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

[dark_b]

McWeeny is hardly the final word on what kinds of movies make money. The assertion that audiences can't comprehend something just because it isn't a ****ing remake is also rather silly.

i didnt mean that.

 

[corby]

Universal killed it on Friday.

http://collider.com/guillermo-del-toro-pacific-rim/79355

 

[hippie_hunter]

with all due respect Mountain of Madness is a hardcore horror movie with an unique aproach to the horror scenes. Avatar,TDK,Titanic and LOTR are in no way similar.

All of those films are very different but my point is that most of the movies that have passed the $1 billion mark are films that are either borderline R or are PG-13 films that do not put families in mind. Studios have this mindset that in order to be uber-successful it has to be PG-13, when it is clearly not the case.

did you read what Drew wrotte? the movie was designed to be different and unique. so when people watch those kind of movies they are confused. this is good because a movie must challenge you. but those movie dont make money.

If it looks interesting, people like different and unique. District 9 was different and unique and people went to go see it. The Matrix was different and unique and people went to go see it. The first two Terminator films were different and unique and people went to go see them. Inception was different and unique and people went to go see it. People want films that are different and unique. But in order for different and unique to work, they have to be good films.

 

[CrimsonMist]

with all due respect Mountain of Madness is a hardcore horror movie with an unique aproach to the horror scenes. Avatar,TDK,Titanic and LOTR are in no way similar.

did you read what Drew wrotte? the movie was designed to be different and unique. so when people watch those kind of movies they are confused. this is good because a movie must challenge you. but those movie dont make money.

This is a laughable assertion. Have you even been following this film at all? Have you read the story or the synopsis at all? At The Mountains of Madness is unique in that it's the kind of horror film that hasn't been made in a long time. We'll be seeing horrifying creatures not yet seen on the screen. The technical wizardry behind the scenes is what will make the movie. What have you heard that begs to differ? What is it about this film that will "confuse" people? And there's been nothing, perhaps outside of Pan's Labyrinth, if you think hard about it, that challenges you within del Toro's body of work. His films consist of nothing but mature, delicate storytelling. At The Mountains of Madness doesn't require you bringing your thinking cap with you. After all, it's based on a pulp novel. That doesn't mean to say it won't be an intelligent film, but it doesn't mean it will confuse the **** out of the general audience either.

it would be almost the same.
del Toro needs a hit. its that simple. the plan was always that he makes the Hobbit and Hobbit makes money. that way del Toro would it have easier in hollywood to make Mountain of Madness. Hobbit didnt happen. so Cameron and Toro tryed and risked it all. it failed. if only del Toro would have one big hit. but he doesnt have it. when i writte hit i mean money and millions. this is how hollywood works.

whait until the technology gets cheaper and in the meantime make a commercial brainless movie.

This is nonsense, too. del Toro made one of the highest grossing Spanish film, and Cameron made the highest grossing American film. Not to mention, both are Academy award nominees and winners. Both are critically acclaimed. Not to mention, the plan WASN'T always that he do The Hobbit first. Him doing the Hobbit just came out of nowhere. He JUMPED SHIP from the deal with Universal in order to do The Hobbit. Would the Hobbit have helped this cause? Yea, probably. But del Toro's plans after Hellboy 2 were NOT to immediately do the Hobbit.

So:
-Pan's Labyrinth is his "hit" film. Everyone and their mother has seen this film.
- Hellboy 1 and 2 are his money makers, and Hellboy certainly would have made more than just doubling it's budget had Universal not opened the film a week before The Dark Knight

Also, it would be stupid to make a brainless film. Incredibly stupid. He's risking more of a chance of tanking than anything, and then the odds of Mountains happening will be even more slim, and it will all fall on Universal's shoulders.

If they still have the effort to fight for the film, take it to Fox.

Because Fox is showing a willingness not only to invest in just sci-fi horror, but in sci-fi horror with high production budgets with Ridley Scott's Prometheus.

What is the proposed rating for Prometheus? It sounds like it could be R. But again, here's further proof that Fox won't wince at "Mountains".

