At the Economics of Madness…

Updated on March 18, 2011 By Ken Begg 26 Comments

When I was down in Texas last week, I heard the sad news that Guillermo Del Toro’s much anticipated Lovecraft film At the Mountains of Madness had been cancelled. Like everyone else, I was taken aback. Now that I’ve read up on it, though, I just say that Universal was absolutely correct to pull the plug.

Del Toro’s project would have entailed an R rated horror film with a $150 million (!) budget. To break even at the box office, the film (factoring in another $100 million for worldwide publicity and print costs) would have required a $500  million worldwide box office gross to break even.

Del Toro’s most successful films up to now, Blade II and Hellboy II, both raked in a comparatively puny $150-160 million worldwide. A larger issue is the R rating, which Del Toro maintains would have been for intensity rather than gore or anything, and I believe him. But it’s still an R rating, and even aside from the track record for R rated horror films, the most sucessful R rated movie EVER was Passion of the Christ, which made $370 million worldwide. So At the Mountain of Madness would have had to top that historic benchmark by about 40%.

[Correction: See comments section below] But it’s still an R rated movie, and only three of those, ever, have crossed the $500 million line worldwide. And none of those was a horror movie. The only R rated horror movie to come close is the Exorcist, from an age when R rated movies did better, and with forty years of extra releases and such factored in.

It’s easy to reflexively side with the ‘artist,’ and in this case, Del Toro actually rates that title. Even so, the thing about film as opposed to writing or painting or whatever is that before you make your dream project, you have to go to someone and ask them to give you, in this case, basically $250 million dollars to see the film made and distributed worldwide. Given that, you can’t expect vulgar economics and even more vulgar ass-covering to play a part.

It is galling, admittedly, that at the same time Universal is now spending $200 million to make a film based on the Battleship board game. Sadly, though, as an action film with a PG-13 rating, that film is still a better bet (although not much of one, I suspect) than a $150 million Lovecraft adaptation.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • RogerBW

    It had potential. But James Cameron exec-producing? It would have turned into a special-effects fest in 3D. And Tom Cruise as the lead? No thanks, I prefer to be able to tell the unemotional aliens from the principal cast.

  • I don’t know. People beat on Cruise, but he’s a good actor, and if he failed to embarrass himself as Lestat, a role he was clearly unsuited for, I imagine he could have pulled this off. I’m not sure how much emoting a Lovecraft protagonist should be doing anyway. Indeed, one of Cruise’s strengths is that he plays obsessives well, and that fits rather nicely.

  • alex

    How can a film cost 150 million? Especially with all the computer effects wich don’t require expensive props and less manpower. Mario Bava could make glorious looking films for 150 Thousand bucks. Guys like Del Toro should learn from him.
    When Bava did Danger Diabolik he was given 3 Million dollars and made it under schedule for 500 thousand. And he had no computer effects to help him out.

  • Joel Strewth

    Actually Ken, The Passion of the Christ’s $370 million take was the domestic take. The worldwide take was $604 million.

    Most successful R-rated film, worldwide? The Matrix Reloaded, at $735 million.

  • Joel —

    Thanks for the correction! Should have researched that more.

    That still implies that it would be a touch hill to climb to reach $500, however. Only three R rated movies have ever done so, and none of them was a horror flick.

  • Reed

    Even though I did enjoy the story in order to make a marketable movie out of the material you would have to spend a lot less time wandering around on the ice and a lot more time in recreations of the Elder Ones’ civilization and running from Shoggoths. I’m not a film scholar, but my general sense of things is that to make half a billion dollars you need spectacle, and the original story hands out its spectacle very sparingly.

    I do not understand why it would not be possible to make this movie PG or PG-13, though. Can you not make an “intense” movie that’s PG-13?

  • rizzo

    The only reason that I had a slight bit of hope for this film was because del Toro was directing, but I still don’t think you can make a very good film using AtMoM as your source. You’d have to change it up so much that it would only vaguely resemble the original story.

  • Well, I thought this was farther along than it was. Disappointing, yet understandable. Now the HPLHS guys can handle this! Sandy, get out the checkbook!

  • “I do not understand why it would not be possible to make this movie PG or PG-13, though. Can you not make an “intense” movie that’s PG-13?”

