Zoolander 2 | February 12, 2016 | Teaser Trailer on Page 6!

[WrathOfHan]

Right now I'm predicting 28/66

[MovieMan89]

I see no reason for it to open lower than Dumb and Dumber To's 36m. Marketing has been way better than the abomination that was that movie's trailers, and I think Stiller/Wilson are still more relevant comedians to a younger audience than Carrey is now. Usually movies that become cult classics have big OWs if a sequel is finally made. Dumb and Dumber was huge in its theatrical run and people wanted the sequel way back in the 90's. No one cared in 2014. I think Zoolander still has big cult classic status today. Anchorman is a good comparison for this, except its OW was muted by a Christmas release. Currently going with 40/120. 

[filmlover]

20 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I see no reason for it to open lower than Dumb and Dumber To's 36m. Marketing has been way better than the abomination that was that movie's trailers, and I think Stiller/Wilson are still more relevant comedians to a younger audience than Carrey is now. Usually movies that become cult classics have big OWs if a sequel is finally made. Dumb and Dumber was huge in its theatrical run and people wanted the sequel way back in the 90's. No one cared in 2014. I think Zoolander still has big cult classic status today. Anchorman is a good comparison for this, except its OW was muted by a Christmas release. Currently going with 40/120. 

Again, you are aware that Zoolander was much more of a cult hit than a mainstream one compared to Anchorman or Dumb and Dumber, right? Also, I fail to see the Stiller and Wilson argument as being sure things: the former has just as many misses (remember Duplex? Envy? The Heartbreak Kid?) as he does hits while the latter hasn't actually been a box office draw in a while (his last two starring vehicles, The Internship and No Escape, didn't do much) and has mostly been doing non-standout supporting work. $70-80M total would be acceptable for a sequel as very, very tardy (like, even Austin Powers 2 wouldn't haven't done anywhere even close to as well as it did in 1999 had they waited until 2012) as this one is.

Edited January 24, 2016 by filmlover

[Ethan Hunt]

I'll say 20-25M opening

[MovieMan89]

Just now, filmlover said:

Again, you are aware that Zoolander was much more of a cult hit than a mainstream one compared to Anchorman or Dumb and Dumber, right? Also, I fail to see the Stiller and Wilson argument as being sure things: the former has just as many misses (remember Duplex? Envy? The Heartbreak Kid?) as he does hits while the latter hasn't actually been a box office draw in a while (his last two starring vehicles, The Internship and No Escape, didn't do much) and has mostly been doing non-standout supporting work. $70-80M total would be acceptable for a sequel as very, very tardy (like, even Austin Powers 2 wouldn't haven't done anywhere even close to as well as it did in 1999 and had waited until 2012) as this one is.

I think Zoolander and Anchorman are in the same type of cult hit category, a more mainstream one. Anchorman wasn't that big at the B.O. either after all. Zoolander is the film that really helped establish Farrell as a comedic film star, he didn't really have any films to his name prior. I think it's likely it could have also been affected by 9/11 at the box office. Don't know if many were really in the mood for something so lighthearted that September. Either way both are way different than Dumb and Dumber, which was a massive box office hit from the get go.  I think Stiller/Wilson have maintained enough popularity with a younger audience through their naughties comedy hits. Compared to Carrey who's big hits were in the 90's and are frankly probably not relevant to a younger audience anymore. So that was my point there. Anyways, why would this show up on Fandango's top ten of 2016 if it were only going to open with like 20m? That list isn't foolproof, but I can't think of a case where a movie on it didn't crack 100 at least. 

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I think Zoolander and Anchorman are in the same type of cult hit category, a more mainstream one. Anchorman wasn't that big at the B.O. either after all. Zoolander is the film that really helped establish Farrell as a comedic film star, he didn't really have any films to his name prior. I think it's likely it could have also been affected by 9/11 at the box office. Don't know if many were really in the mood for something so lighthearted that September. Either way both are way different than Dumb and Dumber, which was a massive box office hit from the get go.  I think Stiller/Wilson have maintained enough popularity with a younger audience through their naughties comedy hits. Compared to Carrey who's big hits were in the 90's and are frankly probably not relevant to a younger audience anymore. So that was my point there. Anyways, why would this show up on Fandango's top ten of 2016 if it were only going to open with like 20m? That list isn't foolproof, but I can't think of a case where a movie on it didn't crack 100 at least. 

