Im just now seeing this, and now Im so sad we are never going to get an actual movie. I would like to see Lovecraft done right...... FOR ONCE. This would have been amazing.
I know we have one AtMoM movie now, but I was not impressed.
Man, what a missed opportunity....
- Thread starter Ramatuelle
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Im just now seeing this, and now Im so sad we are never going to get an actual movie. I would like to see Lovecraft done right...... FOR ONCE. This would have been amazing.
I know we have one AtMoM movie now, but I was not impressed.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,333
- Reaction score
- 5,339
Yeah I followed the history of this film, at one point even Tom Cruise was involved. A huge budget R rated horror film. Sigh.
The world desperately needs new monsters.
Im really not accepting the idea that no one is going to watch explorers in the Antarctic back in the 19th century/early 20th (Been a while since I read the novella) face off with some truly awful monsters, because there are no women or romances involved and the ending is very bleak. If that was true, why would "The Thing" be rightly hailed as a sci-fi/horror classic?
Of course no women were there in Lovecraft's original story! Not back then, and theres very few female researchers in arctic climes now. Generally not a lot of women in extreme environments. This is not a reason not to make this movie!! its so infuriating.
I'd like to see the Order of Dagon explored too - in a seperate film of course - that is some really disturbing stuff re body horror and the hints of unnatural sexuality and lets face it, itd be really cool to see half-piscine mutants and the combination of attraction and repulsion inherent therein. The flip side of "The Shape of Water." Nope, cue Marvel movie #8009.
Of course no women were there in Lovecraft's original story! Not back then, and theres very few female researchers in arctic climes now. Generally not a lot of women in extreme environments. This is not a reason not to make this movie!! its so infuriating.
I'd like to see the Order of Dagon explored too - in a seperate film of course - that is some really disturbing stuff re body horror and the hints of unnatural sexuality and lets face it, itd be really cool to see half-piscine mutants and the combination of attraction and repulsion inherent therein. The flip side of "The Shape of Water." Nope, cue Marvel movie #8009.
ironwez20
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 27,853
- Reaction score
- 5,877
Very true. Everything is supernatural. I think cloverfield was the last monster America films created?
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,398
- Reaction score
- 974
Getting Lovecraft right seems to be incredibly tough. Although this is cool to see, it seems better suited to the world of video games than a live action film, in my opinion.
MeatHookGekko
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,360
- Reaction score
- 1,638
Stuff that's a little more fantastical is a tough sell
Legion
American Gods
Preacher
Sandman
The HBO Lovecraft show bombed.
Hollywood is a copycat industry. When Unforgiven was a huge success in the early 90s, along with the unexpected critical darling in Dances With Wolves, there was a push for more Westerns, even though Westerns typically don't do so well at the box office.
If you are talking a feature film, you are better off hoping a big name star like Tom Hanks or Denzel Washington wants to do something in the Arctic as a passion project. Someone with a built in audience no matter where they go. Lovecraft, to my observation, is better off on TV, because you likely need long form storytelling to really hit the core elements and fill out a real narrative. AMC's The Terror S1 is about as far as you could go IMHO with something like Lovecraft. There was a fantastical element, but it was very muted behind a larger character study.
Nothing gets made without financing and financing only happens when it aligns to some form of "cost certainty" The first season of True Detective IMHO is actually pretty flawed from a storytelling perspective. But it had massive star power. That was enough to get it financed. A good way to get a big name star is to entice them in the first place with a great script from a big named writer. If David Mamet or Aaron Sorkin write a Lovecraft script, people are going to pay attention.
Arrival should have failed the basic litmus test for "cost certainty" It has almost no action at all. It has storytelling elements that could lose the basic audience quickly. Hard sci fi films often struggle at the box office. It doesn't get made without Amy Adams signing on. She doesn't sign on without Denis Villeneuve. People want to work with Villenueve because of what he did with Prisoners. No one would probably read the core concept from the short story by Ted Chiang and take it seriously if Villeneuve didn't fall in love with the narrative. That doesn't happen if one of VIlleneueve's friends didn't recommend him a different Chiang short story first.
That's just sort of how it works. It's not so much if Lovecraft stories can be good ( I think they can given the right mix of critical elements) , it probably matters more if someone like Aaron Sorkin just gets a huge hard on for Lovecraft one day and it generates buzz from those who loved Sorkin from The West Wing, his Facebook movie and Moneyball.
