Anchorman 2

[BillBrasky]

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/04/27...-sequel-updat/

MTV's Eric Ditzian recently spoke with writer/director McKay, who also has "The Other Guys" coming out this summer (August 6), and he revealed that there's more to the ongoing saga of "Anchorman 2" than the fans actually realize. Many have speculated that the sequel hasn't happened primarily because the talented cast have only become more famous since the 2004 release, and pulling them together for an ensemble with their busy schedules is difficult. As it turns out, there's more to it than that.

"It's a tricky movie because everyone went and did really well after it, so everyone's prices went up and everyone's time got a little more valuable. But at the same time, graciously, Steve and Paul and everyone agreed to cut their price to come and do [the sequel], which you don't see very often in Hollywood — and cut their price substantially. But even with that, it's just a budgetary thing with Paramount in terms of how much they'll give us to make it."

So for the time being McKay and his supporters are caught in negotiations, trying to make everything work out. "We had an idea and we contacted Steve and Paul and [David] Koechner and Christina [Applegate] and checked in with everyone and they were all game for it," McKay said. "The stage we're at now is talking to Paramount and trying to get the money to do it."

The hope is that the studio considers examples from the past in weighing the decision to budget a second "Anchorman." It's probably a safe bet, given the wild popularity the first movie generated and the subsequent mega-success of its stars. "'Austin Powers' didn't make a ton of movie in its first go-round and then it caught fire in the next one," McKay explained. "We're hoping they'll look more at that sort of projection."

If the movie does get the go-ahead, the plan is to polish off a script this fall and then be ready to roll cameras by February, 2011. McKay wants fans to be clear though: that seems like a bigger and bigger "if" as time passes. The plan is still to set the sequel in the '80s... but with a twist.

"That's loosely what the idea is," McKay said. "[The '80s angle is] more the frame of it. We have this other, bigger, crazier idea * that's really more what it's about, which I can't say. Our thinking was there's just no way the second one is going to be as good as the first, because the first one is the first one. So our idea is if we're going to do a second one, we better go for it and try some insane stuff and we'll be enjoying it and that way it can't be half bad."

* This "crazy idea" might be "Anchorman in Outer Space", which Paul Rudd hinted at in an earlier interview.

[scamboogah]

This is a good example of Studio Executives being the dumbest people on the planet.

"Hey guys. We're being offered this machine. It prints money. As much as we want. What's that? Ok, I'll ask."

"Can we have a discount?"

[isoS]

Really? I don't know, maybe I'm dumb but I don't see people clamoring for an Anchorman sequel, and Ferrell/McKay joints tend to be hit-or-miss at the box office. In fact, so are all those guys' projects. The reality is that Anchorman was a cult hit that the general public rejected as too weird, so why would a studio want to spend twice as much making another one?

[Berliner]

Sequel seems gratuitous. I'd rather see this.

[scamboogah]

Anchorman may have been considered a cult hit for the first year or so after its release, but it's well beyond that now. People like Bill Simmons and those of his ilk regard it as the single greatest comedy of this decade bar none. It is the Caddyshack of the oughts.

(And we all remember how great and successful the Caddyshack sequel was)

[BillBrasky]

In the article, McKay talks about how the first "Austin Powers" was a cult movie that didn't really gain popularity until it came out on video, and then the second one did better at the box office. I am sure this one would too. I'm not sure what you mean by "Ferrell/McKay joints tend to be hit and miss at the box office"; Talladega Nights made 148 million and Step Brothers made 101 million.

Of all of Will Ferrell's movies, "Anchorman" is the only one I think people really would like to see a sequel to. * Is anyone clamoring for "Blades of Glory 2" or "Semi-Pro 2", or God forbid, "Land of the Lost 2"? I think people would enjoy seeing Ferrell being funny again and doing a movie that doesn't revolve around sports. It lends itself to a sequel too, because there really wasn't much of a plot to the first movie; you can pretty much plug those characters into any situation.

