WI: Spider-Man Movie in 1989/Early 1990s

[Emperor Norton I]

When Batman came out in 1989, it was a massive cultural event, and Bob Kane ribbed Stan Lee by asking where the Spider-Man movie was.

Inspired by that, what if the initiative was taken to make a Spider-Man movie to compete with the new Batman film franchise either in 1989, or afterward in the early 1990s? For the rather complex story of the film rights and who they bounced between, and the ideas that started and stopped, I'll link to this.

Spider-Man would have the potential to be as big as Batman was, and were it, it would have started a competition between Warner Bros. and the studio that made it, possibly jump starting superhero films in the 1990s.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

http://moviehole.net/201257202aside...ch-other-80s-actors-nearly-played-superheroes

 

[Tom Colton]

Alternatively, they could have put in more effort to the 1990 Captain America movie. There's nothing incredibly wrong with the storyline (mostly) but it's clear that their budget was dramatically less than Batman's.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Alternatively, they could have put in more effort to the 1990 Captain America movie. There's nothing incredibly wrong with the storyline (mostly) but it's clear that their budget was dramatically less than Batman's.

The problem with Marvel's OTL outings (limited as they were) was that they either put their eggs into the low budget, schlock basket, or meandered where nothing got done until it actually did per the OTL. I remember those discussions in the 90s of "Oh, they're gonna make a [insert superhero] movie, and [rumor, rumor, rumor]". Luckily, those things where they meandered would have often ended up lock budget schlock just like Captain America. I don't have faith in Cannon to do a great Spider-Man film by that point in it's life, for example (although probably better than Captain America was).

The thing is that if they're going to do a superhero, they should have done Spider-Man; he's Marvel's big star. But he also should have been done by a better studio. Say we get to April 1990, Cannon hasn't made the film and the rights revert to Marvel. From there, a production company or studio interested in competing with Batman comes knocking who can actually carry through, and the film gets made with a reasonably well written script, directing, and a reasonable budget for a film like that. The niche was totally there, but they just dropped the ball on it. Let's say Columbia gets Spider-Man in 1990, and we skip the whole ordeal with Carolco Pictures. Columbia would get a bankable film franchise out of that.

EDIT:

Personally, I also think Michael J Fox would make a good Spider-Man for the period. Or maybe Emilio Estevez.

 

[Glass Onion]

I asked this question awhile ago, and the consensus was that the technical limitations would doom any effort to produce a Spider-Man film before Raimi. Spider-Man is hard to pull off with late 1980's early 1990's special effects. I'm mostly thinking about the effect of him swinging from building to building. It would probably look really bad and the earlier the film is made, the worse it will look.

I am interested in which directors you are thinking of. Out of curiosity why do you think Michael J. Fox and Emilio Estevez would fit the part well?

 

[usertron2020]

I asked this question awhile ago, and the consensus was that the technical limitations would doom any effort to produce a Spider-Man film before Raimi. Spider-Man is hard to pull off with late 1980's early 1990's special effects. I'm mostly thinking about the effect of him swinging from building to building. It would probably look really bad and the earlier the film is made, the worse it will look.

Agreed. Look way way back to the fitfully produced TV series of Spiderman in the 1970s. The special effects were so bad you might as well have done the thing animated.

 

[theReturner]

I think it really hinges on if you can do a Spider-Man film without CGI. I mean, CGI existed in the late 80's/early 90's, but I don't think people really took it seriously until after Jurassic Park. I'm not sure if practical effects could cover Spidey swinging from building to building or shooting web.

 

[Glass Onion]

Agreed. Look way way back to the fitfully produced TV series of Spiderman in the 1970s. The special effects were so bad you might as well have done the thing animated.

I'm not sure when the technical limitations are no longer fatal or at least prohibitively expensive, and the extent to which a decent enough film could be released prior to 2002. I've never seen the Spider-Man show from the 1970's so I'll take your word on how bad the show was.

From a practical effect stand point I think the biggest difficulty would come from having him swing from building to building. But then, I'm not a special effects expert and while I would expect the "climbs up walls" effect would be theoretically doable with non CGI effects, I could easily be wrong about that conclusion.

