It's officially official: Anchorman 2 is not happening

Well that blows. It really sucks to hear that the cast was willing to take pay cuts to keep the movie at a low or fair budget. You really don't hear that that often.
 
I am kind of glad this didn't happen. Less is more sometimes, and I think a sequel likely would not have been on par with Anchorman anyway.
 
I don't see what the big deal is, I never thought it should have gotten a sequel in the first place. It's a great movie, it's in my top 10 comedies for sure, but I hate when they sequel things to death. One and done, that's it.
 
I'm glad the sequel didn't happen, I do not believe it could live to the expectations of the first movie.

Besides, some movies do not need sequels.
 
I didn't think Anchorman really needed a sequel but with the cast and crew being so behind making one it makes me feel like they had something worthwhile going on.
 
well considering that I didn't find the first one remotely funny, this news comes as a relief
 
It was Anchorman... in the 80's!

How this thing didn't sell itself is beyond me.
 
I don't see what the big deal is, I never thought it should have gotten a sequel in the first place. It's a great movie, it's in my top 10 comedies for sure, but I hate when they sequel things to death. One and done, that's it.

have none of you seen "Wake Up, Ron Burgondy"?!
 
I'm sad. I wanted a sequel. Hollywood loves to make sequels and remakes. I'm surprised it didn't happen this time with Ferrell, Carell, Rudd, and the other guy wanting to do it...
 
The main reason is that the first film didn't do well internationally but they have bigger stars now and the film wasn't pushed as well as it could've. It could go to another studio but Paramount doesn't want to get burned again.


'Anchorman 2' Budget Gap $30 Million As Paramount And Filmmakers Regroup

By MIKE FLEMING | Deadline | Monday May 3, 2010 @ 11:01am EDT

This just in: Anchorman 2 is not dead at Paramount Pictures. Not yet, anyway. But there is a budget gap of about $30 million to overcome.

Adam McKay’s Twitter late last week practically pronounced the project dead. And then Ben Stiller indicated that his Zoolander sequel wasn't on the firmest ground at Paramount either when he Twittered: “Ron Burgundy and Derek Zoolander looking to appear in sequels. Both men destitute, without means or intellect to fund their own comebacks.”

What’s really going on? Paramount insiders said that the studio is eager to make both sequels, but only if each costs around $40 million. I'm not sure what the gross outlay will be, but it seems sure that it's north of 20% on each film. Zoolander 2, which will also star Owen Wilson, has started development, with Tropic Thunder's Justin Theroux writing the script and directing. But the filmmakers behind Anchorman 2 won't even start on a script unless Paramount moves the budget up to a range that is probably closer to $70 million.

All of the participants are bigger stars than when the originals came out, and they are always asked the same question during film junkets for other films: when is that sequel coming? And, from Anchorman's gang battle of rival news teams to the Zoolander gas station scene with horseplay between male models that culminates in a mass funeral, there is a plethora of memorable scenes and punchlines that stamp these as cult favorite comedies with established fan bases who want more.

So why is Paramount playing budget hardball when it just made a staggering deal on a Sacha Baron Cohen pitch that will pay him what amounts to $20 million against 20% of first dollar gross, with a gross outlay that rises to 30% after the studio recoups and earns its distribution fee? Paramount also paid writers Alec Berg, Jeff Schaffer and David Mandel between $3 million and $4 million, and gross as producers.

The studio was comfortable with the gross deal and a $65 million budget that includes the screenwriting fees, because Baron Cohen has proven himself a reliable overseas draw, studio insiders say. Borat grossed $128 million domestic, and $133 million overseas. While Bruno wasn’t viewed as a big success, the film’s domestic gross of $60 million was surpassed by its $78 million overseas take.