 

[dark_b]

This is nonsense, too. del Toro made one of the highest grossing Spanish film, and Cameron made the highest grossing American film. Not to mention, both are Academy award nominees and winners. Both are critically acclaimed.

but the movie was still not greenlight. its over at Universal. so del Toro's name and Camerons name was not enough for the most expensive hard R rated horror movie.

ehhhhhhhhhh del Toro still needs a hit.

 

[dark_b]

What is the proposed rating for Prometheus? It sounds like it could be R. But again, here's further proof that Fox won't wince at "Mountains".

Prometheus will be Pg13. thats why the first version was not greenlight because it was written as R and to expensive and many other reasons.

the difference between Ridley Scott and del Toro right now is that Scott has no balls and changed the movie for the studio so that he will be able to make it. del Toro will not do this. so we will have to whait.

 

[dark_b]

All of those films are very different but my point is that most of the movies that have passed the $1 billion mark are films that are either borderline R or are PG-13 films that do not put families in mind. Studios have this mindset that in order to be uber-successful it has to be PG-13, when it is clearly not the case.
If it looks interesting, people like different and unique. District 9 was different and unique and people went to go see it. The Matrix was different and unique and people went to go see it. The first two Terminator films were different and unique and people went to go see them. Inception was different and unique and people went to go see it. People want films that are different and unique. But in order for different and unique to work, they have to be good films.

so Universal who made a lot of risky movies in the last years that bombed should now again risk it and greenlight a 150 million R rated horror movie that is in no way written to be for the masses?

i want this movie now. but i understand why producers are not doing it.

 

[CrimsonMist]

but the movie was still not greenlight. its over at Universal. so del Toro's name and Camerons name was not enough for the most expensive hard R rated movie even.

ehhhhhhhhhh del Toro still needs a hit.

Yea, he made it already. Pan's Labyrinth. Are you that dense?

And even if he had it, there's just as likely the chance Universal wouldn't take the bait anyway. Because, as you continually say, "They don't have what it takes to make an extremely expensive R-rated movie!"

Avatar had a $237 million dollar budget. Pg-13 or R, that's a lot of money, and it goes against all that you've been saying. No studio in their right mind would have given that the OK, but a studio DID give it the OK and it made over 2 Billion dollars. It's called taking a gamble. Universal needs to step up, or risk loosing it to a studio that'll give it the treatment it deserves.

 

[dark_b]

Yea, he made it already. Pan's Labyrinth. Are you that dense?

And even if he had it, there's just as likely the chance Universal wouldn't take the bait anyway. Because, as you continually say, "They don't have what it takes to make an extremely expensive R-rated movie!"

Avatar had a $237 million dollar budget. Pg-13 or R, that's a lot of money, and it goes against all that you've been saying. No studio in their right mind would have given that the OK, but a studio DID give it the OK and it made over 2 Billion dollars. It's called taking a gamble. Universal needs to step up, or risk loosing it to a studio that'll give it the treatment it deserves.

is something wrong with you? its f... James Cameron and he made Titanic.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

so Universal who made a lot of risky movies in the last years that bombed should now again risk it and greenlight a 150 million R rated horror movie

You have to spend money to make money. Jim Cameron knows this better than anyone.

Or they can "safe film" their way straight into bankruptcy. That's been working out well for them so far!

that is in no way written to be for the masses?

It's a big budget horror film adapted a pulp story. How is it in any way 'not for the masses'? This isn't some dreary foreign film or a David Lynch movie for god's sake.

 

[CrimsonMist]

is something wrong with you? its f... James Cameron and he made Titanic.

Yea, it's James Cameron who made Titanic. 12 years ago. That still doesn't justify a 237 million dollar budget.

 

[dark_b]

Yea, it's James Cameron who made Titanic. 12 years ago. That still doesn't justify a 237 million dollar budget.

-directors without a hit get a 200 budget for a PG13 popcorn movie
-Avatar more expensive then 250. i would say over 300 but then we will start a new debate.

Cameron after Titanic deserved a budget over 300 to be honest.

today 200 millions for a popcorn PG13 movie is not a big number. its a normal number. 150 millions for a R rated movie is still very big.

 

[CrimsonMist]

-directors without a hit get a 200 budget for a PG13 popcorn movie
-Avatar more expensive then 250. i would say over 300 but then we will start a new debate.

Cameron after Titanic deserved a budget over 300 to be honest.

today 200 millions for a popcorn PG13 movie is not a big number. its a normal number. 150 millions for a R rated movie is still very big.

