Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorjmmurrow
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011
     (9635.1)
    Guillermo Del Toro, the man who brought us Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth was supposed to make a movie based off of H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountains of Madness" and from all I've heard, even the jaded studio executives were wowed. For some reason though, the project has been indefinetly postponed and there's an campaign for its renewal. If your interested, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mountainsofmadness/. And if anyone here has the ear of Mr. Ellis, please let him know too!

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011
     (9635.2)
    According to everything I read, Del Torro had a few demands to do the project:

    1. $150 million to do the movie
    2. R-rating and no less

    Universal balked at the combination, as an R-rating will reduce the pool of potentially interested people and, according to the studio, they'd need the movie to make $500 to see a profit on it. They're apparently thinking about it and one article I read said Del Torro is approaching other studios to see if they can do it.
  1.  (9635.3)
    weird production already started here in Toronto, we will see hopefully
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011
     (9635.4)
    @HEY APATHY!

    Supposedly he did some kind of amazing treatment for his meeting with Universal where one of the people said it was one of the best pieces of film making he'd ever seen, so maybe that's what was going on.

    I'm just pissed because I was really looking forward to seeing Tom Cruise get eaten by a shoggoth.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011
     (9635.5)
    I wonder if he'd have got away with it if he did Call of Cthulhu instead, as that's got more 'mental real estate' name recognition, and no one's done it yet. Mountains of Madness is great, but would surely have been better to do once something else had already kicked the door down for this sort of material to go more mainstream.
    • CommentAuthorDC
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011
     (9635.6)
    A few days ago I stumbled on an article that might shed some light on this subject.
  2.  (9635.7)
    I'm not really sure how the film could cost $150 million, but Universal would need it to make $500 million. Are they really expecting to have to spend $350 million on promotion, or are they just that greedy?

    This sounds to me like it has the potential to be one of the greatest Hollywood films ever (well, I'm not sure about Cruise, but everything else about it sounds amazing), so I'd really hate for something as petty as money get in the way.
  3.  (9635.8)
    no disrepect to del torro's skills, but some things are better left unfilmed anyways
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2011 edited
     (9635.9)
    and no one's done it yet


    Well, there's this.

    It's pretty good. You probably know about it already... very low budget, but very well made.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2011
     (9635.10)
    I didn't actually know about it. Thanks.
    • CommentAuthor256
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2011
     (9635.11)
    I'm not really sure how the film could cost $150 million, but Universal would need it to make $500 million. Are they really expecting to have to spend $350 million on promotion, or are they just that greedy?


    This list of most expensive films may suggest how a fairly grand production could easily max out $150m (I found some of the entries and positions on that list quite suprising).

    Also, I suspect that it's not so much about needing to make a $350m profit as it is that $350m is a sufficiently tempting return on investment to justify giving someone $150m and saying "Off you go!".

    On the other hand, Hollywood accounting is totally fucked anyway so maybe they're budgeting $300m for doughnuts and teamsters.

    Also, @Oddcult - I tend to think that, if a big Lovecraft movie ever gets made, it's not going to have "Cthulhu" in the title. Hollywood, global centre of pandering to the lowest common denominator, is hesitatant to ask viewers to think while they're watching a film; are they really going to release a film where 90% of people are going to have to learn how to pronounce the title?
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2011
     (9635.12)
    @256 - I'd suggest that they look to the gaming industry for precedent, in terms of monies made from Lovecraft properties, rather than films.

    Would it be fair to say that Lovecraft has as much of a following as Tolkein had prior to the LOTR films too?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJ.Brennan
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2011
     (9635.13)
    @HeyApathy: I gotta disagree. I'd love to see an attempt (especially from somebody as passionate and skilled as del toro) than none made at all. If it fails it doesn't diminish the source, if it succeeds then there's just more to love.

    @Oddcult: I will 2nd the HPLHS silent Cthulhu. It's very atmospheric, came out amazing with what they had to work with. Also it's available to stream on netflix. The same people have also recently finished filming an adaptation of The Whisperer in Darkness and have 30's radio show style versions of At the Mountains of Madness, The Dunwich Horror, Shadow Out of Time, and Shadow Over Innsmouth. I might be a little fanboyish over it, but I've enjoyed them.

    As for Lovecraft's popularity, I'm not sure it has ever reached Tolkien levels of popularity edging into the mainstream. However, I do think the size of the fervent subcultures might be similar.

    I agree with 256 that Hollywood would avoid "Cthulhu" in the title. I think Mountains of Madness is really the perfect place for a big screen embrace of Lovecraft to begin. It starts off with the enticing hook of adventure and exploration before Lovecraft's themes of man's insignificance and cosmic horror seep in.
  4.  (9635.14)
    I'm not really sure how the film could cost $150 million, but Universal would need it to make $500 million.

    Really, really simple. The studio only gets half the box office. So a 150M film would have to take at least 300M to break even. Assume a heavy PR campaign. Which is also attached to the film's cost. Also assume that all other kinds of people take a little bite out of the studio's take.
  5.  (9635.15)
    Yeah, that is really simple - I didn't even think about the fact that the studio wouldn't be getting all the money the movie made. Add marketing onto that and it's starting to look reasonable for 500million to be considered a successful outing.

    Be interesting to know what the split is between cinema takings and studio takings, especially with movie ticket prices constantly on the increase.
  6.  (9635.16)
    Actual cinema takings are a weird sliding percentage scale, which I've read can be as little as 5% or 10% on an opening week. I've heard stories that Lucasfilm and its partners demanded 100% of takings for ATTACK OF THE CLONES on its opening week, on the argument that the cinemas would sell enough food and drink to turn a profit. But I'm far from an expert on this. Always use a studio take of 50% of box office as rule of thumb in any case.
  7.  (9635.17)
    Do DVD sales make a difference or is that also split with other entities?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.