James Cameron and Carolco wanted X-Men as a movie?

[TomServoFan]

Is this true?

[SayOcean]

yes.

yes it is.

[ProfeZZor X]

I would have paid double the admission and bought all the special edition dvd sets if he directed this movie.

James Cameron and creative freedom is always a good combination when doing a film... Same with David Fincher.

I hope he gets the opportunity to do "First Class", if it's ever made... And Fox loosens up their grip this time around.

[BBeeryan]

yes.

yes it is.

Where's your proof?

[SayOcean]

Where's your proof?Im American. The absence of proof does not mean it's not true.

[Personamanx]

Singer's first two films were as good as X-Men films could get.

[BBeeryan]

Im American. The absence of proof does not mean it's not true.

WTF does being "American" have to do with you being correct? You just proved that americans are self-righteous, self-indulgent, close-minded asswipes. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

[SayOcean]

WTF does being "American" have to do with you being correct? You just proved that americans are self-righteous, self-indulgent, close-minded asswipes. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.YOU just proved the rest of the world couldn't take a joke. I have no idea that James Cameron wanted to do a xmen movie or not...sheesh call down, before i show you what intelligence really means to Americans

[worstblogever]

But would Cyclops have stood on the nose of the Blackbird and declared, "I'm the KING OF THE WORLD!" ?

[coveredinbees]

YOU just proved the rest of the world couldn't take a joke. I have no idea that James Cameron wanted to do a xmen movie or not...sheesh call down, before i show you what intelligence really means to Americans
It means a lot to us, right?

[Majinoaw]

YOU just proved the rest of the world couldn't take a joke. I have no idea that James Cameron wanted to do a xmen movie or not...sheesh call down, before i show you what intelligence really means to Americans

SayOcean brings the ruckus---

[Nathan]

i dont think he was to direct an X-men film but he was supposed to do the Spiderman movie before Sam Rami came along

[Neal R]

i dont think he was to direct an X-men film but he was supposed to do the Spiderman movie before Sam Rami came along

You're partially correct. Pulling from the IMDB trivia page of the first X Men film.

In the late 1980s, Carolco Pictures bought the film rights of X-Men from Marvel. James Cameron was set to produce, along with his production company Lightstorm Entertainment, which was in line to distribute. Well-known X-Men Comic book writer Chris Claremont was involved in meetings with X-Men creator Stan Lee, James Cameron, and executives at Carolco about the project. After James Cameron moved on to the Spider-Man (2002) project and Carolco went bankrupt, the rights became available and were purchased by 20th Century Fox.

[Quinnhop]

Singer's first two films were as good as X-Men films could get.

lol Not at all.

They were as good as an X-Men film could have been given the low-standard for comic book movies at the time. Hell, I'd say that's why they put Singer on it in the first place.

Had Fox, instead, acknowledged the potential of the genre (as Warner Brothers eventually did), then the movies could have been epic.

There is no logical reason that an X-Men film couldn't be as brilliant as any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. All it comes down to is the quality of the writers, the actors, and the director; and the willingness of the Studio to let them make the best movie possible.

Give James Cameron the X-Men. Give Peter Jackson the X-Men. Give David Fincher the X-Men. Hell, give Quentin Tarantino the X-Men.

And I guarantee -- guarantee! -- that the resulting film would be a prophetic example of what comic book movies could become.

[Monty_Cristo]

Michael Biehn would be Cyclops. and Sylvester Stallone would be Wolverine.

[the Hornet]

lol Not at all.

They were as good as an X-Men film could have been given the low-standard for comic book movies at the time. Hell, I'd say that's why they put Singer on it in the first place.

Had Fox, instead, acknowledged the potential of the genre (as Warner Brothers eventually did), then the movies could have been epic.

There is no logical reason that an X-Men film couldn't be as brilliant as any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. All it comes down to is the quality of the writers, the actors, and the director; and the willingness of the Studio to let them make the best movie possible.

Give James Cameron the X-Men. Give Peter Jackson the X-Men. Give David Fincher the X-Men. Hell, give Quentin Tarantino the X-Men.

And I guarantee -- guarantee! -- that the resulting film would be a prophetic example of what comic book movies could become.

No comments till I know if James Cameron was a fan who took the source material seriously. Singer did tons of research and reading of past issues and did the best job he could with the budget he had. James Cameron may have been given a bigger budget and more freedom but unless he really cared about the material the way Jackson cared about LOTR, there is no guarantee his X-Men would have been good. It may bring in more money due to his name but the quality may be bad. We only need to look at Batman and Robin as an example. Luckily Morrison is redeeming that "title" in the comics.