And aside from Terminator 2, what did Cameron do to deserve the budget he got for Titanic? The Abyss, Terminator, True Lies were all successful movies, but not f-ing, highest grossing movie ever, huge. Aliens had the help of being a sequel to a damn good movie. I'd say that pre-Titanic, Cameron and del Toro are about equal.

On top of that, Cameron has mentioned what pitching Titanic was like. It was a period piece Romeo & Juliet set on a boat he wanted to rebuild. It would cost $150 million(it went over-budget), and there wouldn't be a sequel. The rating wasn't even regarded. The fact that it was PG-13 didn't mean a damn thing. It was making the film that made everyone panic.

Universal really blew this one. You gotta spend money to make money, and if Universal goes under, they haven't learned a thing from their history at all. When they almost went under in the 30's, the gambled on Dracula and that's the reason they still exist. And apparently, in the 1950s, Universal had more financial issues and opted to co-finance Hammer's Dracula remake. This, during a time when no one at all gave a damn about horror. You know what happened? The Horror of Dracula was an international success and helped Universal again.

Universal wants to make lots of money? Gamble. And make the damn movie.

 

[matrix_ghost]

The film has James Cameron producing. The man is responsible for the two highest grossing films of all time.

I really think Universal should take a chance.

By that logic , Sanctum would've made 100 million domestic with ease.
Just because someone big name person is a producer on a flick , doesn't mean that said flick will be a hit.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Taking it to Fox might not be a bad idea considering Cameron's history with them. At least GdT's not giving up.

The question is whether Fox will go for the R rating with that budget. We all know just how Fox works when it comes to ratings.
Hell do people honestly believe that Ridley Scott decided to make the Alien prequel/reboot a PG-13 movie ?

The advantage here is that Fox won't say no to Cameron , especially after Avatar and considering the fact that Cameron will do Avatar 2 and 3.
If Cameron demands a R rating , Fox might even give it to him.

 

[matrix_ghost]

If it looks interesting, people like different and unique. District 9 was different and unique and people went to go see it. The Matrix was different and unique and people went to go see it. The first two Terminator films were different and unique and people went to go see them. Inception was different and unique and people went to go see it. People want films that are different and unique. But in order for different and unique to work, they have to be good films.

It depends on the movie.
The example that Drew used , "Scott Pilgrim "is IMO a valid one.
To this day i have no intention of seeing it because honestly just looking at those trailers makes me wonder why the hell they made that movie.
To me it just looks incredibly stupid.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And aside from Terminator 2, what did Cameron do to deserve the budget he got for Titanic? The Abyss, Terminator, True Lies were all successful movies, but not f-ing, highest grossing movie ever, huge. Aliens had the help of being a sequel to a damn good movie. I'd say that pre-Titanic, Cameron and del Toro are about equal.

On top of that, Cameron has mentioned what pitching Titanic was like. It was a period piece Romeo & Juliet set on a boat he wanted to rebuild. It would cost $150 million(it went over-budget), and there wouldn't be a sequel. The rating wasn't even regarded. The fact that it was PG-13 didn't mean a damn thing. It was making the film that made everyone panic.

Universal really blew this one. You gotta spend money to make money, and if Universal goes under, they haven't learned a thing from their history at all. When they almost went under in the 30's, the gambled on Dracula and that's the reason they still exist. And apparently, in the 1950s, Universal had more financial issues and opted to co-finance Hammer's Dracula remake. This, during a time when no one at all gave a damn about horror. You know what happened? The Horror of Dracula was an international success and helped Universal again.

Universal wants to make lots of money? Gamble. And make the damn movie.

You're right. Fox only took a gamble because they liked James Cameron and they wanted him to do more movies with them (and that paid off with Avatar).

But I understand the other side too. If want to Gamble that's fine. If they don't, it's understandable why.

I think this is a situation in which they're not wrong, but they should take the risk. They like Del Toro, and they want him to do more movies with him. They should've taken the risk and make him happy.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Here is a thread I created more specifically for the problem that a Film School Rejects article brought up:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=19835582#post19835582

 

[Project862006]

i dont blame them universal has made rated r big budgeted movies lately and they failed at BO

if del toro had a hit like zach snyder did with 300 he would of gotten his watchmen like project(not in material but in budget and rating) greenlit

 

[dark_b]

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace....8/at-the-mountains-of-madness-is-no-more.html

''Perhaps with a couple of commercial hits under his belt, he’ll gain the clout to commander the budget and creative freedom required for At Mountains of Madness.''

