Ben Stiller has admitted that he felt "blindsided" by the commercial and critical failure of Zoolander 2, which arrived 15 years after its much-loved predecessor.
I think Ben Stiller just completely missed the mark with Zoolander 2 and it’s good that he realizes it. It happens, not everything’s gonna land the way you thought it would. But people really need to just stop making sequels to comedies years if not decades after the originals. It rarely ever works because comedy changes over time. Some humor doesn’t age well but more importantly some premises just don’t work well outside of the era they were conceptualized in because they were a reflection of that period. There are some exceptions of course but I’ve been burned too many times by shitty - purposeless sequels.
I did not think so. It wasnt as bad as Zoolander 2, it had a few good moments but it felt more like “part 2” than a sequel… like it was a bunch of more of the same than anything bigger or better.
If you watch them back to back now it plays better than when it first came out.
I recall him saying a year or two back that he ultimately thinks it’s a good thing it failed, too, because, if it’d done well, he probably wouldn’t have gone onto do more serious things like Escape At Dannemora and Severance.
I agree in part, I think that making a sequel decades after the original IRL and story-wise and updating the ideas and humour to not be the same as in the original might be worth it. But that would require an actual new idea that somehow aligns with characters strong enough to make it reasonable to make a sequel and not a new IP.
I think Ben Stiller just completely missed the mark with Zoolander 2 and it’s good that he realizes it. It happens, not everything’s gonna land the way you thought it would. But people really need to just stop making sequels to comedies years if not decades after the originals. It rarely ever works because comedy changes over time. Some humor doesn’t age well but more importantly some premises just don’t work well outside of the era they were conceptualized in because they were a reflection of that period. There are some exceptions of course but I’ve been burned too many times by shitty - purposeless sequels.
Also, the original worked because it was a new idea, same as Anchorman. Take a profession, ratchet the stupid up to 11 and have fun with it.
The sequel doesnt have the same “fresh ground” to walk over.
The second Anchorman movie is almost as good as the first one imo.
I did not think so. It wasnt as bad as Zoolander 2, it had a few good moments but it felt more like “part 2” than a sequel… like it was a bunch of more of the same than anything bigger or better.
If you watch them back to back now it plays better than when it first came out.
I should probably stop hoping for Blazing Saddles 2
History of the World Part 2 was recently released as an 8-part series. I haven’t watched it but reviews indicate it’s not terrible.
It has its moments, though not nearly as memorable as the movie. It really helps to be a fan of Mel Brooks’ style of humor.
Do we get to SEE, JEWS… IN SPAAACE?
Yes, they actually fulfill that decades-old promise.
EXCELLENT!
Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy: part 42
Yeah that didn’t age very well.
You’re not wrong. Imagine a movie being made nowadays that just dogs on backwoods hicks from start to finish.
This realization is why I hope Austin Powers 4 never happens.
I recall him saying a year or two back that he ultimately thinks it’s a good thing it failed, too, because, if it’d done well, he probably wouldn’t have gone onto do more serious things like Escape At Dannemora and Severance.
I agree in part, I think that making a sequel decades after the original IRL and story-wise and updating the ideas and humour to not be the same as in the original might be worth it. But that would require an actual new idea that somehow aligns with characters strong enough to make it reasonable to make a sequel and not a new IP.