Not with a 150 million price tag. As much as i want to see this movie getting made , i fully understand Universal caution.
150 million is a lot of money and despite the talent , the R rating is going to be very retricting.
Plus say what you want about GDT but the guy is nowhere near as popular or wellknown amongst the general public as say Nolan.
Is there a guarantee that James Cameron's name can draw an audience ( Sanctum anyone). Cruise has also been on a low lately.
I certainly see reason to be cautious, don't get me wrong. But they need to take a chance on this. I'll use Dracula as an example again. Universal, when they acquired the rights, spent $40,000 on not just the novel, but three different versions of the stage play. They advertised the film as a Super Production and to a degree it was. The budget was $355,000 which was an above average budget, and had the Depression not hit, I can safely imagine the budget of the film being close to Universal's budget for All Quiet On The Western Front: $1.45 million.
$355,000 back then was ALOT of money, especially given the financial trouble the whole country was in. Not to mention, budgeting the film at $355,000 was a bold move, given how close to the edge of bankruptcy Universal was at the time. There was also ALOT of apprehension towards adapting the book in the first place. There wasn't a precedent for horror yet, and outside of Nosferatu, most so-called supernatural films at the time or before, had the supernatural explained away as a trick, like The Cat & The Canary, or as a delusion like in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Dracula was the first American horror film in which the supernatural was actually supernatural.
Dracula, by the end of fiscal 1931, made $700,000, almost double the budget, and by the end of 1936, taking into account the several successful re-releases Universal did in 1934 and 1936, the film made $1,012,189.12. This was the film that, in 1931, saved Universal. They took a gamble and risked bankruptcy to make this film.
Now, $150 million is a lot of money. But I don't believe Universal is in any real financial trouble. And given how much untapped potential there is in Lovecraft, Universal would be doing exactly what they did when they decided to do Dracula back in 1931: set a new precedent for horror. These are different times and the handling of money is different, sure. But I think Universal is in the same position they were in all those years ago.
To say that del Toro doesn't quite have the popularity of someone like Christopher Nolan is a bit silly, though. It is rather unfortunate that to most people, he's the fat mexican dude who made Blade II and the Hellboy movies, but his Spanish films are an outstanding exercise in mature, effective and chilling storytelling. And oddly enough, i've encountered loads of people who hate watching foreign films but were incredibly captivated by Pan's Labyrinth. The Oscar wins further help his awareness level. On top of that, you have James Cameron producing, and Tom Cruise starring. Who knows what other potential star power Cameron and del Toro could bring in. James McAvoy was also rumored, and given how youthful he looks, could still play the role of the younger graduate student who would be with Cruise's character.
I don't quite understand the $500 million profits thing. I suppose that would cover promotion, but I don't quite know how they'd promote the film. McDonalds stuff and video games don't really lend themselves to this kind of story. But of course, there's also other merchandising. I imagine there will be a movie tie-in edition of the novel(it would be wise to include other Lovecraft stories in there as well). Then, given all the design talent doing creature work, there would be art books, i'm sure. Then you include action figures, t-shirts, posters. And even then, does $350 million really seem THAT necessary to spend on promotion? Sounds a bit extreme, but that's just conjecture at this point.