At the Mountains of Madness - Guillermo Del Toro's Next Project! - Part 1

[Octoberist]

Just watched Blade II tonight, and damn, Del Toro made the most out of a crappy franchise. Kudos to him. This middle entry of the three is clearly the standout, and it's because he directed it.

The first one is amazing.

 

[dark_b]

why must someone change into a new era?

 

[Octoberist]

The industry forces them to change. Look at Tony Scott.

Compare his later films with his more mature, understated older films.

 

[Rocketman]

It's just a matter of the times changing, and audiences want something new that some filmmakers aren't equipped to give them anymore. They're a product of their time and that's it. Look at Francis Ford Coppola. Look at Robert Zemeckis, or Ivan Reitman, or Rob Reiner.

 

[dark_b]

are we talking about small details like fast editing,fake digital lens flares and saturated colors that dont make any sense in the scene?

i think Zmeckis is still a master. Flight was a good directed movie.

 

[Evil Twin]

There's a certain mystique/aura that comes with certain filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick, who was mostly hated and criticized in his day. Almost none of his films were a commercial success, most had bad reviews, he never won an Oscar, but now he has this untouchable reputation as perhaps the greatest director who ever lived.

Not true. Kubrick was acclaimed almost his entire career and had 4 Best Director Oscar nominations to show for it. Most of his films made money in their first run too. Not Spielberg / Lucas money, but he was a consistent moneymaker. 2001 in particular, but Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining were all undoubtedly profitable movies consistently making 2 to 4 times their budget.

 

[Evil Twin]

Let me add, I agree that Carpenter is done. He hasn't made a good movie in 20 years. Still, his legacy is secure, let him enjoy his retirement.

Still, I'll take whatever Scorsese and Spielberg can still bring today. Yeah, a 1980 film released as "new" in 2014, will look dated, have unfamiliar actors, inferior special effects, will call on different points of reference, etc. A lot of skills that a good director brings will translate just fine to modern audiences, it will just be in the form of a modern movie.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's just a matter of the times changing, and audiences want something new that some filmmakers aren't equipped to give them anymore. They're a product of their time and that's it. Look at Francis Ford Coppola. Look at Robert Zemeckis, or Ivan Reitman, or Rob Reiner.

Flight says hi.

 

[Rocketman]

Flight didn't really set the world on fire, lol. Come on now.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Carpenter's one of my absolute favorite directors of all-time, but I don't think his style fits in a 2014/2015 era. His time has passed, and anything he made now would be called "cheesy" and "amateur" by people whose standards aren't in the context of the 70s and 80s. I'm not hating on Carpenter; it's the same with Hitchcock too to an extent. If Hitchcock were alive and made one of his regular Hitchcockian movies now, NOBODY would think it was scary, and people would probably blast it. There's a certain mystique/aura that comes with certain filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick, who was mostly hated and criticized in his day. Almost none of his films were a commercial success, most had bad reviews, he never won an Oscar, but now he has this untouchable reputation as perhaps the greatest director who ever lived. Release one of his movies now, and he'd probably still be hated. The sad thing is, when Carpenter dies, he'll finally be regarded as one of the greatest filmmakers ever - now not so much.

Cliff's Notes Version: I say "No" to Carpenter directing ATMOM. I think it would be a critical and commercial disaster.

The Thing was a critical and commercial disaster upon its initial release. I want Carpenter because after reading the script for Mountains , I feel Carpenter has much better understanding of Lovecraftian storytelling than Del Toro.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Del Toro is far more interesting. Carpenter is on the decline, and he'd be basically doing something very similar to The Thing as someone said here. At least, Del Toro can bring something fresh to it, not to mention, Del Toro is a far more visual director than Carpenter, at least imo.

 

[Lord]

Carpenter isn't the man he once was, while i'm not the biggest fan of Del Toro, he has passion for this project and i'm sure will bring something new to Lovecraftian adaptations, which is what i think they need the most.

 

[The Endless]

Hmmm how about David Fincher? He mostly does more grounded thrillers, but he knows how to build a sense of impending dread and unknowable horror. And obviously visually he does very interesting things.

 

[Naked Shia]

I think Darren Aronofski could create something interesting as well.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Anyway, why are we even discussing other directors? This is Del Toro's project, it's his to direct.

 

[The Endless]

Oh i have faith in Del Toro. I've enjoyed most of his films. And i think he has the sensibilities and style to do this story justice. But i just wish he was let off the leash.

I don't care what anyone says, making films like this PG-13 is putting a leash on creativity. The film maker will have to make compromises to his vision. To the intended atmosphere and tone and visceral elements of the story. The film maker will constantly have "hmmm i can't do that because it has to be PG-13" in the back of his mind.

Imagine John Carpenter's The Thing as PG-13? That's right, you can't. Because it wouldn't be the same film. Or Pan's Labyrinth, to be more relevant.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

It's not about putting a leash on creativity really, it's about making money, simple as that. That's why Universal passed in the first place, a 150 million R-rated genre movie? Even with Tom Cruise at the time, that seemed risky, but then, Prometheus came along & did great business, although it probably would have done more had it been PG 13 & let's not forget it was touted for long as an Alien prequel, so it had that going for it as well.

Making ATMOM PG-13 might be the only way it could happen with a big budget, although I'm hoping that along the way, Thomas Tull from Legendary will see that this is a R-rated movie through & through. Legendary & Universal sharing the costs could really help.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Flight didn't really set the world on fire, lol. Come on now.