IMHO, it takes a really great writer to adapt tough material. Children Of Men by PD James is a rough book. I can see why many people wouldn't have wanted to try to adapt it. But it's a fantastic film. Last Of The Mohicans is a brutal piece of writing to turn into a script. James Fenimore Cooper is just a tough read. But he wrote it in 1826 so how hard can you be on the guy? But Michael Mann really distilled down the best parts of it for the film medium.
I'd personally classify most Lovecraft into the tough material category.
If you want Lovecraft stuff made, it needs a good deal of luck on it's side and it needs some practical pathway built around how projects are picked, promoted and financed at the logistical level.
Just some thoughts.
It can be cgi/cartoon for all I care, if done well.
The problem seems to be that this is about as expensive as doing it live action.
What IS that thing in the test footage...? Is that a mutated human? That is creepy as hell.
The problem seems to be that this is about as expensive as doing it live action.
What IS that thing in the test footage...? Is that a mutated human? That is creepy as hell.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,333
- Reaction score
- 5,339
Two episodes of Del Toro’s recent show Cabinet of Curiosities had Lovecraft adapted episodes and one of them, Dreams In The Witch House, was also done by Stuart Gordon for the Masters Of Horror show (which was very good, haven’t seen the newer version). Gordon was pretty much the gold standard for adapting Lovecraft even if he was very loose about it at times. I’ve also got time for Richard Stanley’s Color Out Of Space with Nic Cage and Dan O’Bannon’s The Resurrected.
wormlander
Super Freak
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 699
- Reaction score
- 677
Color Out Of Space was really good i.m.o. Can't say that of many Lovecraft adaptations unfortunately
I think Del Toro’s best shot of getting this made was right after he won the Best Picture Oscar for Shape of Water. Usually Hollywood gives you a blank check to be willing to work with them next and if that didn’t happen, the studios must be very hesitant. I think you’re right that the right combination of script, actors, budget, director, and most importantly interest all have to align just right for something like this to work. Horror is still very niche as a genre for general audiences. Lots of followers no doubt but not the numbers a superhero or Pixar film can usually count on.
Yeah, Hollywood hasn’t been the best at crafting decent stories lately. It’s made me somewhat against the whole writers’ strike thing. Sure they deserve certain credit for their work but frankly we deserve better writers as audiences. Rewarding successes and punishing failure seems to be needed to a certain extent more. Plenty of incredible films fail at the box office though so it’s not a cut and dry answer to making better movies, but there doesn’t seem to be enough in place from keeping shlock from getting turned in again and again. Audiences are finally starting to talk with their wallets so maybe that’s enough to bring about the change?
Not that any of that helps the chances of something like this seeing the light of day. Maybe it being just different enough from the usual might be the key. Something new can do gangbusters if it hits the right cord with audiences.
Not that any of that helps the chances of something like this seeing the light of day. Maybe it being just different enough from the usual might be the key. Something new can do gangbusters if it hits the right cord with audiences.
MeatHookGekko
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,360
- Reaction score
- 1,638
Final Fantasy The Spirits Within came out in 2001. It had a long development cycle, so it was conceived in the 90's. The projectible budget, with cost overruns, was about 180 million. In 2001 no less.
It was an animated story - Not very marketable especially as it was geared for adults. That naturally inferred voice actors thus no real heavy hitting star power to grab attention
It relied on an IP without real leverage - The core games behind it were popular, but not truly mainstream popular
It needed major success with "Western" audiences - This just doesn't translate well. When you had prime time animated shows in Asia like Super Dimensional Fortress Macross ( that would be Robotech to people here) , the pathway was much more forgiving than in America.
The story had many fantastical / esoteric elements - When you are already taking huge risks, you don't win with the typical anime mystical glowing singing bird stuff. I mean I get it, I truly do, but I'm one person, and the niche isn't enough to carry "mainstream success"
This existed in a time before "Money Ball" - The entire idea of really understanding metrics in everything and how it would apply to projections in the industry still didn't exist then. Hell, a lot of people were still on dial up internet back then. The way films were marketed was also different.
The writing was, IMHO, pretty horrible - It was not a simple story with timeless themes and the creators focused on the wrong things ( i.e. one of the developers spent a lot of money getting the "hair" on the female lead character right
FFTSW was ambitious. But it was too much, too soon, too costly, too risky, too lacking in basic fundamental storytelling and had the penalty of bad timing as well. FFSTW is the cautionary tale.
