The Spider-Man Movies Could Have Gone in a Very Different Direction

[Mister Mets]

In the 1980s Cannon Films (which produced B-list horror films) had the option for Spider-Man, and was interesting in adapting the character as a knock-off of Cronenberg's The Fly. They had director Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) on-board, but it just didn't work out.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/spide...1PpPN7fHxENWFg

This is an interesting dodged bullet. Even if it had been terrible, it would have been one of the things that defined Spider-Man.

[Jman27]

ooh that would have hurt the character image immensely for a long time

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In the 1980s Cannon Films (which produced B-list horror films) had the option for Spider-Man, and was interesting in adapting the character as a knock-off of Cronenberg's The Fly. They had director Tobe Hooper (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) on-board, but it just didn't work out.

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/spide...1PpPN7fHxENWFg

This is an interesting dodged bullet. Even if it had been terrible, it would have been one of the things that defined Spider-Man.

Adapting Spider-Man into a horror story is something that David Fincher also wanted to do when he was asked to do it. http://collider.com/david-fincher-spider-man/

Generally outsider directors or genre directors of the '70s and '80s are more solidly deconstructionist. So they won't be interested in adapting Spider-Man "straight". They're more out to break down the concept of hero than anything. You saw this with Josh Trank when he kept bringing up Cronenberg in his time talking up his Fantastic Four.

The French avant-garde director Alain Resnais was a huge admirer and collector of American comic books and he worked with and befriended Stan Lee in the '60s and '70s and tried to get movies made together. Apparently at one point he even considered adapting Spider-Man but he was reluctant (https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/19...on-stavisky/): A script by Stan Lee. I was under the false impression that this was based on Lee’s comic book “Spiderman,” but Resnais explains it is something quite different, then goes on to ruminate about the filmic possibilities of Spiderman: “It’s quite difficult to resolve the problem, because I find that the super-hero — the god or demi-god — is so hard to embody in films. It’s so successful in the comic book form that I don’t know how the cinema could complete with that kind of richness. In this case, you have a super-hero with a lot of misfortunes, who comes down with colds and flunks his exams and takes bad photos, a character with a very fragile personality. Perhaps he could be used in a film if you adopted a particular bias…”

And truth be told it's not a bad idea. Look at Batman, Tim Burton didn't know Batman lore when he made his unique films and that was inspired more by the German Expressionist movies that inspired Finger and others than anything else. Christopher Nolan when talking about Batman kept referring to Fritz Lang movies like Dr. Mabuse when discussing and talking up Joker. Sam Raimi was a unique case of a genre director with solid chops, a strong sensibility, and a genuine liking for the project and concept and mythos. James Gunn is another.

[Alan2099]

If you really want to watch Spider-man: the Horror Movie you need to watch the 2001 movie Earth vs the Spider.

[Snoop Dogg]

don't we have that spider-verse #4 story for this, I'd watch a movie of that

[Huntsman Spider]

If you really want to watch Spider-man: the Horror Movie you need to watch the 2001 movie Earth vs the Spider.

Oh, I've heard of that one. It was part of a series of then-modern versions of 1950s sci-fi/horror movies, I think.

[Hypestyle]

... doesn't seem that would be anything but a project disavowed by Marvel proper if it finally came out. possibly worse than the Roger Corman Fantastic Four.

[Minerboh]

Seems to be a different take of Spidey.
James Cameon wanted to make Spider-Man by going into a pretty strange and mature route.

In his take, there was a scene were Peter wakes up, after the bite, and discovers his bed completely drowned into a weird liquide substance that reminded... semen (seriously).
There were scenes were Peter stalks MJ in her bedroom while she is half naked and there is a pretty steamy sex scene taking place on the roof of the Brooklyn Bridge.

This Spider-Man was also pretty violent and he didn't hold back in profanity. Definitely a R rated material.

It reminded me those early 90's shonen manga more with all the toilet humour and the mature themes that had been following rather than a Spider-Man adaption.

Arnold Svageneger was to play Dr Octopus.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Dr. Octopus would cast Schwarzenegger as him.

... doesn't seem that would be anything but a project disavowed by Marvel proper if it finally came out. possibly worse than the Roger Corman Fantastic Four.

If you consider the context, then it's understandable. At that time, it was understood by companies that since directors didn't have familiarity towards comics as a medium and all, it was expected to give them free reign to do whatever they wanted with the characters. Even allowing them to take things in a parodic vein if so needed, which inevitably is what they would be interested in doing. Film-makers are natural edgelords and deconstructionists. They work so often with commercial genres and so on, that inevitably they are drawn to edgy stuff and pushing an extreme take on the character. There's also a kind of medium jockeying, i.e. movie directors have a certain disrespect to comics so they feel no need to be faithful to it. Especially superhuman stuff.