Well no, some generally considered great movies don't always set the world on fire, so I don't see how that equates to Zemeckis being a product of his time. Flight actually received critical acclaim, was a success at the box office, and earned Oscar nominations for Washington (his best role in years) and Screenplay. It's no Back to the Future or Who Framed Roger Rabbit or Forrest Gump, but that's what they call a hot streak, which filmmakers do go through. Spielberg had it, and he hasn't made a hugely influential film in a long time, doesn't mean he's a product of his time.

If anything, his string of motion capture films showed how he was able to look ahead of his time. And even when it didn't work out for him completely, he still moved back to film and is making another film, with another in development both showing a lot of promise.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Oh i have faith in Del Toro. I've enjoyed most of his films. And i think he has the sensibilities and style to do this story justice. But i just wish he was let off the leash.

I don't care what anyone says, making films like this PG-13 is putting a leash on creativity. The film maker will have to make compromises to his vision. To the intended atmosphere and tone and visceral elements of the story. The film maker will constantly have "hmmm i can't do that because it has to be PG-13" in the back of his mind.

Imagine John Carpenter's The Thing as PG-13? That's right, you can't. Because it wouldn't be the same film. Or Pan's Labyrinth, to be more relevant.

I think it's always good to have a balance. Too much creative freedom can be just as bad as restricted creative freedom. You need someone who can keep that person in check and actually question things. I hate the whole auteur word anyway, but even the best creative minds need someone to question them on their choices and not blindly follow this director because he's an artistic genius and can't do any wrong. Some of the best films have been a result of more than just the director making decisions. Though this is all dependent on the right kind of people working in it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but the other shouldn't be disqualified.

Hellboy 2 anyone? That was something that felt like Del Toro off the leash, and it wasn't that great of a movie. Rating had nothing to do with that.

 

[Evil Twin]

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." - Orson Welles

I don't totally agree, but limitations do force people to become creative. The fact that the mechanical shark didn't work turned out to be a blessing for Jaws. And we should never forget, as Val Lewton knew, that the human imagination is often scarier than what we can see.

Either way, I think it's the reality of the situation that unless you're prepared to lose a big chunk of money, a $150 million R-rated horror tentpole is a no go. Even big hits like The Conjuring didn't come close to making that budget justifiable. Prometheus barely made a similar budget justifiable. I'd love to see a $150 million, R-rated ATMoM movie, but I don't know how you can spin that into a business argument.

But, I'd also be fine with a $70-80 million, R-rated ATMoM movie or a $150 million, PG-13 ATMoM movie. A couple of gore shots and a few less four-letter words are probably the only real difference in the $150 million versions. Heck, shoot those gore shots for a director's cut if the artistic vision is so important. Lovecraft's story does have some gore, the scientists are dissected by an Elder Thing, but Lovecraft doesn't dwell on it and it isn't the main thrust of the story. You can be true to ATMoM without needing to wallow in gore.

 

[Naked Shia]

the less you see in a lovecraft story, the better indeed. Showing too much is missing the point of his work.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Flight didn't really set the world on fire, lol. Come on now.

Yeah. I know Denzel got an Oscar nom for it... but that movie was so... average. It was okay but I never understood all the praise for it.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Del Toro is far more interesting. Carpenter is on the decline, and he'd be basically doing something very similar to The Thing as someone said here. At least, Del Toro can bring something fresh to it, not to mention, Del Toro is a far more visual director than Carpenter, at least imo.

The problem is Del Toro's script already rips off The Thing aside from [BLACKOUT] tacking on Cthulhu at the end of it and unnecessary references to Revelations that would make Lovecraft roll over in his grave. [/BLACKOUT] There's nothing really fresh in his script.

http://lovecraftzine.com/2013/08/20/read-guillermo-del-toros-at-the-mountains-of-madness-screenplay/\

Anyway, why are we even discussing other directors? This is Del Toro's project, it's his to direct.

That doesn't mean he's right for it.

the less you see in a lovecraft story, the better indeed. Showing too much is missing the point of his work.

Bingo, which is part of the problem with Del Toro's take on the story. Prior to reading his script, I was 100% behind this project. He's got the passion for the material, but his script lacks understanding of the material and that's what bother's me the most.

 

[The Endless]

I think it's always good to have a balance. Too much creative freedom can be just as bad as restricted creative freedom. You need someone who can keep that person in check and actually question things. I hate the whole auteur word anyway, but even the best creative minds need someone to question them on their choices and not blindly follow this director because he's an artistic genius and can't do any wrong. Some of the best films have been a result of more than just the director making decisions. Though this is all dependent on the right kind of people working in it. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but the other shouldn't be disqualified.

Hellboy 2 anyone? That was something that felt like Del Toro off the leash, and it wasn't that great of a movie. Rating had nothing to do with that.

I do agree to an extent. Forcing limitations does sometimes spark more creativity and make the film maker think of different ways to do things.

But at the same time, I think in this case and other similar ones, it's merely to pander to a wider audience and make more money.

And i can understand that. But as a fan, a viewer and not a Hollywood money man... i don't really give a **** how much money a film makes.

Also, i'm not simply talking about gore and explicit language etc. I'm talking a dread filled atmosphere, more psychological horror than body horror. A Lovecraft story has to be utterly terrifying on a primal level, not necessarily visceral.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

@Joe Von Zombie: so what? he's going to direct it, it's his project, it's not like voicing your opinion on this is going to change anything.