IMHO, if you want Lovecraft, the best way is to start small. Then build up a series of small wins. In 2009, Star Trek under Abrams, Moon with Sam Rockwell, District 9 and the buzz of Avatar were all out there. And without that, I don't think we get something like Interstellar or Gravity or even Dune today. No one expected much out of Moon or District 9, but they captured audiences and critics. Star Trek was a huge pleasant surprise both financially and critically. Avatar was just a money printing machine.
So when you say an animated film, I agree, that would be a nice start. Slow and steady. Build wins. Then maybe you get a Christopher Nolan or a Spielberg interested in a Lovecraft story later once there's real momentum. If you get one shot, it can't end up a cautionary tale. The failure of the HBO show with Jonathan Majors is simply too far of a setback IMHO, at least right now.
My rationale here though is that del Toro has already spent decades thinking about this project and so much of the groundwork is in place to get things off the ground now, as opposed to starting from scratch. They say hes trying to get Netflix interested in a miniseries....
I will have to revisit Gordon's Dagon, which iirc was pretty damn trippy. They left the incestual element intact and didnt blunt the ending for a general audience one bit, I remember being amazed that this audacity was allowed. Lovecraft *should* shock your sensibilities a bit and this may be a factor in why its so hard to bring to the screen. Lovecraft was a very twisted guy and he cared nothing for Judeo-Christian morality. Or for romance, for that matter.
I will have to revisit Gordon's Dagon, which iirc was pretty damn trippy. They left the incestual element intact and didnt blunt the ending for a general audience one bit, I remember being amazed that this audacity was allowed. Lovecraft *should* shock your sensibilities a bit and this may be a factor in why its so hard to bring to the screen. Lovecraft was a very twisted guy and he cared nothing for Judeo-Christian morality. Or for romance, for that matter.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 5,333
- Reaction score
- 5,339
Yeah I never realised he did so many adaptations I still haven’t watched that one.
Coming back to Lovecraft Country I didn’t hate that show but it didn’t feel like it earned that title and while there were some interesting ideas it got quite aimless in the second half.
abake
Rex Tremendae Majestatis
Regrettably, I think Del Toro is a terrible choice for adapting Lovecraft.
HPL's stories -with some notable exceptions- are more about atmosphere and dread rather than frights and monsters. Most horror aficionados tend to have this infatuation with the monsters and tentacles, instead of what Lovecraft was really good at, which was the all-pervasive sense of doom and dread, the slow burn and innuendo of the half-glimpsed horrors (and truths).
That test footage is a prime example of what is wrong with how Del Toro sees Lovecraft. It has nothing to do with what HPL wrote and is all about tentacle (horror-)porn...
Arrival is much more Lovecraftian than any movie that has been supposedly adapted from Lovecraft's work.
I know that clip was unfinished CGI but it did nothing for me. Reminded me of the 2011 Thing prequel.
Ditto. Looks like a generic Dead Space-style monster. Tentacles, pointy appendages, we've seen it numerous times over the last 15 years.
If these creatures are so inconceivable, so unimaginably terrifying that our minds would explode if we saw them, we probably shouldn't see very much of them at all on-screen. A vague silhouette at most. I'm not super familiar with Lovecraft, but the way Robert E. Howard -- one of his contemporaries -- describes such creatures is by focusing instead on how the human characters emotionally respond to them. These are abstract things that you can't sell with visuals. In fact, visuals would probably cheapen them.
Last edited:
A lot of that movie was stupid. And it was, I dont know, way glitzier than it should have been. The interior of the alien craft was so sparkly and glowing, so CLEAN. As if an alien like that would care about how many LEDs they could cram all over the place. This ship is just too big.
With that said, that movie had some disturbing moments. The initial transformation and then that spiderwalking thing hunting them through the darkened lab [or storage area, or whatever it was] I was just like.... nope.... do not like, which is a sign of effectiveness. At least for me.
Does del Toro pay homage to this Thing creature? He sure does, but to be fair the original work also had these things having tentacles and stabby appendages. Where del Toro went wrong was in not including the wings.
There is something deeply creepy to me about how in a lot of Lovecraft's stuff, all you have to do is BE NEAR his creatures, and you begin to transform. No magic needed, they don't have to work a physical transformation on you. You just.... change.
Similar threads
