James Cameron: "There are too many superhero movies"

[JacksonArcher]

James Cameron is still bitter he didn't get to do Spider-Man.

But didn't he direct "Aquaman"? That was a summer blockbuster superhero movie, no? If I'm not mistaken, it out-grossed Spidey for opening weekend.

Admittedly, I wouldn't have cast Vincent Chase, but I think the film still holds up.

I couldn't stand the sequel. Michael Bay was an awful replacement. However, Jake Gyllenhaal was a leg up from Vinnie Chase. No disrespect to him, but he's no Aquaman.

 

[The Wormhole]

James Cameron is still bitter he didn't get to do Spider-Man.

Who wouldn't have liked this?

There's also a sex scene between Mary Jane and Spider-Man. He takes her up on top of the Brooklyn Bridge, playfully ties her down with webbing, then they go for it, though off screen

When you think about it, sex between Spider-Man and Mary-Jane would be pretty weird. Shooting webs around, crawling on the walls, shit like that.

I'm honestly surprised this idea hasn't already been done.

 

[bigdaddy]

Regardless of what you think about Titanic it was the biggest movie ever and was the biggest achievement in special effects since Jurassic Park. The man is dedicated to his craft.

No it really really isn't.

If the price of a ticket to see Snow White was a nickel, and a ticket to Titanic was $10, of course Titanic made more! It's not even close to being the number one movie ever if you actually take into account of inflation.

 

[Trent Roman]

^ I hate to say it, because Titanic was a really poor film when one actually stops to watch it, but they have done comparisons accounting for inflation and Titanic is up there, several slots above Snow White. See here: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[T'Baio]

With inflation, it's number 6. So yeah, it is kinda' close. And inflation numbers tend to only include domestic, and Titanic made more in foreign, so...

 

[Anwar]

Raimi, OTOH, got lucky twice before his signature stupidity eventually won out. Spider-Man 4 is going to make Wolverine: Origins look like pure genius.

Raimi didn't "get lucky twice." I thought the first Spider-Man was decent, but it had a few mild problems. With Spider-Man 2 Raimi seemed to be more confident about what he was doing and made what I consider the 3rd best superhero movie of all time. It was just that good. With the third film he compromised with the studio far too much and ended up making a glorified mess. There's every reason to believe that he's learned his lesson and that Spider-Man 4 will be far better.

There's no reason to believe he's learned his lesson. He's going to turn Black Cat into "The Vulturess" or some bullshit like that. And I really doubt that it was the studios idea to put a jazz dance number in the third film. Because nothing says PURE EVIL like jazz hands. I could be wrong, but knowing what a cheeseball the guy is, I don't think I am.

Actually, the Jazz club sequence was at the request of one of the Producers: Laura Ziskin.

As for the Vultress, I guess you hated how John Jameson never became Man-Wolf, Mendell Stromm never became the Robot Master, Green Goblin never tried his hand at being a mob boss, Doctor Octopus never tried his hand at being a mob boss, or any of the other departures they made for the movies, hm?

Watch the damn thing before making condemnations.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Well, Terminator was just a knock-off of Harlan Ellison's Outer Limits works, Aliens is just "Them!" only coming off of the successful "Alien" and T2 has a lousy script that no one paid attention to because of how successful Terminator 1 was.

I've kind of soured on Cameron after I re-watched "Aliens" and wasn't as impressed as the first time I saw it. I found the characters (aside from Ripley) one-dimensional and irritating (i.e. dumbass jock military guy, evil corporate guy, etc.) especially compared to the delightfully eclectic cast of the first "Alien" and got bored with the action, but this "Terminator 2" bashing lately (there seems to be a lot of that going around the Internet) saddens me.

People say "Avatar" may be his masterpiece and I'm sure some would argue "Titanic" deserves that title, but as far as I'm concerned, nothing he did or ever will do could possibly top T2. That was the one movie he's done where I thought the action and characters were equally captivating. I've watched that movie so many times, and every time I watch it, I appreciate it more.

It ages beautifully. I'm starting to thinking the action does get a little excessive towards the end, but the intensity of all the characters is off the charts. Sarah Connor is the most badass female movie heroine I've ever seen, and Robert Patrick is one of the greatest villains. I also think the movie has Arnold's best performance, and while 14 year old kids are generally some of the most annoying characters by definition, Edward Furlong's was the exception to the rule.

