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

[Zant]

Mia did well but still wasn't a real tentpole film, I mean like big blockbusters. The last Mummy film was a flop and Universal is skeptical on Jurassic Park without Spielberg having a say. Look at the top grossers: Harry Potter, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Toy Story, etc. Universal has no summer tentpole blockbusters, Mummy was probably their last and they squandered that.



That's why I'd rather Hellboy III than his other mess Del Toro is fooling around with. However the schedule you propose I think would be fine. Perlman is 61 but Harrison Ford was Indy at 66 and look at all of the things Stallone does in his mid 60s. Lots of prosthetics so you don't have to worry about him looking old, as long as Ron Perlman is in good shape I'm sure he can pull off the role just fine. But yeah, if it's made they need to get a step on it!

The last Mummy movie made 400 mil thats not a flop,Universal also has Wanted ,Fast and Furious and Despicable me not as big as the other Major studios but its still something

 

[Doctor Jones]

They had Bourne 3 a few years back too. But that doesn't matter much anymore.

I feel so bad. They are home to Jaws and Jurassic Park and Spielberg's first job for God sakes. And it's here??

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

In the garbage it goes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I will find the pages, piece them back together carefully, in order, then hold Cameron, Del Toro and cruise to make this movie while acting out all of the parts themselves. Ron Perlman can be my camera man.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

In the garbage it goes.

I'm assuming this is all the concept work they did. I could friggin cry.

You got a link to where you found this?

 

[Man in the Suit]

I'm assuming this is all the concept work they did. I could friggin cry.

You got a link to where you found this?

It's just a random pic of trash..........

 

[MadVillainy]

lol people are overreacting like a motherf***er

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It's just a random pic of trash..........

How the **** am I supposed to know that?

 

[MadVillainy]

why would they shred concept art?
Especially when theyre potentially moving it to another studio

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

How the **** am I supposed to know that?

Because it's trash.....

Anyway, what would have been one of the PAs for the film had tweeted the pic so...yeah..

 

[terry78]

I love how it was just immediately assumed those bags were full of Del Toro's ideas.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

**** it

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm disappointed, but this is the nature of the business. I mean these movies are a big investment and passion projects don't always turn out what they are cracked up to be. Look at Peter Jackson's King Kong. Universal gave him pretty much everything he wanted there.

I'm just saying, we worship filmmakers but they are still human at the end of the day. They are fallible. I enjoy the Hellboy movies a lot but they are not perfect. They are flawed.

Fans are taking this way too seriously. This movie would've cost a freaking fortune and probably would've seen no return for it. I mean look at what is making the most money right now. There is no Twilight hook for a movie like this.

 

[Lencho01]

I thought this was another interesting read...

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/03/never-bet-on-breaking-records-i-wouldnt.html

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Never bet on breaking records: Why I wouldn't have greenlit Guillermo Del Toro's R-rated, $150m version of HP Lovecraft's At the Mountain of Madness.




Let's be honest for a second. Under normal circumstances, Inception likely would not have been greenlit in its current form at Warner Bros. While Warner Bros. until recently had a reputation for giving lots of money to notable filmmakers and more-or-less staying out of their way, even they had their limits. Had Christopher Nolan not just delivered a $1 billion-grossing and critically-acclaimed superhero sequel, and had not Warner Bros. desperately wanted to guarantee that Nolan would return for what would become The Dark Knight Rises, Inception would have been a very different movie, if it even would have existed at all. On paper, would you green-light a $200 million science-fiction film based on an original screenplay that was full of complex ideas, difficult-to-explain story elements and a distinct lack of bright colors and conventional sex appeal? There are but a handful of filmmakers who could have made Inception as it was. Chris Nolan, coming off The Dark Knight, was one of them. Other than perhaps James Cameron and Steven Spielberg (George Lucas would have just funded the thing out of his own back-pocket), I cannot think of anyone else who could have gotten the greenlight without severely slashing the budget. Guillermo del Toro isn't one of those directors either.

The film-world was thrown into a frenzy yesterday regarding Universal's cancellation of Guillermo del Toro's personal passion project, a $150 million, R-rated adaptation of HP Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness. We live in an era where even the once-brave Warner Bros. has gone from the sort of studio that would roll the dice on The Matrix to the kind of studio that will likely reboot/remake The Matrix, where Pixar seems content to become a sequel factory (Cars 2, Monsters Inc 2), where studios are so terrified of big-budget originality that they seem to merely be parading an never-ending stream of unwanted sequels (Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief: The Sea Monsters), needless remakes (Total Recall), and inexplicable 'reboots' (Tomb Raider), the news was the film-news equivalent of us lefties hearing that President Obama had caved into GOP budget demands... again. There are plenty of reasons why executives are reluctant to spend blockbuster-dollars on original ideas. But the (temporary?) death of At the Mountain of Madness isn't quite representative of the end of original thought in Hollywood. But it is a good time to stop and ask why every major studio genre picture needs to cost to bloody much?

