Should James Cameron have made Spider-Man?

This is pretty interesting. Apparantly James Cameron was all set to direct a Spider-Man movie in the late 90's but ultimately couldn't secure the rights to the picture. There is treatment online as well as an illustrated one. There is also an interview with Howard Stern where he briefly touches on the subject (skip to 0:38 to hear it). Apparantly he wanted Leonado DiCaprio to star in the film. Not sure what to think of that.

I'm very curious to see what Cameron would have done with Spider-Man. His skills with CGI would have been ideal for the movie. The man can also direct an action scene as good as anyone. The question remains whether it was better than Sam Rami got his hands on the picture instead. I like Raimi's Spider-Man movies quite alot (especially the second) so I'm not angry with the way things turned out.

What is everyones thoughts?

Spider-Man is an incredibly boring superhero with, for the most part, incredibly boring super villains. The movies would've been mediocre at best in anyone's hands, Cameron or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Spider-Man is an incredibly boring superhero with, for the most part, incredibly boring super villains. The movies would've been mediocre at best in anyone's hands, Cameron or otherwise.

---

You're dead to me.

I don't think I'd want to see it though. I have tremendous respect for what James Cameron has done over the years, particularly his earlier stuff, but I think Rami's style was a better fit even if it meant they had their campy moments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Spider-Man is an incredibly boring superhero with, for the most part, incredibly boring super villains. The movies would've been mediocre at best in anyone's hands, Cameron or otherwise.

---

You're dead to me.

---

One more satisfied customer.

I'm with Bunny. Spider-man is pretty much the lamest out of the famous superheroes.

Also I though this was about the British PM when I the thread title. Then I realized his name is not James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Spider-Man is an incredibly boring superhero with, for the most part, incredibly boring super villains. The movies would've been mediocre at best in anyone's hands, Cameron or otherwise.

---

He's kind of the butt of the Marvel universe. He actually gets some cool moments now and then, mostly when he gets pissed off and shuts the smurf up though.

When I look for superheroes, I look for those who are made of 100% muscle and badass. I don't want some pansy man in tights who shoots webs out of his hands and crawls around like a spider on the side of buildings.

I want someone with metal for bones who claws his way through buildings and facekicks anyone who gets in his way. That's a smurfing superhero.

Spiderman is like... a superchild.

Todd McFarlane did some Spider-Man before, even that you don't like?

Or when they killed Gwen Stacy.

Everyone sucks balls compared to Deadpool though.

Hm, smells like troll in this thread.

Anyway, I don't think Cameron would be a good fit for Spider-Man. I think he should do an Aquaman movie though. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Todd McFarlane did some Spider-Man before, even that you don't like?

Or when they killed Gwen Stacy.

Everyone sucks balls compared to Deadpool though.

---

When you reminded me that McFarlane did SM I was like 'oh yeah he did'

then I promptly forgot what TM's SM was all about.

So to answer your question: yes, we don't like Spiderman.

When they killed Gwen Stacy, that was the biggest comic book physics blunder ever. Died of shock my ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Hm, smells like troll in this thread.

---

That's just my cologne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Hm, smells like troll in this thread.

---

That's just my cologne.

---

what are you doing with cool logs?

Still better than Superman.

I think Superman is better than you give him credit for. The first two Superman movies were awesome and Returns wasn't that bad either. I would look forward to the new movie but Zack Synder is directing so.......eh.

I don't know why everyone seems to rip on the Spiderman movies, especially the style. I loved the cheesy comic book style first movie, and the second film was just better in general.

The first two Spiderman movies are my favourite superhero movies ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

I think Superman is better than you give him credit for. The first two Superman movies were awesome and Returns wasn't that bad either. I would look forward to the new movie but Zack Synder is directing so.......eh.

---

I actually meant the character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crop

I don't know why everyone seems to rip on the Spiderman movies, especially the style. I loved the cheesy comic book style first movie, and the second film was just better in general.

The first two Spiderman movies are my favourite superhero movies ever.

---

Probably has something to do with not everyone having the same opinion as you and cheesy comicbook movies being kinda bad.

I also liked the first two Spider-Man movies. Spider-Man is my favorite comic book character. While I'm not a fan of Tobey Maguire's acting, I do think the movies were entertaining as a whole.

Spiderman 2 is still the best comic book movie ever. It didn't try and play with the audience. You got Spiderman. You got a villain. You got action. You got a great movie.

Nolans Batman movies on the other hand relied too heavily on sophisticated characters and story that it kind of zapped the fun out of Superhero movies. The new Spiderman will follow suit, and I'm sure the new X-men movie will too. Shame.

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

---

I have nothing against the Nolans Batman movies I just think they have influenced the genre in a negative way. Punchy comic book movies like Spiderman 2 are going to be replaced by arthouse movies essentially.

I like my comic book movies to be filled with two-dimensional characters where good and bad is clearly defined. Those movies are usually more fun and aren't stretching 3 hours in length.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

---

I have nothing against the Nolans Batman movies I just think they have influenced the genre in a negative way. Punchy comic book movies like Spiderman 2 are going to be replaced by arthouse movies essentially.

---

So box office busting action movies with a little more plot and dialogue than what we're used to are arthouse movies now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

---

I have nothing against the Nolans Batman movies I just think they have influenced the genre in a negative way. Punchy comic book movies like Spiderman 2 are going to be replaced by arthouse movies essentially.

---

So box office busting action movies with a little more plot and dialogue than what we're used to are arthouse movies now?

---

Take another look at Batman Begins. It is essentially an arthouse movie dressed up at a summer blockbuster. Although anything that assosiated it with summer blockbusters was handled poorly. Neither Batman films had any thrilling action setpieces if I recall. Some good acting though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

---

I have nothing against the Nolans Batman movies I just think they have influenced the genre in a negative way. Punchy comic book movies like Spiderman 2 are going to be replaced by arthouse movies essentially.

I like my comic book movies to be filled with two-dimensional characters where good and bad is clearly defined. Those movies are usually more fun and aren't stretching 3 hours in length.

---

No wonder you liked Avatar.

Oh snap. It's gettin' personal up ins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Yes, who wants sophisticated characters and story after all. And if you want 'fun' Batman, go and watch the 1960s TV series.

---

I have nothing against the Nolans Batman movies I just think they have influenced the genre in a negative way. Punchy comic book movies like Spiderman 2 are going to be replaced by arthouse movies essentially.

I like my comic book movies to be filled with two-dimensional characters where good and bad is clearly defined. Those movies are usually more fun and aren't stretching 3 hours in length.

---

No wonder you liked Avatar.

---

I was specifically talking about comic book movies in this case. But your right, I did like Avatar. Believe it or not that movie, with all its wooden dialogue and two-dimensional characters, has a leg up over a lot of movies.

I thought movies were about storytelling not just pretty visuals. My bad.

If you want a story, read a book.

Shut up, Alex.

Christopher Nolan should just make all the super hero movies, but I don't think he can make any Superman movie good. Too lame of a super hero.