After the first Superman movie, the later Superman movies had a lot of spoof to it. Jim Shooter likewise tried to get a movie made of the Marvel Universe and he wanted it centered on Dazzler because he thought Disco was a good way to get people interested in. The Hulk TV show for instance made a lot of changes to the character namely renaming him because apparently alliterative names are inherently comic-book like, when in fact you have that in life a fair deal (I mean Steven Spielberg anyone). Tim Burton for instance when he got hold on to Batman took a lot of liberties with the character, but was allowed to because he was doing an extreme version that deliberately overwrote the Adam West TV show in the imagination of people. And since that suited Warner Bros. ideas about Batman, he was given freedom to do so. But then in Batman Returns he went a bit too far, although personally I think that's a great movie (albeit a movie that's about Catwoman more than Batman). LOGAN for instance is very much a movie in that spirit. The director of that movie hated comic books and he went in trying to make the last X-Men movie and taking the character out of the genre. It's a great movie.

Now of course, thanks to the Raimi movies, the Nolan movies (which are quite a bit more faithful to Batman being based on a lot of 90s comics), the Kevin Feige stuff, there's now an expectation that the movies be faithful to the genre or play it straight. Mostly because a lot of comics fans have become film-makers and producers themselves.

[Alan2099]

Now of course, thanks to the Raimi movies, the Nolan movies (which are quite a bit more faithful to Batman being based on a lot of 90s comics), the Kevin Feige stuff, there's now an expectation that the movies be faithful to the genre or play it straight.

I wouldn't say nolan's movies were any more faithful than Keaton's were. They just went in the opposite direction style and mood wise.

[Venomous Mask]

Seems to be a different take of Spidey.
James Cameon wanted to make Spider-Man by going into a pretty strange and mature route.

In his take, there was a scene were Peter wakes up, after the bite, and discovers his bed completely drowned into a weird liquide substance that reminded... semen (seriously).
There were scenes were Peter stalks MJ in her bedroom while she is half naked and there is a pretty steamy sex scene taking place on the roof of the Brooklyn Bridge.

This Spider-Man was also pretty violent and he didn't hold back in profanity. Definitely a R rated material.

It reminded me those early 90's shonen manga more with all the toilet humour and the mature themes that had been following rather than a Spider-Man adaption.

Arnold Svageneger was to play Dr Octopus.

Lol, that's insane. Also, if a horror/mature Spider-Man were to be done in the early the early to mid-90s, maybe he could have been based on the design of the Doppelganger or Man-Spider; a literal arachnid man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I wouldn't say nolan's movies were any more faithful than Keaton's were. They just went in the opposite direction style and mood wise.

I agree. But Nolan's films are more faithful to the comics than Burton's are. He alludes to stuff like Year One, The Long Halloween, parts of The Killing Joke, Knightfall, No Man's Land. Whereas Burton's films take some cues from comics but Burton goes off and does his own thing, especially in Batman Returns. And that's for the best since Burton is a great creator.

[Mister Mets]

Thought of something else... what if this had made money? There probably would have been a lot of sequels. The Lizard or Morbius would be a natural enemy for a horror-tinged Spider-Man.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Thought of something else... what if this had made money? There probably would have been a lot of sequels. The Lizard or Morbius would be a natural enemy for a horror-tinged Spider-Man.

Venom and Carnage moreso since they always did bring a Lovecraftian tinge to Spider-Man, with the symbiotes basically being shoggoths.

IF these movies made money, I can see Marvel being a little more open about alternative and weird takes on the character.

One thing about Batman, is that there are many different versions and many of them different from each other. The Adam West TV show, the Tim Burton movies, the Nolan movies, Zack Snyder, LEGO Batman, the Batman cartoons, the Arkham games. Batman works in both a light hearted vein and a darker vein.

A successful horror take on Spider-Man, might lead to a later adaptation where they make Spider-Man more light-hearted and so on. And you can have a light and dark version of Spider-Man, both successful and both valid.

[Mister Mets]

Venom and Carnage moreso since they always did bring a Lovecraftian tinge to Spider-Man, with the symbiotes basically being shoggoths.

IF these movies made money, I can see Marvel being a little more open about alternative and weird takes on the character.

One thing about Batman, is that there are many different versions and many of them different from each other. The Adam West TV show, the Tim Burton movies, the Nolan movies, Zack Snyder, LEGO Batman, the Batman cartoons, the Arkham games. Batman works in both a light hearted vein and a darker vein.

A successful horror take on Spider-Man, might lead to a later adaptation where they make Spider-Man more light-hearted and so on. And you can have a light and dark version of Spider-Man, both successful and both valid.

The option is in '85, so Venom and Carnage weren't available yet. It's also possible that if the films had come it, there would have been an influence on the comics in a way that prevents the creations of Venom and Carnage.