Contrast that to Anchorman. Made on a $25 million budget, the comedy about the local San Diego TV news team grossed $85 million domestic, but only $5 million foreign. Zoolander grossed $45 million domestic, and did $15 million foreign. Now, insiders on both films claim that is not necessarily indicative of sequel potential. Zoolander came out September 28, 2001, a time when the world was not in a laughing mood after the 9/11 terror attacks. Stiller’s movies generally perform strongly overseas: Meet the Fockers, for instance, grossed $279 million domestic and $237 million overseas. Anchorman's overseas distributor UIP doesn't seem to have pushed the film overseas. There would be more for Paramount to sell this time around, since McKay, Will Ferrell, Judd Apatow, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are more prominent than they were in 2004. All are prepared to return--but they aren't cheap. zoolander

Comedies with inherently American story-lines usually do most of their business domestically—Talladega Nights, a domestic blockbuster at $148 million, turned in $15 million in overseas ticket sales. The Hangover was the big anomaly, grossing $190 million foreign to go with its $277 million domestic gross.

It sounds to me like both films will be a struggle but could still happen, once the Twitter posturing is over. McKay’s subsequent Twitter message--doubting Paramount would allow the film to move elsewhere--is certainly true. Paramount is turnaround-shy after dropping Twilight and John Carter of Mars, the latter of which is being turned into a big Disney film. If Paramount let go of either, the studio would likely insist on a gross participation comparable to the 7.5% of first dollar gross New Line got when it let go of Dear John to be made by Relativity and distributed by Sony. That would certainly limit the suitor pool for both films.
 
The main reason is that the first film didn't do well internationally but they have bigger stars now and the film wasn't pushed as well as it could've. It could go to another studio but Paramount doesn't want to get burned again.


'Anchorman 2' Budget Gap $30 Million As Paramount And Filmmakers Regroup

By MIKE FLEMING | Deadline | Monday May 3, 2010 @ 11:01am EDT

This just in: Anchorman 2 is not dead at Paramount Pictures. Not yet, anyway. But there is a budget gap of about $30 million to overcome.

Adam McKay’s Twitter late last week practically pronounced the project dead. And then Ben Stiller indicated that his Zoolander sequel wasn't on the firmest ground at Paramount either when he Twittered: “Ron Burgundy and Derek Zoolander looking to appear in sequels. Both men destitute, without means or intellect to fund their own comebacks.”

What’s really going on? Paramount insiders said that the studio is eager to make both sequels, but only if each costs around $40 million. I'm not sure what the gross outlay will be, but it seems sure that it's north of 20% on each film. Zoolander 2, which will also star Owen Wilson, has started development, with Tropic Thunder's Justin Theroux writing the script and directing. But the filmmakers behind Anchorman 2 won't even start on a script unless Paramount moves the budget up to a range that is probably closer to $70 million.

All of the participants are bigger stars than when the originals came out, and they are always asked the same question during film junkets for other films: when is that sequel coming? And, from Anchorman's gang battle of rival news teams to the Zoolander gas station scene with horseplay between male models that culminates in a mass funeral, there is a plethora of memorable scenes and punchlines that stamp these as cult favorite comedies with established fan bases who want more.

So why is Paramount playing budget hardball when it just made a staggering deal on a Sacha Baron Cohen pitch that will pay him what amounts to $20 million against 20% of first dollar gross, with a gross outlay that rises to 30% after the studio recoups and earns its distribution fee? Paramount also paid writers Alec Berg, Jeff Schaffer and David Mandel between $3 million and $4 million, and gross as producers.

The studio was comfortable with the gross deal and a $65 million budget that includes the screenwriting fees, because Baron Cohen has proven himself a reliable overseas draw, studio insiders say. Borat grossed $128 million domestic, and $133 million overseas. While Bruno wasn’t viewed as a big success, the film’s domestic gross of $60 million was surpassed by its $78 million overseas take.