The highest-grossing R-rated film of all-time is The Matrix Reloaded, at $742 million worldwide. After that, you get The Passion of the Christ ($611 million), Terminator 2: Judgment Day ($519 million), Troy ($497 million), Saving Private Ryan ($481 million), The Hangover ($467 million), The Matrix and Pretty Woman ( both $463 million), Gladiator ($457 million), The Last Samurai and 300 ( both $456 million), The Exorcist ($441 million), Terminator 3: Rise of the Machine ($433 million), The Matrix Revolutions ($427 million), Sex and the City ($411 million), and The Bodyguard ($410 million - which is arguably why that one is getting remade). That's just sixteen films in all of modern-motion picture history that have grossed $400 million or more worldwide with an R-rating. The second-highest-grossing R-rated horror film (after The Exorcist) remains Hannibal, with $351 million. I can't even think of an insanely successful R-rated supernatural horror picture off the top of my head... can you? Point being, even with the once-surefire Tom Cruise allegedly at the helm, an R-rated $150 million supernatural horror film would basically have to become the most successful supernatural R-rated horror film of all-time just to break even.

And a movie based on an H.P. Lovecraft story doesn't exactly scream four-quadrant blockbuster. In terms of mainstream accessibility, H.P. Lovecraft makes Clive Barker look like Tim Burton. The problem with the project, as is, was the cost and the rating, plain and simple. Want to spend $150 million? Make it PG-13. Want it to keep its (likely appropriate) R-rating? Keep the budget below $100 million. Quite frankly, it is the cost of making these big pictures, and the accommodating marketing costs, that remains one of the big reasons why studios are so afraid of originality when it comes time for their 'big films'. And let's be clear, there are plenty of original films being made in the low-to-mid budget range, it's just that many of them slip under the radar and/or are held until the year-end awards season. But, when dealing with big-budget 'tent-poles', if you greenlight an original picture and it flops, the blame falls on you. But if you greenlight an adaptation of a known property or a remake/reboot of an existing property, you have the defense of 'well, it worked before, right?'.

There is arguably no real reason that a solid adaptation of a Lovecraft short-story can't be made for $70-100 million. But even if a studio wanted to bankroll a hugely risky endeavor such as this, Universal is alas not in the place to do it right now. As Drew McWeeny correctly pointed out, Universal is one of the good guys. They've had a few years filled with original and/or challenging films of varying quality, and most of them have flopped pretty hard. The Green Zone, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, Funny People, The Wolfman (which accidentally became a $150 million R-rated horror film), Leatherheads, The Changeling, Duplicity, State of Play, etc. Their 2008-2010 slate is littered with original, adult fare that underperformed or outright tanked. And, as a result, their 2012 slate is being held up by The Bourne Legacy (a reboot), Ouija (a horror film based on a board game), and Battleship (an action picture based on a board game). We don't know what role (if any) that Universal's new corporate bosses at Comcast had to do with the turnaround, but the Universal of 2011 was not in a place to spend $150 million on an R-rated supernatural horror adventure picture by a director whose highest-grossing film (Hellboy II) made $160 million.

The number one issue here is cost control. If every single major movie didn't magically find a way to cost $150 million or more, than studios would arguably be more willing to take creative chances and/or cede more creative control in regards to content, casting, and MPAA rating. District 9 would not have existed in its current form as a $150 million tentpole release. The reason it got made as director Neill Blomkamp desired was because it cost just $30 million. But at $125-150 million, its $210 million worldwide take would have been underwhelming if not disastrous. Even as a film critic/pundit who fears the coming years of 1980s/1990s-rebooted, I would not as a studio executive greenlight a $150 million R-rated horror picture based on an H.P. Lovecraft story. Because, like it or not, that would mean betting on At the Mountains of Madness breaking records for an R-rated horror picture. And that's just bad business. You want studios to make better, more original, and more individualistic and idiosyncratic 'big' movies? Tell the studios, with your wallet perhaps, to stop spending Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End-money on Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

Scott Mendelson

 

[MadVillainy]

I like how some people are thinking with sense and not just blind fanboy rage
Thanks for posting the article Lencho

 

[Alien Anal]

I'm assuming this is all the concept work they did. I could friggin cry.

