|
|
Randy
Posts: 1074
You had me at meat tornado.
|
 |
« Reply #16 on: May 03, 2010, 08:15:35 PM » |
|
I'm not understanding that either - I'm assuming Rudd, Ferrell and Carrell would all have to take some reduced salary to get it made but Paramount has no problem throwing a bunch of money at Sacha Baron Cohen's next movie? Hollywood seems all about "sure things" and these seem can't miss (I'm sorta throwing Zoolander in there, but it's kinda funny they'd make a sequel to it now 10 years later) to me.
Then again, the track records with comedy sequels is abysmal so I'm torn.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Dan
Posts: 3344
|
|
« Reply #17 on: May 03, 2010, 08:47:01 PM » |
|
I kind of get it. ANCHORMAN was great and made money, but by no means is it a safe movie, financially. It's kind of an anomaly, I'm stunned it got as popular as it did.
ZOOLANDER's a whole different thing. Before all this sequel talk, I didn't realize anybody other than some people on the internet and me and my college stoner buddies liked that movie. I took a lot of shit for liking it back in the day. Plus I don't remember it being terribly successful, financially.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Matt
|
|
« Reply #18 on: May 03, 2010, 09:35:57 PM » |
|
Dear People I Like: Stop Trying to Sequelize The Movies You've Made That I Like.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nate.3.0
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2010, 12:12:47 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor."
|
|
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2010, 12:15:49 PM » |
|
Jesus, that movie sounds like a money pit. I can see why the studio passed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6947
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2010, 12:39:35 PM » |
|
I still don't see how this movie could have not turned a profit on a $60 million budget. It's a sequel to a movie everyone loves and everyone in it is a huge star.
Though I do think the Broadway stuff would have been unnecessary overkill. I don't even see how it could have been a consideration, given that part of the problem with the sequel was lining up everyone's schedules. They wanted Carell, Rudd and Koechner to commit to four months on Broadway on top of shooting the movie?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
katy
Posts: 1662
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2010, 12:55:04 PM » |
|
I still don't see how this movie could have not turned a profit on a $60 million budget. It's a sequel to a movie everyone loves and everyone in it is a huge star. The last one bombed internationally. And it only made $85 mil domestically, so add together production budget + ads and there certainly wouldn't be enough profit to bother with. Not that I don't love ANCHORMAN, but I'm not sure the world *needs* more Ron Burgandy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6947
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2010, 01:01:56 PM » |
|
The last one bombed internationally. And it only made $85 mil domestically, so add together production budget + ads and there certainly wouldn't be enough profit to bother with.
Yeah, but Rudd and (especially) Carell have become huge since the first one. Plus, I just checked and DATE NIGHT had a budget of $55 million, so not going forward with this because $60 million is too pricey is really strange. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DerickA
Posts: 9610
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2010, 01:03:52 PM » |
|
Would NAPOLEON DYNAMITE 2 be a success at this point?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6947
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2010, 01:06:08 PM » |
|
Would NAPOLEON DYNAMITE 2 be a success at this point?
Good question. If they had made one and released it in 2006, you would have seen SPY WHO SHAGGED ME numbers rolling in. Today, I think the moment has passed. Though I'm sure it would probably do well if it cost very little. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2010, 01:11:17 PM » |
|
I just think it's amazing that they can't do a comedy for less the $60 million that's a sequel to a movie that bombed at the box office. That doesn't sound like anyone was taking a pay cut.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Wolfe
Posts: 6947
|
|
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2010, 01:22:50 PM » |
|
I just think it's amazing that they can't do a comedy for less the $60 million that's a sequel to a movie that bombed at the box office. That doesn't sound like anyone was taking a pay cut.
ANCHORMAN didn't bomb at all. And I think it was even bigger on DVD. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
katy
Posts: 1662
|
|
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2010, 01:28:14 PM » |
|
Yeah, but Rudd and (especially) Carell have become huge since the first one. Sure, but they're also accordingly more pricey and harder to schedule -- and they're pretty small characters in the story, it's not a Carell/Rudd movie. And Will Farrell is not as solid of a box-office draw as he was when the first one came out. LAND OF THE LOST in particular may be giving some pause. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keith
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2010, 01:34:09 PM » |
|
ANCHORMAN didn't bomb at all. And I think it was even bigger on DVD.
Are you sure? You guys would know more then me, but I thought the studio wasn't happy with how it did. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