* Ok, Matt, I'm sure you probably would like it if he made "Elf 2".

[isoS]

I'm not saying they wouldn't want to make it; I'm saying they don't want to make it for the (presumed) price. I guess I didn't realize Talladega Nights made that much money though... The word of mouth on it was terrible and I don't know anyone who liked it. I'm guessing the studio will wait to see how The Other Guys does before committing. Ironically, all the other movies you (Bill) mentioned are the reason Ferrell's not more highly regarded by executives as a draw -- some may feel he's poisoned the well by making so much crap.

Personally, I will see anything Ferrell and McKay make together, sequel or not. I just don't think the average movie-goer cares. I could be wrong -- I know Anchorman had a big cultural impact, but that doesn't always equate to sequel success. By the way, the Austin Powers sequel came out almost exactly two years after the first one. Seven years will have passed if the Anchorman sequel is released in Summer 2011. Seven is a bigger number than two. I think you see where I'm going with this.

[pixel revolt]

Gonna go out and buy the 1981 SNL box set then watch this on opening night at midnight.

[Gern Blanston]

McKay just tweeted:

@GhostPanther So bummed. Paramount basically passed on Anchorman 2. Even after we cut our budget down. We tried.

[spriest]

Gonna go out and buy the 1981 SNL box set then watch this on opening night at midnight.

Callback!

[BillBrasky]

Gonna go out and buy the 1981 SNL box set then watch this on opening night at midnight.

Is this in reference to me? Cause first of all, it was the 1980 season of SNL we were talking about, and second of all, I don't get how it's relevant.

Wasn't the first Anchorman movie produced by Dreamworks?

[spriest]

I'm legit (slightly) bummed out about this, Anchorman 2 would have been highly hilarious or a crazy fun lesser step brother to the original.

The first 15 minutes of the "unrated" commentary track from Anchorman is still something I play for people who tell me they can't stand commentary tracks.

[dukerayburn]

Just watch Wake Up, Ron Burgundy!, the extra movie they made with deleted scenes from Anchorman. It's in the special edition release. It features characters you like, the plot is incoherent, and you could have been complaining about it on the internet for half a decade by now. It has everything you could ask of an immediate sequel.

[pixel revolt]

1981 sounds funnier when read aloud.

[myhandleonast]

I remember the horror the world faced after Austin Powers... the fucking "yeah baby"s, the goddamn flower power shit, VW even remade the Bug. No sir I don't like it.

[Gern Blanston]

Is this in reference to me? Cause first of all, it was the 1980 season of SNL we were talking about, and second of all, I don't get how it's relevant.

Wasn't the first Anchorman movie produced by Dreamworks?

Yeah, it was, but I think Paramount bought Dreamworks? Or they have some partnership that is way too complicated for me to understand.

McKay tweeted after:

@GhostPanther To all who asked: no we can't do Anchorman 2 at another studio. Paramount owns it.

[BillBrasky]

http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/anch...up/#more-37084

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.

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.

[Gern Blanston]

Apparently, Anchorman 2 was going to be a musical.

Beaks: So I heard about the big ANCHORMAN 2 disappointment today, that it was going to be a stage musical on Broadway first. And now it's dead. It's such a bummer. Logistically, how was that going to work? Was that four-month run going to include previews? Once you add in however many months it takes to shoot the movie, that seems like a rather large chunk of time to block out for all of you guys.

McKay: We figured it out. We were really going to do this. We got a Broadway producer. We figured out the whole schedule, that we were going to do a couple of a-capella, no-prop previews at Largo [in Los Angeles] like we did with the Bush show. Then we were going to do legitimate previews, and our cast was going to stay with it for two or three months. Then we were going to try to get a replacement cast if we could, just because we thought maybe it was original material. Then we were going to leave the show - kind of like The Marx Brothers did - and go right into shooting the movie. That was the idea. We were really starting to work towards it. And then we got the plug pulled, so...

Beaks: So it was going to be like THE COCOANUTS or ANIMAL CRACKERS?