    Apparently the Del Toro-produced Afraid of the Dark remake earned an R rating for “violence and terror.” Since the violence isn’t reportedly that bad, apparently the film was given an R rating basically because it was subjectively considered too scary for youngsters.

    Del Toro apparently fears that, despite a lack of obvious objectionable content, At the Mountains of Madness might have been similarly rated. And he thus wanted to be ensured the film wouldn’t be cut in order to earn a PG-13. I don’t think he really cares what the rating is–in other words, he didn’t want an R rating just for the sake of the thing–he just doesn’t want to compromise the movie he wants to make.

  • zombiewhacker

    While Cruise does have a good record of picking quality projects (as I’ve argued before), his failings as an actor cannot be ignored.

    Is Cruise a bad actor? No? But is he a thinking man’s actor (ex., Tracy, Guinness, Hackman, Freeman)? No.

    Does he evince a compelling volativity (DeNiro, Pacino pre-90s, Crowe, Washington)? No.

    Does he radiate empathy and sensitivity toward other characters on screen (most of the above, plus, say, somebody like Will Smith)? Hell, no.

    The only thing Cruise is good at is playing self-absorbed, cocksure loners like his characters in Top Gun, The Color of Money, Rain Man, or what I feel was his best performance to date, Minority Report.

    So as far as the Lovecraft project goes, it’s generally a good rule of thumb to cast the most sympathetic actor possible in a horror/sci fi film, because suspension of belief is already being taxed to the limit and you need a sympathetic actor to draw the audience in. Note I said “actor”, not “character”. Kurt Russell’s characters in John Carpenter films are generally A-holes, but because Russell himself is so ingratiating, he’s able to carry them off.

    Cruise, OTOH, is not so ingratiating, and becomes even less so as the years wear on. This is why Cruise was absolutely the worst choice for The War of the Worlds (to say nothing of Legend) whereas a guy like Smith is always a perfect fit for sci-fi genre films.

    Simply put, I can’t see Cruise playing a Lovecraftian hero, tragic or otherwise, because I can’t picture myself giving a damn about him in any move where Cruise himself never appears to give a damn about anyone else.

  • zombiewhacker

    Er… volatility, not volativity.

  • Reed

    Ah, I see. Del Torro is absolutely at the top of “guys I’d love to buy a beer if a get the chance”, and I would love to be able to just sit and chat with him for a while. He’s one of those rare directors whose films I actually enjoy more after hearing the director’s commentary than before I hear it. In many ways AtMoM would have been the perfect project for him; he could have let his fascination with slimy things and opening shaped like vaginas to run completely wild.

  • Gamera

    Oh dang, I hoping this one would turn out well…

    Wasn’t Sandy involved to this in some way?

  • Rock Baker

    I’ve never read any Lovecraft, but is such a huge budget really required to make one of his stories into a feature film? Do his tales have a habit of spanning continents and involving thousands of secondary characters? What I’ve been able to gleen of his story-telling habits, I’d asume Lovecraft tales to revolve around a single (or very few) location(s) and a small group of characters who support a central figure. Cast good actors, and have minimal effects work and I’d think a project like this could be done for less than 12 million. (Do it away from studio and union control and you could do it for 2 million, even less if you avoid ‘name’ actors and go for talent.)

  • ZW– I think you meant “pre-’90s DeNiro” too; Cruise has been a better actor over the last 20 years than DeNiro has been.

    Shouldn’t a Lovecraft protagonist (I don’t think Lovecraft ever wrote a “hero,” but I won’t pretend to be an expert) BE unlikeable? A bit weird, off? I think the attributes you attribute to Cruise could definitely shape an exactly correct figure for this sort of film.

    Anyway, Del Toro was satisfied with him, and he’s walked from project before because he couldn’t cast who he wanted. So presumably he agrees with me.

  • Gamera — No, Sandy was involved in the Whisperer in the Darkness movie. He showed it to us last weekend; it’s fantastic.

  • Reed

    On an only tangentially related subject, I was in the book store the other day and saw that Del Toro had co-authored a series of vampire novels. Reading the jacket made it sound like they were more or less set in the world of the Blade movies, although I’m sure for copyright reasons no such mention occurs in the books themselves. Has anyone read them (I saw 2 out), and if so were they any good?

