Years before Sam Raimi ushered in the age of the superhero with his "Spider-Man" trilogy,
director James Cameron also had New York's resident web-slinger in his sights. Sadly, we
never did get to see Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of Peter Parker — and these are the reasons why.
James Cameron's Spider-Man "scriptment" — a long film treatment with dialogue and screen
direction — has become an artifact of Hollywood legend. It obviously
never made it to the big screen, but Stan Lee was said to have loved it.
Many elements of the script — which has been leaked and even illustrated online — made it
into the Sam Raimi-directed film that ultimately saw release in 2002. In Cameron's version,
Peter wakes up not needing his glasses, loses Uncle Ben during a botched carjacking,
and even has organic web shooters rather than machines. That sounds exactly like the Tobey
Maguire version, and Cameron didn't get as much as a thank you in the credits.
However, there's also Peter peeping in Mary Jane's window while she gets dressed,
and a scene where the couple gets intimate on the Brooklyn Bridge as Peter describes
the creepy way that spiders mate. Also, Peter uses intense profanity throughout the story,
to the point that it would have been completely inappropriate for kids and most likely R-rated.
"Look at little — —. You gonna cry?"
Production never advanced far enough for a final screenplay to be greenlit, so it's possible
he could've been persuaded away from the edgier stuff. Knowing Cameron's history of stubbornness,
though, he likely would have wanted to make "Spider-Man" his way or not at all.
James Cameron is a wizard behind the camera — but in order for him to work his movie magic,
he needs to have a solid budget. It cost $100 million to make "Terminator
2," and the director's movies only got more ambitious from there.
Cameron's "Spider-Man" would have been a step back, as he only would've had $50
million to work with. Turning an ordinary man into a wall-crawling hero isn't cheap:
after all, Raimi's "Spider-Man" ended up costing $139 million,
and its sequels only increased in scope. A mere $50 mil simply wouldn't have been
enough to bring Cameron's concepts for villains Electro and Sandman to life in a satisfying way.
Nowadays, massive budgets are guaranteed when it comes to both Spider-Man movies and films directed
by James Cameron. "Spider-Man: No Way Home" took around $200 million to make, while estimates
say that "Avatar: The Way of Water" required anywhere from $250 million to $400 million.
There were consistent rumors that James Cameron wanted to cast Arnold Schwarzenegger as Doc Ock
in his "Spider-Man" project — and given his history with the Austrian strongman,
it's easy to believe. Schwarzenegger confirmed this in an interview with Empire but only went
as far as to vaguely say the studio opted for a different path. Cameron's script
doesn't even feature Otto Octavius, so it's hard to say how serious discussions between
the director and actor actually got — if they took place at all. Either way,
Schwarnegger's performance in "Batman & Robin" showed that we're probably not missing much.
Cameron had a few more peculiar picks in his dream cast. Edward Furlong was supposed to be
Peter Parker, but Leonardo DiCaprio also circled the project and read an early screenplay. It's
impossible to say for sure whether or not Furlong or DiCaprio would have done well in the role,
but it's hard to imagine either of them matching Tobey Maguire's awkward charm. There was also Drew
Barrymore as Gwen Stacy — a solid pick — and R. Lee Ermey from "Full Metal Jacket" as J. Jonah
Jameson — even better. A drill sergeant Jameson would've been a hilarious take on the character,
but it's nearly impossible to beat the version of the brash editor-in-chief played by J.K. Simmons.
"He's a menace to the entire city! I want that
wall-crawling arachnid prosecuted! I want him strung up by his web!"
While script, casting, and budgeting issues all could have been overcome, what ultimately squashed
James Cameron's "Spider-Man" were legal problems. Cameron told Collider that when production company
Carolco Pictures collapsed — which happened a few years after they acquired the rights
to Spider-Man — he already had "Titanic" in his sights and no longer wanted to pursue the project.
A number of former writers and producers also claimed to have had a hand in development, and
they all came calling for their cut after Marvel's 1996 bankruptcy scattered multiple holding
deals to the wind. When Marvel recovered from bankruptcy, they made deals with everyone trying
to sue for the rights to Spider-Man, allowing them to be sold to Sony in 1999. Sony has since
gone on to make numerous Spider-Man films and more than $2 billion in franchise revenues — and once
Marvel decided they wanted Spider-Man in the MCU, things got complicated all over again.
Don't feel bad for Cameron, though — he turned one of the greatest maritime tragedies of all
time into a billion-dollar blockbuster. He didn't get to adapt his favorite comic book
hero and might have missed out on some Spider-cash, but he still did just fine.