 

[MadVillainy]

I 100% understand where Universal is coming from.

R rated movies that arent comedies, dont do that well. I remember reading a few pages back someone bring up that TDK was near R and made over a billion. Near R is still PG13, which basically means its more safe to bring in kids.
With R ratings people are more hesitant to bring in children, which IM sure effects the sales alot. Even if kids sneak in, the main way they do so is by buying a ticket to another movie, so again lost money for the studio. Its not like this is PG13 and theyre not giving him a chance. This is a high budgeted R rated horror movie. Neither horror or non comedy R rated movies do that well nowadays. I did a bit of research and the last hugely successful 100+ million budgeted movie to make alot of money was Matrix Revolutions and that made $427,343,298 on a production budget of 150 mill and that was back in 03.
Its easy for us to say they should take a risk, because we're not in their shoes. The audience doesnt lose anything if a film doesnt make money. THe studio loses alot of time, alot of money, and Im sure people lose there jobs over it. It also doesnt help that Universal hasnt been doing so well.

I also read people saying: "Oh it has Tom Cruise and produced by James Cameron and is directed by Del Toro. So why doesnt the studio make money".

But other than Cruise I dont think the positions that Del Toro and Cameron are in really help that much. Produced by James Cameron doesnt really mean much because as we've seen other movies produced and not directed by Cameron do not do as well, and Del Toro doesnt have that much pull in America. Yeah he made Blade 2 and the Hellboy films, which made decent money but I dont think the GA really knows him by name that well. Even Tom Cruise last movie was apparently a disappointment financially I hear (I think 250 mill is good)

Would I like to see this movie get made? Yeah Im not that in to horror but I like the talent involved. The dick thing I think is that all the talent got ready and the studio waited now to shut it down. BUt I really understand where Universal is coming from in this situation. More power to the studio that does take the risk

 

[Project862006]

lets look at recent universal big budgeted R rated films

Wolfman - Rated R - 150 million budget - made 139 million world wide

Green Zone - rated R 100 million budget - made 93 million world wide


and both films had big name actors in the leads - matt damon and Del Toro/blunt/hopkins/weaving

 

[CrimsonMist]

But I understand the other side too. If want to Gamble that's fine. If they don't, it's understandable why.

I think this is a situation in which they're not wrong, but they should take the risk. They like Del Toro, and they want him to do more movies with him. They should've taken the risk and make him happy.

I understand both sides fine, even though it may sound like I'm ignoring Universal's side. But alot of these so-called risks that they've been taking don't really feel like risks at all. I have yet to see Scott Pilgrim(i want to), but what exactly was the 100 million dollar budget risk they were taking with that? According to wikipedia, the budget was somewhere between $85 and $90 million bucks, and with tax rebates, wound up costing only $60 million. The fact that it only made over $47 million isn't too bad. How much has it made on DVD since then? Remember, the 2004 Punisher film did rather poorly at the box office, and it was only when the film took off on DVD did Marvel and Lion's Gate consider doing a sequel.

But what is Universal gonna do when it comes to budgeting del Toro's other projects? Most of them sound R-rated. Given the grotesqueness of his Frankenstein designs and how grand a scale he wants that to be, I imagine it'll be an expensive R-rated film. Also, according to wikipedia, The Wolfman's budget was $150 million as well. Yea, it tanked. Yea, it wasn't that good to begin with. But like that one article said, it was because of all the mistakes that went on behind the scenes. I would hardly consider mucking up your own production taking a gamble.

Universal has their work cut out for them. If I have to wait until I have grandkids and del Toro's head is in a floating jar attached to a body ala Futurama in order to make it, so be it. But i'd prefer del Toro and Cameron to jump ship again and get this baby made now.

 

[terry78]

The entertainment industry will always be a catch-22. You want to do things for the love of the art and all that, but on the flip side, it's still a business.

 

[Cousin Itt]

Well this sucks.

I hope this thing gets made one day.