No disrespect to Cameron, he may have done a good job. But I tell you till Spidey 2 and now TDK came along, X2, to me, was the best comic movie flick I saw (that and the original Superman but am talking more about movies done in the more modern era of tech). Singer really deserves credit for what he did.

[the Hornet]

Michael Biehn would be Cyclops. and Sylvester Stallone would be Wolverine.

How about Leo?

[Yogaflame]

Singer's X-Men were weak! "Research", what research did he do on Storm? Cuz Halle Berry in a bang-cut wig saying " I can't control it like that." is not any Storm from any 616 comic. He did okay with a very small budget by focusing on Wolverine and Rogue, and his Xavier and Magneto were good too, but the 'X-Men' in that movie were the worst superheroes ever! His X2 was a more polished, Hollywood version of what he did in X1, but that is not necessarily a complement.

I don't know what Cameron would have delivered, but as a film entity, the X-Men deserve someone who knows how to do grand, epic adventure with interesting and diverse personalities with a political/social commentary edge. Who that is, I know not. But it certainly was not Singer.

[Ratstar]

X-1 sucked, X-2 was pretty good, X-3 and Wolverine were bad because of FOX.



No comments till I know if James Cameron was a fan who took the source material seriously. Singer did tons of research and reading of past issues and did the best job he could with the budget he had. James Cameron may have been given a bigger budget and more freedom but unless he really cared about the material the way Jackson cared about LOTR, there is no guarantee his X-Men would have been good. It may bring in more money due to his name but the quality may be bad. We only need to look at Batman and Robin as an example. Luckily Morrison is redeeming that "title" in the comics.

No disrespect to Cameron, he may have done a good job. But I tell you till Spidey 2 and now TDK came along, X2, to me, was the best comic movie flick I saw (that and the original Superman but am talking more about movies done in the more modern era of tech). Singer really deserves credit for what he did.
Films should be judged for their own quality and merits, not how good an adaptation they are.

[Monty_Cristo]

How about Leo?

Cannonball ..........................

[tlp0708]

Quentin Tarantino and X-Force FTW!

[the Hornet]

Singer's X-Men were weak! "Research", what research did he do on Storm? Cuz Halle Berry in a bang-cut wig saying " I can't control it like that." is not any Storm from any 616 comic. He did okay with a very small budget by focusing on Wolverine and Rogue, and his Xavier and Magneto were good too, but the 'X-Men' in that movie were the worst superheroes ever! His X2 was a more polished, Hollywood version of what he did in X1, but that is not necessarily a complement.

I don't know what Cameron would have delivered, but as a film entity, the X-Men deserve someone who knows how to do grand, epic adventure with interesting and diverse personalities with a political/social commentary edge. Who that is, I know not. But it certainly was not Singer.

Well, due to the how comic related movies were almost considered a big risk after Batman and Robin, I don't blame them for focusing just 4 charcters. Storm was relegated to background support. But for a guy who did not know that much about the comics, I tot it was a good effort. I just think that some other director might not have done as well. Without this movie (I don't think many mainstream movie goers even knew Blade was a comic book hero), who knows what form Spidey 2, Batman Begins, X2 or TDK would have taken.

[SayOcean]

SayOcean brings the ruckus---Yes it seems so

[jarrod]

lol. Jackson's LOTR trilogy was NOT "brilliant", it was artless mediocrity stuffed with CG and Enya. Thank god they went with Del Toro for the Hobbit....


Quentin Tarantino and X-Statix FTW!
fixed

[jarrod]

Singer's X-Men were weak! "Research", what research did he do on Storm? Cuz Halle Berry in a bang-cut wig saying " I can't control it like that." is not any Storm from any 616 comic. He did okay with a very small budget by focusing on Wolverine and Rogue, and his Xavier and Magneto were good too, but the 'X-Men' in that movie were the worst superheroes ever! His X2 was a more polished, Hollywood version of what he did in X1, but that is not necessarily a complement.
Honestly, it's too bad Singer couldn't get Angela Basset for Storm as he'd wanted. I have a feeling much of Storm's sidelining in the first movie came in response to FOX's forced casting of "A-list" Halle.

Singer's X-3 would've been epic. I weep for missing out on Sigourney as Emma.