  • zombiewhacker

    LOL, okay, pre-90s DeNiro.

    Sure, Lovecraft had plenty of sympathetic protagonists (Dreams In The Witchhouse, The Lurking Fear, even Shadow over Innsmouth until the payoff scene) but I was talking about the actor. In a way, even your most despicable character needs a sympathetic actor. Think Heath Ledger got props for Dark Knight because audiences failed to connect with him on *any* level?

    It honestly matters little whether Del Toro thought Cruise was the “right” actor or not. After all, Kubrick thought Ryan O’Neal was just perfect for Barry Lyndon, right?

  • I trust Del Toro’s instincts a bit more than Kubrick’s, who like many in the post-studio system era became a less interesting director as he aged.

    I get that you don’t like Cruise, and I’m not heralding him as the greatest actor of his age, but I think people do generally connect with him, or he wouldn’t be a movie star. I don’t think you need a brilliant actor to occupy the lead role in this movie, and all in all, I think Cruise is capable enough. Good lord, look at Keanu Reeve in The Matrix, and he flat out sucks as an actor.

  • TongoRad

    This is a moot point, I suppose, but I too am wondering how a movie based on this material would cost so much moolah. I can see taking the events of the story and using them as a bookend to an extended cutaway of the Old Ones, their world, how they came to this planet- all of that stuff that was only related via interpreting the pictograms in the book- and make it a completely dynamic, unforgetable experience. On one hand the tone of it would be totally out of line with Lovecraft, but on the other it could be one heck of a ride.

  • Gamera

    Thanks Ken, looking forward to ‘Whisperer’. I’m going to have to go pull out some of my Lovecraft stuff and reread it.

  • fish eye no miko

    Thinking about it, I have to agree with Reed and rizzo; ATMOM might not be the best Lovecraft story to make int a movie, anyway. It’s… kinda just guys walking around in the snow, discovering ancient civilizations, then there’s a little bit of action at the end. There are many Lovecraft stories that have enough action that you could make an exciting movie without having to stray too far from the source material. Or at all, really; you just might need to expand it.

  • zombiewhacker

    Now you’re being unfair to Keanu Reeves. Reeves is a far more naturalistic actor than Cruise. He is however, very limited in range. So whereas he did well in films like River’s Edge, The Devil’s Advocate, Speed…

    … well, let’s just put it this way, there’s a special place in Jabootu hell for every director whoever thought to cast him in a period piece. (Dangerous Liasons?!!!!)

    As for Cruise, he became a star doing the one thing I said he was good at: playing cocky mavericks. Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Rain Man, these are the movies that put him over the top box office-wise. I had no problem with his performances in these movies. Ditto Color of Money or even the dreadful Cocktail.

    But then I watch him in something like Valkerie and I say WTF? He doesn’t emote, he doesn’t connect with other actors, he doesn’t connect with the audience, he just speaks in the same poker-faced, flat monotone all through the picture. He’s simply out of his depth. Outside of Minority Report, as I said, he seems much more suited to light-hearted fare.

  • tim

    why can’t del toro produce it as an animated movie, with cgi? that would cut the budget significantly. he could still make the same kind of movie.

  • First off, Lovecraft’s stories are obviously hard to film. I’m not sure AtMoM is less filmable than Whisperer in Darkness, though , and we pulled it off for less than a million.

    I realize that a Lovecraft protagonist is not going to be a Jimmy Stewart or Will Smith, but again, in Whisperer we had a protagonizt who was stiff, unemotional, and pendantic. The guy takes a nap wearing his bow tie! Yet in the end I feel he managed to garner audience sympathy.

  • Damn. Means that The Thing is going to have to keep the top ranks of arctic Lovecraftian films.

    Though I’m with the others wondering why you’d have to put this together for $150 million – I think getting Cameron and Cruise involved may have been Del Toro’s one significant misstep, on this front. AtMoM is a film that should be small and confined, with bigger elements that come in with CGI animation of flashbacks, not a story with big setpieces and action. I imagine Cameron’s involvement was primarily *for* the CGI animation of flashbacks, but that’s still not *necessary*.

    Unless, of course, it was necessary to get Universal involved, and Del Toro wasn’t about to say no to being told to make his film more eye-popping and incredible.