But Anchorman was still a much bigger movie than Zoolander. It made almost twice as much at the box office and that was only three years later. And Anchorman 2 wasn't nearly as late to the party (9 years) as Zoolander 2 (15 years) is.

 

Also, Ferrell has stayed much more consistent box office-wise over the years than Stiller has. He still hasn't reached the lows of an Envy. I want to see this but I'm not expecting it to be some huge blockbuster or anything given how late it is.

[baumer]

19 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Again, you are aware that Zoolander was much more of a cult hit than a mainstream one compared to Anchorman or Dumb and Dumber, right? Also, I fail to see the Stiller and Wilson argument as being sure things: the former has just as many misses (remember Duplex? Envy? The Heartbreak Kid?) as he does hits while the latter hasn't actually been a box office draw in a while (his last two starring vehicles, The Internship and No Escape, didn't do much) and has mostly been doing non-standout supporting work. $70-80M total would be acceptable for a sequel as very, very tardy (like, even Austin Powers 2 wouldn't haven't done anywhere even close to as well as it did in 1999 had they waited until 2012) as this one is.

 

But you can say this about every actor today.  All of them, with the exception of the usual suspects, have bombs and disappointments.  So pointing out that Stiller and Wilson had failures doesn't prove anything.  Zoolander is a cult classic that really found a big audience on home video.  I'm not sure if they waited too long to get it out but my hunch is that there will be enough interest in it to get it close to the century mark.

 

30/95

[mahnamahna]

$36 million 3 day OW

$44 million 4 day 

$110 million DOM 

 

Less than Anchorman 2, but more than Dumb and Dumber To. Pretty reasonable.

 

[DAJK]

I just want this to make as much as possible. I went 100% in with Fantasy Box Office.

[Napoleon]

Not going to give my money to anything with Justin Bieber in it.

[DAJK]

46 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

Not going to give my money to anything with Justin Bieber in it.

I'm sorry but that cameo is freaking awesome

[babz06]

Paramount is kind of dropping the ball with marketing on this film. 

 

[CJohn]

This shit is gonna flop. If we consider flopping doing 20M over the 4 day weekend.

[grim22]

 

 

[CJohn]

I am not sure about any of this.

[filmlover]

On February 2, 2016 at 8:41 PM, babz06 said:

Paramount is kind of dropping the ball with marketing on this film. 

 

I think it's just getting overshadowed by Deadpool. Releasing them on the same weekend was probably a mistake. Although this could around $70M and that would still make it successful since I doubt it cost that much.

[babz06]

11 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I think it's just getting overshadowed by Deadpool. Releasing them on the same weekend was probably a mistake. Although this could around $70M and that would still make it successful since I doubt it cost that much.

But the studio was clearly hoping for atleast 100m, considering Ben Stiller's track record. They could have done way more to market it as more of an event, instead Deadpool has taken the headlines and the buzz for the weekend. 

[filmlover]

Just now, babz06 said:

But the studio was clearly hoping for atleast 100m, considering Ben Stiller's track record. They could have done way more to market it as more of an event, instead Deadpool has taken the headlines and the buzz for the weekend. 

Ben Stiller's box office track record is more inconsistent than most think it is. For every Meet the Parents and Night at the Museum, he's had a Heartbreak Kid and The Watch.

[grim22]

The website is pretty cool

 

http://www.zoolander.com/

 

 

[Wrath]

Wow, I didn't realize how badly Zoolander originally did at the box office. My expectations were way to high originally but are coming down quickly. Also, the trailers have been weak, and I've seen 5x as much marketing for PPZ than for Zoolander 2.