Adam McKay says that the aborted sequel to Anchorman was going to be better than you imagined.
“It was a musical,” he told me in a one on one interview. “We were going to do four months on Broadway and then jump right into filming.“
That is amazing. And we’ll never see it. McKay explained that Paramount does computer modeling of potential profits on films (especially foreign) and didn’t see how the necessary 60 million dollar budget would work out. McKay tried to show them the Austin Powers model, but the studio stood firm.
“There’s no hard feelings,” McKay said. “We have some cool projects set up at Paramount.“
When asked if there was a chance of it ever happening, McKay said probably not. “We’ve moved on,” he said, noting that they were always very aware that sequels are rarely that good.
“You should still do the Broadway run,” I told him, being a fanboy.
“We tried,” McKay said. “But it’s too hard on the actors. And there’s no money for them.“
13 comments
Is that the same model that told them to spend $100 million on THE STEPFORD WIVES? What buffoons.
"But it's too hard on the actors. And there's no money for them." Like any of those guys need more money. And whats up with Paramount letting computers decide what gets made and what doesn't.
Boo! Hiss! This should've happened.
Fuck. Should have made it in 3D and said it was a reboot.
I hate musicals so this news makes the old news of the new anchorman not happening easier to swallow.
PS: the verification thingy is shit, 3rd try
I went to see Anchorman because I tend to agree with Feraci, and he said it was so devastatingly funny that I would fill my pants with shit by the sheer mirth of the hysterical hilarity. I sat there staring like a Kubrick astronaut the entire time. It just goes to show you that Siskel was right – you can't predict or change what anyone will find either funny or sexy. Luckily for Devin, I still find him sexy. Oh, dear god yes.
Sounds like a really cool idea but I still think Paramount is right. "Anchorman" doesn't have that "Austin Powers" appeal even though it is a somewhat better comedy.
Paramount is on crack. I watch Anchorman once a month to remind myself what magic looks like. The commentary featuring Dr. Lou Rowles has to be my favorite thing I've ever heard of.
Anchorman 2 as a musical just seems like a smug, indulgent idea that probably only people like Devin who think they're buddies with the gang would pretend to appreciate. (Apologies, Devin, I like your reporting, but I notice a lot of adoration generally from web writers for projects that are not really that interesting when there's a sense of maybe like the writer has the director's phone number.) I don't blame Paramount for not funding what was almost certainly been a dud. Austin Powers is a musical?
James (#2) is right. Actors should work for free since they have already made money in the past. (IDIOT.)
Eh. Anchorman was terrible. Had nothing to do with journalism and the jokey tone ruined the dramatic arc. I think Paramount as a capitalistic enterprise has every right to quash dissent and make movies that actual people want to see versus movies only for the disabled. I don't know what I'm talking about. My girlfriend aborted "our" baby. On my birthday. I'm a wreck. Lol.
computer models? i am in shock. Creative decisions outsourced to coffee vending machines… the sheer crapness of hollywood product is now made clear! some algorithm churns out the shit that gets assigned agents writers directors… Computer models are what fucked up Wall Street! Cats and Dogs 2? That was due to subroutine 45f-c.
I also stared blankly at every unfunny non-joke in "Anchorman". I can only assume that Devin was very very drunk when he saw it.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.