Contrast that to Anchorman. Made on a $25 million budget, the comedy about the local San Diego TV news team grossed $85 million domestic, but only $5 million foreign. Zoolander grossed $45 million domestic, and did $15 million foreign. Now, insiders on both films claim that is not necessarily indicative of sequel potential. Zoolander came out September 28, 2001, a time when the world was not in a laughing mood after the 9/11 terror attacks. Stiller’s movies generally perform strongly overseas: Meet the Fockers, for instance, grossed $279 million domestic and $237 million overseas. Anchorman's overseas distributor UIP doesn't seem to have pushed the film overseas. There would be more for Paramount to sell this time around, since McKay, Will Ferrell, Judd Apatow, Steve Carell and Paul Rudd are more prominent than they were in 2004. All are prepared to return--but they aren't cheap. zoolander

Comedies with inherently American story-lines usually do most of their business domestically—Talladega Nights, a domestic blockbuster at $148 million, turned in $15 million in overseas ticket sales. The Hangover was the big anomaly, grossing $190 million foreign to go with its $277 million domestic gross.

It sounds to me like both films will be a struggle but could still happen, once the Twitter posturing is over. McKay’s subsequent Twitter message--doubting Paramount would allow the film to move elsewhere--is certainly true. Paramount is turnaround-shy after dropping Twilight and John Carter of Mars, the latter of which is being turned into a big Disney film. If Paramount let go of either, the studio would likely insist on a gross participation comparable to the 7.5% of first dollar gross New Line got when it let go of Dear John to be made by Relativity and distributed by Sony. That would certainly limit the suitor pool for both films.
 
but it's not like Paramount is doing THAT bad like Universal.
 
It'll just make Anchorman 1 more of a cult classic. I'd love to see a sequel but how can it top the first one?
 
Meh.

sequels to comedy movies are usually pretty awful, anyways.

Besides, Anchorman already has a follow-up...
 
Wake Up, Ron Burgundy showed there was plenty more comedy from the Channel 4 News Team.

[YT]IaCSjHfVOFw[/YT]
 
Will Ferrell says 'Anchorman 2' might not be dead: 'We're still going back and forth' EW.com

Ron Burgundy live to anchor another nightly newscast after all?
Last Thursday, Anchorman director/co-writer Adam McKay suggested via Twitter that the long-gestating sequel was a no-go: “So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried.”

Talking to EW today, McKay’s star and co-writer Will Ferrell struck a similarly bemused tone. But wait! Ferrell wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Anchorman 2 might get made after all. Read on for our Q&A.

Meanwhile, sources close to Paramount confirm to EW that negotiations are ongoing, and say it all comes down to money. They say the studio won’t make another Anchorman for more than $50 million, due to concerns about the first one’s overseas gross, and that McKay and Ferrell have asked for closer to $70 million. Ferrell’s camp, however, tells EW that those numbers are not accurate. —Additional reporting by Nicole Sperling

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Anchorman has been back in the headlines with Paramount passing on the sequel. What happened with that? How do you feel about that?
WILL FERRELL: Well, you know, yeah, it’s a little peculiar. On the one hand, [we were] being begged to do a sequel for such a long time, and then we finally came up with a concept that we liked, we talked to all the guys, and everyone was up for it. And then to get the reaction we got, yeah, it’s slightly puzzling to us. But you know what? It’s also their money. They get to do or not do whatever they want. So we’ll see. We’re still going back and forth. Maybe there is a solution. Or, I know in talking to Adam, if it never happens, then it never happens. And that’s fine, too. So we’ll just see.

Were you at the actual meeting where they turned it down?
No, I was there when we said we were up for doing this. That was met with a lot of, like, “Oh wow, oh my God, amazing, great!” The other stuff came later.

It sounds like you wouldn’t rule out that it might come back around.
We’re in such a weird kind of time right now in terms of the studios and where they want to put their money or not. Yeah. You never know. They may circle back. It’s always a negotiation, even if it’s a “No.” You just never know. Six months from now, they could have some movies fall apart and their slate is a little light, and, like, “Hey, let’s revisit that.” So we’ll just kind of keep moving on, see what happens.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,446
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"