McKay: Yeah. Isn't that insane? We were like, "No one's ever done this before! Premiere the sequel [on Broadway]!" It just made us giddy.

Beaks: That's a shame. I interviewed Carell a couple of weeks ago, and he still seemed hopeful. I was hoping you'd be bringing a little bit of good news today.

McKay: Here's the truth: to get all of those guys lined up - Carell, Rudd, Koechner, Applegate, Ferrell - in the right schedule is very, very tricky. The other tricky thing is that there's no way you can pay anyone full freight, myself included. We would all have to take massive cuts to do it, because you can't do a $120 million ANCHORMAN 2; it even goes against the spirit of the movie. So there's a bunch of things that have to line up.

Then, truthfully, Paramount was not doing backflips about it. They were kind of like, "Eh." I could tell [President of Production] Adam Goodman really wanted to do it because he worked on the first one, but the marketing [people] and others were all, "Yeah, the numbers on the first one were alright." And we kept saying, "But it grew after the box office, with the DVD and [cable]." AUSTIN POWERS did it. But they were not seeing it. I'm not sure if it will ever happen. Maybe that's for the best. Sequels are... I mean, we have plenty of different ideas.

Beaks: Yeah, but if you think you can find a way to make it work for a reasonable budget, why wouldn't they want to do it? I hear the movie quoted all the time. "Stay classy." People have grown to love ANCHORMAN.

McKay: We really wanted to do it. The musical idea got us really excited. We had a bunch of ideas, met with Judd [Apatow], started kicking around more ideas, and, truthfully, we were shocked when they said "No." We thought that was our one ace in the hole: "Well, we can always make ANCHORMAN 2." But nope!

I don't know. We'll see. We've talked about STEP BROTHERS 2, which seems to slowly be building fans as well. It's not ANCHORMAN, but there's a possibility we might do that. Although, maybe we just don't do sequels. It's not a bad idea to not do sequels. I kind of like it.

Beaks: Personally, with the others, I'd prefer you don't. But it's always seemed to me that more could be done with those ANCHORMAN characters.

McKay: I agree. It was not mined. I feel confident we would've at least done a decent movie; it wouldn't have sucked, that's for sure. Would it be as good and fun as the first one? No, probably not, because that's the first time you've done it. But if we did enough different shit with it... THE GODFATHER PART II, to me, is the only sequel that's better than the first one. I mean, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was great...

Beaks: I think TOY STORY 2 is better than the first.

McKay: Eh, you might be right. But the trick with THE GODFATHER PART II was that it was a totally different world. It had a whole different look and feel. If we could've been able to pull that off, we'll never know. But we would've for sure gone down in a blaze of glory. We were going to do the craziest shit we've ever done. We were doing that as a rule. "Let's do fucked up shit in this movie."

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe it'll happen. Maybe a year from now things will be different.

http://aintitcool.com/node/46033

[BillBrasky]

HOLY SHIT.

From Deadline:

EXCLUSIVE: I’ve learned the sequel finally came together today. The comedy Anchorman 2 will be produced under mogul Judd Apatow’s banner. Adam McKay will direct as well as write the script with Will Ferrell who will star again as Ron Burgundy along with the 2004 original’s castmembers Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy had been a DreamWorks production but Paramount took over the project after DreamWorks 2.0 departed the studio. Burgundy was the top-rated anchorman in San Diego in the 1970s in the PG13 pic.

Will Ferrell will appear on Conan tonight in character as Ron Burgundy to announce the sequel. Sneak peek:

[mueXog]

Great news, I kept hoping this would eventually happen even though Ferrell/McKay said it was unlikely last time they were asked about it.

Will Ferrell who will star again as Ron Burgundy along with the 2004 original’s castmembers Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. Anchorman

Whaat.. No Dave Koechner?? I'm hoping that's just just an oversight in the article, cant see them doing the movie without all four of them. I guessing Christina Applegate is returning as well?