A really well-rounded character...he's got that snotty smartass attitude that makes those characters usually a pain in the ass, and then it's disarming how well he's able to play vulnerability and humanity. I don't think Cameron is generally that strong when it comes to writing characters, but T2 was the one case where he was just as at the top of game with characters as he was with special effects. If you want to put him down for bad writing, I think that's the last movie you should choose as an example. Given how much Cameron seems to love writing strong female characters, I wonder what would happen if he took a shot at doing a "Wonder Woman" movie. I think it might be cool.

 

[T'Baio]

I think Cameron's masterpiece so far is The Abyss. *shrug*

 

[MarianLH]

Can he have more than one masterpiece? With Avatar coming up, it's nice to be reminded of how often he's delivered the goods.


Marian

 

[Nowhere Man]

Maybe James Cameron is right, but who cares. There's a lot of superhero movies out there, but I'm fine with it. There's a lot of good superhero movies out there and more to come.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Agreed about the praise for Terminator 2. However, I prefer The Terminator. Its smaller, darker elements somehow make the movie more plausible, as if this really could be happening out there right now. Schwarzenegger is a more plausible robot in The Terminator because his performance is totally absent of any human mugging at all. (T2 has a few minor moments like that, like his smirk when he says "I'll be back," or when the T-1000 wags his finger at Sarah Connor.) I love Michael Biehn's wild-eyed performance as Kyle Reese. Plus, the supporting characters--Vukavitch, Traxler, Silberman--are filled with such life. Even though we don't see that much of them, we get a very clear sense that these are real people with lives that extend far beyond the confines of their scenes in the movies.

Right now, my ranking of Cameron's movies goes like so...

1. The Terminator.
2. Aliens.
3. Terminator 2.

4-7. I like Titanic but I'm not a huge whopping fan of it. I need to rewatch The Abyss & True Lies before I can make an accurate judgment of them. I have some high hopes about Avatar. I doubt it will be able to touch the top 3. But worst case scenario, it will still be better than...

8. Piranha II: The Spawning. Probably the only bad movie Cameron has ever done. But then, did Roger Corman ever produce a good movie?

Regardless of what you think about Titanic it was the biggest movie ever and was the biggest achievement in special effects since Jurassic Park. The man is dedicated to his craft.

No it really really isn't.

If the price of a ticket to see Snow White was a nickel, and a ticket to Titanic was $10, of course Titanic made more! It's not even close to being the number one movie ever if you actually take into account of inflation.

As I understand it, the highest grossing movie in the U.S. is Titanic. If you count worldwide B.O., it's just barely edged out by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. If you adjust for inflation, it's Gone with the Wind.

 

[Hyperspace05]

As I understand it, the highest grossing movie in the U.S. is Titanic. If you count worldwide B.O., it's just barely edged out by The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Nope, ROTK is not even close. Here are the top two worldwide grossers:
1. Titanic $1.8 billion
2. LOTR:ROTK $1.1 billion
A complete chart can be found here.

Since people are rating Cameron's movies, here is my order of preference (before Avatar):
1. The Abyss (DC)
2. Terminator 2
3. Titanic
4. Aliens
5. True Lies
6. Terminator

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I wouldn't go that far, but so far I think they have a very high ratio of entertainment value--most are at least worth a watch, quite a few are worth several. There are few film genres that reliable and consistent.

Honestly, I think that's selective memory at work. I would say most superhero films of the last ten years have ranged from mediocre to outright terrible. But in discussions like this one, people tend to remember Dark Knight and Iron Man and forget all about The Spirit, Wolverine, Punisher, the Fantastic Four movies, etc.

 

[Kegg]

I've kind of soured on Cameron after I re-watched "Aliens" and wasn't as impressed as the first time I saw it. I found the characters (aside from Ripley) one-dimensional and irritating (i.e. dumbass jock military guy, evil corporate guy, etc.) especially compared to the delightfully eclectic cast of the first "Alien" and got bored with the action,

I'd agree that Cameron's picture doesn't have as great a cast as the first one, but I'd still consider it a damn fun action movie.

Am interested that most of this thread has turned to Cameron's creds. I'm not a Cameron fan at all, but if I was and didn't care for what he said I wouldn't pay much heed to it, and vice versa.