 

[Tom Colton]

I think it really hinges on if you can do a Spider-Man film without CGI. I mean, CGI existed in the late 80's/early 90's, but I don't think people really took it seriously until after Jurassic Park. I'm not sure if practical effects could cover Spidey swinging from building to building or shooting web.

Batman managed fine, but Batman only ever moves in one dimension at a time while employing his grappling-hook pistol.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I don't know where to find it but there was a test reel of the stunts or some sort of indie film or something, web swinging and all, and they did pull it off. At least to the degree that an 80s/90s film would showcase such a thing. The trick is not to linger, and to give the impression something more is going on.

 

[usertron2020]

I'm not sure when the technical limitations are no longer fatal or at least prohibitively expensive, and the extent to which a decent enough film could be released prior to 2002. I've never seen the Spider-Man show from the 1970's so I'll take your word on how bad the show was.

You're not missing a damn thing. The middle to late 1960s Independent-produced (not by one of the Big Three Networks) Spiderman cartoon had better production values, AND better writing (mostly borrowed scripts from the comics).

All you saw in the 70s TV show was an obviously terrified (behind his mask) actor and/or stuntman hanging on for dear life on a building terrace. Rarely, a "webbing" shot out obviously made of cheap white rope. Rotten rotten acting and writing.

From a practical effect stand point I think the biggest difficulty would come from having him swing from building to building. But then, I'm not a special effects expert and while I would expect the "climbs up walls" effect would be theoretically doable with non CGI effects, I could easily be wrong about that conclusion.

Considering what happened to Tobey Maguire's back, I'd think that insurance companies back in the 70s and 80s wouldn't even allow such stunts. During the filming of "Splash" in 1983/84, Disney could not get an insurance company to allow Darryl Hannah and Tom Hanks to do the diving scene into the Hudson River, so they had to use stunt doubles shot up with gamma globulin, because of all the microbial bugs they could catch.

 

[Glass Onion]

You're not missing a damn thing. The middle to late 1960s Independent-produced (not by one of the Big Three Networks) Spiderman cartoon had better production values, AND better writing (mostly borrowed scripts from the comics).

All you saw in the 70s TV show was an obviously terrified (behind his mask) actor and/or stuntman hanging on for dear life on a building terrace. Rarely, a "webbing" shot out obviously made of cheap white rope. Rotten rotten acting and writing.



Considering what happened to Tobey Maguire's back, I'd think that insurance companies back in the 70s and 80s wouldn't even allow such stunts. During the filming of "Splash" in 1983/84, Disney could not get an insurance company to allow Darryl Hannah and Tom Hanks to do the diving scene into the Hudson River, so they had to use stunt doubles shot up with gamma globulin, because of all the microbial bugs they could catch.

Well I don't think the wall crawling stunt would be particularly dangerous, as that would presumably invoice involve filming the stuntman crawling across a replica of the wall on the floor and assorted models and camera tricks to create the illusion he's climbing up rather than across. With a decent enough budget, that might just be doable.

Webswinging would be much more difficult. From a practical effect standpoint I suppose the closest thing to it was flight in Superman. I think creating the illusion of web web swinging will be what flight was to Superman, an endlessly complicated and ever more expensive drain on the budget. I don't want to underestimate the ability of the special effects wizards of the day, but creating the illusion of web swinging will be even harder than making Superman fly. Insurance could prevent the stunt, which would mean no film at all. However, because Spider-Man wears a mask, you really just need a stunt double who's vaguely the lead actors shape for most of his scenes including the stunts. Since I don't think the lead actor would spend much time in costume, I also don't think he would be at much risk of injury.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

You can get those web swinging's done. My theory would be ample use of blue screen, and ample use of suspension from a crane, and ample use of camera angles, probably mixed with blue screen, mixed with filler effects where they actually have the actor swing himself, etc. It all builds up to the illusion. And remember, this is the 80s/90s; special effects are special things. They aren't a constant barrage; so you'll see enough to get the point. And it's simple enough an effect to swing from a rope, which would be the majority of it besides the one scene where he swings really high or the one scene where he does some stunt or whatever it may be.

