the Noir line? What is the idea? I like the general concept, and think there’s a lot that can be explored there, but right now, it’s not reaching its full potential… And it certainly doesn’t seem like it will get there with Daredevil Noir.

Or maybe it will? Again, I haven’t read the book yet, so this is all speculation. If I’m wrong, you can shoot me right in the back, ya dirty cowards.