You got a link to where you found this?

Brilliant

 

[TheVileOne]

There are some good points in that article, but I don't think making ****** original flops is a good excuse to do ****ing movies based on board games.

 

[Sentinel X]

I agree with the article. The fact that Universal really really wanted to make a 150 million dollar R rated horror movie speaks a lot. I hope they find that successful franchise that will allow them to fund more riskier projects. Looking back at it, I don't think Universal has had a huge film since Jurassic Park

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Brilliant

Piss off.

 

[Dark Knight]

Tisk Tisk.

Del Toro went through all that crap with leaving The Hobbit to now have this Madness film fall apart on him also?

Jeeeezzzz....he could have directed the Nolan produced Superman film too!

Oh well....I'm sure this Pacific Rim will be a good rebound film for him.

 

[Rez]

CALL ME WHEN THE TANTRUM IS OVER?

:P

It is a bit mind boggling as to how this would cost so much.. but then again then entire money system in Hollywood productions is pretty mind boggling to me. Even if you paid 200 people 50,000 dollars for a year's worth of work that's only a budget of 10 million dollars. And make no mistake about it, not everyone working on a movie is making 50 grand, or working for even close to a year on it. Throw in another 10 to 20 million for sets and equipment.. anything too big can be done in a much more cost effective way with miniatures and CGI. Then set aside 10 to 20 million for the director and the big stars and whoever the hell else gets paid millions for things. But cap each person at 2 million and give them some kind of decimal back end percentage. What, location shooting in Antartica? **** off, not everyone needs to be there nor does the entire movie need to be filmed there.

Studios need to budget cap their films at 75 million or so. Anyone that *really* thinks they need more money can get outside funding, and then if they lose their shirt it's their own damn fault. The fact that people are no longer creative enough to take 75 million dollars and make, well, ANYTHING, is pretty sad.

 

[Lencho01]

I assume there just too many factors that would give it your standard $150-200 million budget that one would expect for a film that had a broader audience.

So either del Toro gets big enough to have better clout or he scales the film back somehow and actually has the time to make the film, then the film will get made.

 

[dark_b]

CALL ME WHEN THE TANTRUM IS OVER?

:P

It is a bit mind boggling as to how this would cost so much.. but then again then entire money system in Hollywood productions is pretty mind boggling to me. Even if you paid 200 people 50,000 dollars for a year's worth of work that's only a budget of 10 million dollars. And make no mistake about it, not everyone working on a movie is making 50 grand, or working for even close to a year on it. Throw in another 10 to 20 million for sets and equipment.. anything too big can be done in a much more cost effective way with miniatures and CGI. Then set aside 10 to 20 million for the director and the big stars and whoever the hell else gets paid millions for things. But cap each person at 2 million and give them some kind of decimal back end percentage. What, location shooting in Antartica? **** off, not everyone needs to be there nor does the entire movie need to be filmed there.

Studios need to budget cap their films at 75 million or so. Anyone that *really* thinks they need more money can get outside funding, and then if they lose their shirt it's their own damn fault. The fact that people are no longer creative enough to take 75 million dollars and make, well, ANYTHING, is pretty sad.

so when del Toro was working on hes dream project he wanted to throw money away? you think he was nto trying to make mvoie with the lowest budget ?

 

[Rez]

Sometimes when you're too close to something you lack the ability to be objective about it. Do I think he was sitting around twirling his mustache hoping to burn piles of money? No.

Hellboy II cost 72 million. This film looked amazing, had plenty of locations, creatures, action set pieces and make up effects.

Pan's had a budget of only 19 million. Again, it looked gorgeous, and had quite a few fantasy locations and creature effects.

I know that if I could make what I made in these movies for that much money, I could make whatever the hell I might need to make in ATMOM for 72 million or less. There certainly wouldn't be as many creatures and huge action set pieces as in Hellboy, so what exactly is the issue? Del Toro is extremely creative, but from what little I've seen of him in interviews he does seem to get easily attached to ideas and then refuse to budge on them. I might not be privy to the details, but if one can't find a way to be creative enough with 75 million dollars to make any fricking thing they want, then I'm confident in saying they are hung up on something that is not necessary.

 

[dark_b]

when you are doing your dream project and when you have all the technology you dont do compromises.