And whatever they can't do, they do as much as they can, and infer more.

EDIT:

For practical, non-digital Spider-Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK-LPEtbajQ

 

[usertron2020]

Well I don't think the wall crawling stunt would be particularly dangerous, as that would presumably invoice involve filming the stuntman crawling across a replica of the wall on the floor and assorted models and camera tricks to create the illusion he's climbing up rather than across. With a decent enough budget, that might just be doable.

Apparently, the 1970s TV series wanted a "more real" effect by having all the outdoor scenes done in broad daylight in live action. Plus, I REALLY don't think they had the $$$ for special effects beyond the poor guy's costume. Hard to believe it was being done by a network.

Webswinging would be much more difficult. From a practical effect standpoint I suppose the closest thing to it was flight in Superman. I think creating the illusion of web web swinging will be what flight was to Superman, an endlessly complicated and ever more expensive drain on the budget. I don't want to underestimate the ability of the special effects wizards of the day, but creating the illusion of web swinging will be even harder than making Superman fly. Insurance could prevent the stunt, which would mean no film at all. However, because Spider-Man wears a mask, you really just need a stunt double who's vaguely the lead actors shape for most of his scenes including the stunts. Since I don't think the lead actor would spend much time in costume, I also don't think he would be at much risk of injury.

I don't think blue screen technology existed much earlier than CGI, and duplicating Superman is easy. He simply flies from point a to point b and any aerial camera can duplicate those shots. Then you ramp up the speed of the film and have the actor split screen into the film. Even in the 50s TV series and 40s movie serials they were able to have Superman do this.

But you never saw him fight in mid-air...except in Superman II. And those Superman vs. the Kryptonians mid-air encounters were in fact the worst special effects in an otherwise outstanding movie. At least though Superman can fly, mid-air pivot, and float in the air holding his position wherever he wishes. VERY very few superheroes can do that feat.

Imagine with this tech trying to do Wonder Woman...which is why you never saw Linda Carter in the 70s TV series doing stunts off the wings of her Invisible Plane, a common action WW does in the comics.

You can get those web swinging's done. My theory would be ample use of blue screen, and ample use of suspension from a crane, and ample use of camera angles, probably mixed with blue screen, mixed with filler effects where they actually have the actor swing himself, etc. It all builds up to the illusion. And remember, this is the 80s/90s; special effects are special things. They aren't a constant barrage; so you'll see enough to get the point. And it's simple enough an effect to swing from a rope, which would be the majority of it besides the one scene where he swings really high or the one scene where he does some stunt or whatever it may be.

And whatever they can't do, they do as much as they can, and infer more.

EDIT:

For practical, non-digital Spider-Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK-LPEtbajQ

Notice he is only going from point a to point b? NOT engaging, say, Doctor Octopus?

I've seen the Spiderman play on Broadway, and I know full well the risks they took everyday in that show. Lots of extras in Spiderman costumes. Lots of broken bones. And I don't think the Screen Extras Guild and Hollywood's stuntmen would be very happy with the making of that movie so early in the development of screen magic.

 

[Glass Onion]

Since Cannon's take would be terrible by default the most direct route I see open for a 1990's Spider-Man is to somehow save the James Cameron Spider-Man project.

Yes I know, the James Cameron Spider-Man script floating around is awful but that script doesn't appear to be the film Cameron actually would have made if given the opportunity as the details of the script bear no resemblance to the plot outline Cameron wrote in 1991.


How can Cameron's project be saved from development hell? And if it were made, when may it have been released?

 

[Glass Onion]

Having done a little more research, the legal mess that was the Cameron Spider-Man film appears to have had a variety of major components.

The first lawsuit had to do with the fact that Cameron's contract gave him control of the credits. As a consequence of that, Golan, the man who would have been the producer of a Cannon Spider-Man film, and was still ostensibly a producer of the Cameron project, was not being mentioned in any trade publications as a producer of the film nor was he expected to receive a producers credit.

