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?
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.
