Anchorman 2 & Zoolander 2 Can Be Made If The Price is Right
by Ethan Anderton
May 3, 2010
Bad news hit recently for comedy faves Ron Burgundy and Derek Zoolander as both Anchorman 2 and Zoolander 2 were apparently having problems (via tweets from Adam McKay and Ben Stiller) getting off the ground due to budgetary concerns from Paramount. However, Deadline has dug a little deeper into the issue and has discovered that both sequels still very much have the potential to be made, but only if they cost around $40 million. What it comes down to is, no matter how successful both original comedies were domestically, their international box office performance left something to be desired. So how's the outlook?
Well it seems like Anchorman may have more to overcome than Zoolander. Last week, via Facebook, Adam McKay said that they lowered their budget for the Anchorman sequel to around the cost of Step Brothers ($65 million) and that was after actors Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, David Koechner and Christina Applegate (who are pretty much all much bigger names then they were back in 2004) reduced their own paycheck for this. Honestly, with the starpower this sequel has now, six years later, you would think $65 million wouldn't be that big of a deal, but apparently the studio isn't budging. Meanwhile, Deadline says McKay and company won't even start on a script unless Paramount agrees to their budget estimate.
On the Zoolander sequel front, we don't really have an idea of what their budget looks like, but obviously it must be more than $40 million if Ben Stiller felt the need to tweet about their greenlight woes. Much like Anchorman's talent, Zoolander's Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson have increased their star power dramatically since the original 2001 comedy, which, despite a lack of huge box office success (after all it was released two weeks after 9/11), has found a sizable audience on DVD. Both of those guys (not to mention potentially Will Ferrell) are set to return, but with Justin Theroux, who wrote Iron Man 2, writing and directing this time.
Obviously the reasoning behind these budget restrictions are a reminder of the harsh reality that no matter how fantastical and outrageous some films turn out to be (even on DVD), this is all a part of show business, and you can't have a business if you don't make money. I get it, Paramount, I really do, but you've got a very strong established fanbase for both of these films to the point that whenever Stiller or Ferrell (or anyone remotely involved with either Anchorman or Zoolander) are interviewed, they're asked about sequel plans.
So if Paramount is being difficult, is there any chance either of these sequels could find a home elsewhere? Deadline is on top of that though (especially since McKay addressed such suggestions on twitter) and while having either property go to another studio isn't a bad idea, it's not likely since Paramount previously put Twilight and John Carter of Mars into turnaround and they're not anxious to miss out on the kind of money they're certainly losing on both of those. Anyway, it sounds like there's still hope for these films, but it will be quite the uphill battle. Let Paramount know just how much you want to see these sequels!
HOW doe we let Paramount know we want these sequels? :l
Toucmyinfection on May 3, 2010
First Fellman destroys my approval of WB with all his 3D conversion crap, causing my new favorite studio to be Paramount. Now it seems they can't even last a few months as my favorite because of all their antics during 2 high profile sequels I am very much interested in. There were only 2 studios I had some amount of respect for and they both lost all my favor in just 2010. woah.
Al on May 3, 2010
40 million does seem reasonable, especially if all the stars take a pay cut... perhaps a middle ground of 50 mil? what i don't understand is that the most random things are getting adapeted into movies (many new comics, board games, magic 8-ball, battleship etc) why is it such a risky propositiong to add a sequal to two sucessfull movies with large fan-bases
Janny on May 3, 2010
Do it. Do it. Do it.
People's Champ on May 3, 2010
Paramount can go paramount a donkey up the ass
dave on May 3, 2010
@ dave - Lmfao! Paramount needs to just let Mckay & Theroux do with their movies as they please and stop bitchin' about their budgets. Both of these sequels will make copius amounts of money both in theaters and on DVD, so just shut the hell up Paramount and let them work their magic.
Peace Love & GaGa on May 3, 2010
I'm sorry, but I really hope Anchorman 2 does not get made. I hated that one. I've even tried watching it a 2nd time and I just couldn't do it. Zoolander was cool, I'd watch that one though.
flickthis.tv on May 3, 2010
I completely agree with number 7...hated Anchorman, but would love a Zoolander sequel! Comedy is always up for debate though so I won't argue with the cult Anchorman fans...
peloquin on May 3, 2010
Comment #7 and #8, Clearly you both lack a sense of humor, Anchorman was hilarious.
casey on May 3, 2010
As I stated #9...humor is not as much of a universal language as action or drama.
peloquin on May 3, 2010
do it, why not? what can it hurt?
Xerxex on May 3, 2010
This studio is really failing with Zoolander, I mean it's not even out on Blu Ray yet. Seriously I want to see Derek Hansel walk off in HD. Provided it's actually good, a sequel would make a bucket load of cash.
Bee on May 4, 2010
Don't see the problem with 40 for Zoolander. Original was only 28 mil. Do eet!!
bozo on May 4, 2010
I couldn't stomach either movie. I hated Zoolander, because I felt as if Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson played it all as if the audience was unintelligent. I can hardly stand to watch either one in a movie as it is. Neither star should be making the money that they are. Anchorman was more tolerable for me. However, I can't stand Will Ferrell. I liked him so much when he was on Saturday Night Live, but some of his movies are just terrible. The other actors in Anchorman were great - I just hated his character and his acting. He gets over $20 million a movie now and his movies get worse every year. Ben Stiller makes more than that a movie. Most of these actors are overrated and overpaid. Most of the 'best' or 'greatest' actors right now make so much less and are better actors, making better movies. Seth Rogen, Ryan Reynolds and Robert Downey Jr. are 3 examples. These men only get between $8-$12 million a movie. Why should Ferrell, Stiller and Wilson get so much more to make B-flicks that have made no money or shown well. Leave them as cult movie following and move on already. I love Beetlegeuse and The Rocky Horror Picture Show, both cult classics but I wouldn't wish for sequels because the first movie will suffer for it.
Annonymous on May 26, 2010
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.
FOLLOW FS HERE
Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:
Add our posts to your Feedly › click here
Get all the news sent on Telegram
LATEST TO WATCH