The next series of lawsuits occurred because when Cannon sold the rights to Spider-Man, they sold the film, TV and home video rights to three different companies. The film rights went to Carolco, the Television rights went to Viacom, and the home video rights went to Columbia pictures. Carolco sued to obtain those rights from each of those companies and both of those companies countersued Carolco. Carolco went bankrupt, and the project died.

There were a lot more lawsuits than just those. MGM sued for fraud with the original Cannon deal, and Fox sued because they felt that Cameron was violating yet another contract he had with them.


Leaving aside the special effects issue for the moment, this is a big problem with having a 1990's Spider-Man film made. How do you resolve that legal mess?

Now since the project wasn't yet in production in 1993 when the lawsuits started flying I think in a world where there are no issues holding back Cameron the film may not be released until the mid 1990's rather than the early 1990's. And the studio would probably have to reign in Cameron a bit which would create problems on its own. Cameron's treatment would be an R rated film, which isn't going to happen. I also imagine that some of the villains would have to be cut for practical reasons (Cameron wanted to make use of the Sandman for example-a Special Effects heavy villain if ever there was one.)

So if you can figure out a way to avoid the lawsuits and have the film enter production at some point I think a release between 1994 at the earliest and 1999 seems to be vaguely within the realm of possibility. Of course, avoiding the lawsuits might well be impossible and as we've discussed special effects could present an insurmountable difficulty.

In terms of cinematic history, the later on you push Cameron's Spider-Man while keeping him on the project, the more interesting things become as Cameron's project could easily butterfly Titanic away. I can't say what that would mean in detail but considering how well that film did removing that film would have an impact on the films that followed.

I think if such a thing were possible, a 1995 release date could prove interesting. While Cameron's original intent is going to be toned down somewhat for a whole host of reasons, the resulting film is likely to have a somewhat "serious" tone. 1995 was the year that Batman Forever was released and competing with Cameron's Spider-Man franchise could impact how the Batman franchise develops from there.

 

[British Republic]

I created a thread where Time-Life buys Columbia-Tristar:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=316490

And here is a basic timeline

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9219944&postcount=25

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9220329&postcount=26

It results in Time-Life also buying Carloco Pictures, which means they are now in the lead to make the Spider-Man film, so the Cameron film might still get made...

Maybe it could be made after Titanic, which would mean that Columbia would find it hard to object to the kind of film JC wants to make...

 

[Glass Onion]

I created a thread where Time-Life buys Columbia-Tristar:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=316490

And here is a basic timeline

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9219944&postcount=25

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9220329&postcount=26

It results in Time-Life also buying Carloco Pictures, which means they are now in the lead to make the Spider-Man film, so the Cameron film might still get made...

Maybe it could be made after Titanic, which would mean that Columbia would find it hard to object to the kind of film JC wants to make...

Well you would have to put off the purchase of Columbia and Carolco until after 1991 otherwise Columbia would just buy both the film and the home video rights from Cannon and Carolco and Cameron would not be involved. Also the television rights issue would still be a problem as they are still likely to be sold to a third or in this case second company.

I think you would need to find a way of getting all of the rights under one umbrella while keeping Carolco involved.

After Titanic is too late because by that point Cameron had abandoned the project. In any event I can't imagine anyone letting Cameron make a R rated Spider-Man film. That means Parker will not swear as much as Cameron's treatment has him doing.

 

[usertron2020]

<snip> That means Parker will not swear as much as Cameron's treatment has him doing.

"Web-sucking C----snappers!"

It would be like making a PG-rated "Bolero"

 

[theReturner]

I think if such a thing were possible, a 1995 release date could prove interesting. While Cameron's original intent is going to be toned down somewhat for a whole host of reasons, the resulting film is likely to have a somewhat "serious" tone. 1995 was the year that Batman Forever was released and competing with Cameron's Spider-Man franchise could impact how the Batman franchise develops from there.

I think Batman Forever (or whatever it ends up being called), would probably still be made with being more "kid friendly" in mind. However, depending on how successful a serious Spider-man, that could get them to tone it down a little for future films. Maybe to the point that we avoid Batman & Robin and the franchise isn't put on life support.