Well, Terminator was just a knock-off of Harlan Ellison's Outer Limits works, Aliens is just "Them!" only coming off of the successful "Alien" and T2 has a lousy script that no one paid attention to because of how successful Terminator 1 was.

Some of those are a trifle bit of a stretch, but hey, nobody's praising Cameron for his amazing originality, are they? Just that he does do some tropes and does them well. Thing is, though, we've had something like ninety billion superhero films this last decade (a very accurate number), but not quite as many, say, movies about killing alien lifeforms - not that there haven't been those, too.

My pet thing-to-throw-rocks at is Thor, of course, of which I've bloviated about elsewhere. Quite simply, only in the current situation Hollywood is in does the idea of adapting a comic book about Thor sound like a better idea than going straight to the Norse myth and giving us a really robust and interesting film (which also would make a more kickass summer blockbuster). It's the 300 effect; history and mythology is better when it's Frank Miller and Stan Lee.

Point is, love 'em or hate them, there is a lot of these movies. Now, being a sci-fi geek I'd rather a million derivative flowers bloom about weird alien things, but hey, such is life.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think he's right. Right now, Hollywood is doing with superhero movies what it did with disaster films in the early 1970's.

These movies have been very successful, so they keep making more and more of them, quality control is slowly slipping, and we've almost reached the point where superhero movies feel so similar that it's almost as if we were watching the same movie again and again. After a while, people will just be fed up with the genre and another trend will take its place.

I predict that the Avengers movie will likely be the last hurrah of the genre, because the interpolation of several movie franchises will feel hackneyed and contrived.

 

[FordSVT]

I think Cameron's masterpiece so far is The Abyss. *shrug*

Oh don't get me wrong, I love The Abyss, but it's not everyone's cup of tea so I left it off my little mini-list because I figured it would be the first someone would jump on as being "boring".

It was also a technological breakthrough in the use of CG that would lead directly to the technology that allowed the T1000 to be brought to life in T2.

He's a hell of a lot better than Lucas at focusing on new technology without sacrificing the rest of the movie for it. He understands a good performance, I don't think Lucas gives a shit to be blunt. "Adequately not stumbling over your lines" seems to be the standard set in the Prequels.

 

[Bad Bishop]

These movies have been very successful, so they keep making more and more of them, quality control is slowly slipping, and we've almost reached the point where superhero movies feel so similar that it's almost as if we were watching the same movie again and again. After a while, people will just be fed up with the genre and another trend will take its place.

Where is this pessimism coming from? The last three major superhero films (Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen) should have convinced everyone that the genre is thriving, both commercially and artistically.

I predict that the Avengers movie will likely be the last hurrah of the genre, because the interpolation of several movie franchises will feel hackneyed and contrived.

That should be the worst of its problems, and nothing that will keep the film from scoring big at the box office.

 

[MNM]

These movies have been very successful, so they keep making more and more of them, quality control is slowly slipping, and we've almost reached the point where superhero movies feel so similar that it's almost as if we were watching the same movie again and again. After a while, people will just be fed up with the genre and another trend will take its place.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. there are hundreds of romantic films, comedy films, action films etc made every year, but do people give up on any of those genres just because there are a lot of them around? No, they go to the ones that interest them.

You could make a thousand superhero films a year and the good and well marketed ones would still get huge auidences.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Where is this pessimism coming from? The last three major superhero films (Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen) should have convinced everyone that the genre is thriving, both commercially and artistically.

Did you forget about Wolverine, The Spirit, Punisher: War Zone? Or does the word "major" only apply to movies you liked?

Also, Watchmen was far from a huge box office success, and it only has a 64% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is not exactly an overwhelmingly positive reaction.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

I've never understood this line of reasoning. there are hundreds of romantic films, comedy films, action films etc made every year, but do people give up on any of those genres just because there are a lot of them around? No, they go to the ones that interest them.

You could make a thousand superhero films a year and the good and well marketed ones would still get huge auidences.

I agree completely that it's just a genre, and there are bad examples of the genre and good examples.

However, I bet if James Cameron had said there are too many vampire movies, or too many parody/spoof movies, or too many TV shows in the "reality" genre, most of the people here would be saying "I agree with him 100%!"