No one can ever accuse James Cameron of thinking small, especially when it
comes to sequels. After all, he created the "Terminator" series, expanded the universe
of "Alien," and has long been hard at work on multiple follow-ups to "Avatar." Naturally,
he didn't see his "Spider-Man" movie as being a one-off feature. As he revealed to Collider —
"I got Carolco Pictures to buy 'Spider-Man.' I was going to launch that as a series of films."
In the same interview, Cameron noted that Marvel's characters were being misused by
the studios of that era. He was correct: after all, comic book movies still weren't
in vogue in the early '90s. Despite the success of Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" film,
Marvel properties lagged behind. They were mostly confined to direct-to-video or television movies,
such as 1990's "The Death of the Incredible Hulk" and "Captain America." Cameron saw
an opportunity to do more with the genre and its characters — an opportunity that
Marvel would take advantage of after the success of "Iron Man" in 2008.
As fans of Catwoman, Deadpool, and Taskmaster can tell you firsthand,
watching a filmmaker change an established comics character for a screen adaptation
can be hugely frustrating. With an abundance of rich source material at their fingertips,
it seems silly for writers and directors to reinvent the wheel, but the reality is that
some elements of superhero stories just don't work outside of comics and animation. At least
a few changes typically have to be made — and to get approval for certain modifications,
Cameron personally consulted Marvel titan Stan Lee. The director told ScreenCrush —
"I didn't make a move without asking him permission."
So what alterations did Lee apparently approve of? In Cameron's movie,
the spider that bites Peter Parker wouldn't have technically been radioactive: instead,
it's the result of an experiment involving the transfer of DNA.
The changes weren't limited to Spider-Man himself, as villains Electro and Sandman
have new names and backgrounds in Cameron's script. Rather than Max Dillon, Electro is
a ruthless businessman named Carlton Strand — and instead of Flint Marko,
Sandman is simply called Boyd. Instead of merging with nuclear sand like the first comic version,
Cameron's Sandman would've had a similar origin to the version of the character in "Spider-Man 3."
"You're kidding. I fell into a supercollider."
"Damn. Gotta be careful where you fall."
In a discussion with ScreenCrush, Cameron went into detail about his version of Peter Parker, who
seems a lot like the original character introduced in 1962's "Amazing Fantasy" #15. He stated —
"The first thing you've got to get your mind around is it's not Spider-Man. He
goes by Spider-Man, but he's not Spider-Man. He's Spider-Kid. He's Spider-High-School-Kid.
He's kind of geeky and nobody notices him and he's socially unpopular and all that stuff."
The leaked scriptment does indeed stress Parker's youth and awkward journey through puberty. There's
even a scene where he pops his zits in the mirror before school. Acne aside, Cameron's
take isn't too far from the version of Spidey played by Tom Holland, who was just 15 years
old when he was first introduced. There's also the teenage Miles Morales, who has to deal with
a world-ending threat and his own changing body at the same time in the "Spider-Verse" movies.
"That's weird, my pants shrank. I think I hit puberty!"
Cameron understood the key element of what makes Spider-Man so compelling,
which Marvel Studios now highlights: he's still trying to discover who he is as a person,
while also coming to terms with his identity as a superhero.
Truthfully, Spider-Man fans have been blessed when it comes to live-action adaptations of his
famous costume. While many debate which suit is best, no version has ever been
terrible — not even Nicholas Hammond's outfit from 1977's "The Amazing Spider-Man" TV show.
While a physical suit was never developed for James Cameron's "Spider-Man" — at least,
not that we know of — the filmmaker revealed concept art of his vision in "Tech Noir:
The Art of James Cameron." Set in the nighttime, his drawing shows Spidey in
a sleek costume, climbing up the side of the building as the streets bustle below.
Another version of the concept image was also included, portraying Spider-Man in a
much darker outfit. It's never explicitly named, but it looks an awful lot like
the symbiote suit that would later be popularized by Raimi's "Spider-Man 3."
Even though the TV show "Entourage" takes place in an alternate universe where James
Cameron directed a live-action "Aquaman" movie, don't expect to see the filmmaker attempting
something similar on our current Earth. Cameron was even critical of comic book movies during a
2022 interview with The New York Times, saying that Marvel and DC projects lack depth in their
portrayals of human relationships. There are many fans who still hold out hope that
Cameron might change his tune if he's given full control of his own project,
but nobody should hold their breath. As the director made clear to ComicBook.com —
"I have no interest in directing a comic book film. I had an interest in Spider-Man,
but that was a unique thing. A personal love of Spider-Man. But,
that ground has been very well-served by other people."
Unfortunately, it appears that James Cameron's "Spider-Man" movie will remain a curious case
of what could have been. Could we at least see a Leonardo DiCaprio Spider-Man in "Beyond the
Spider-Verse," then? Probably not, but never say never — there are infinite universes, after all.