'Zoolander 2': A 'walk-off' gives hope for a good sequel

'Zoolander' stars Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson recently took to the runway in Paris and a sequel to the comedy is moving forward. Will 'Zoolander 2' join the (thin) ranks of comedy sequels that fans like?

Jacques Brinon/AP
Ben Stiller (l.) and Owen Wilson (r.) wear creations for Valentino's ready-to-wear fall-winter 2015-2016 fashion collection presented during the Paris fashion week, in Paris.

It was a walk-off.

Actors Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson recently took to the runway at Paris Fashion Week during a Valentino fashion show. Stiller and Wilson played models Derek Zoolander and Hansel, respectively, in the 2001 comedy “Zoolander.” Stiller tweeted of his participation,

So it looks like it’s official – the sequel to the 2001 movie is moving forward.

It’s an unusual move for the two stars. While Stiller and Wilson have certainly appeared in sequels – both star in the “Night at the Museum” series, which released the third film in the series this past December. But “Museum” is a family-friendly film series. Stiller, Wilson, and the other actors who are part of what Monitor writer Laura Randall and other members of the media have called the “frat pack,” a group of comedians that also includes Will Ferrell, Jack Black, Luke Wilson, and Vince Vaughn, have largely avoided sequels to some of their biggest hits, which include “Old School,” “Tropic Thunder,” “Wedding Crashers,” and “Dodgeball.” An exception was 2013’s “Anchorman 2” – the original movie starred Ferrell and many of the others made cameos in the film. 

There seems no doubt that “Zoolander 2,” which is slated for a February 2016 release, according to the Hollywood Reporter, will be a financial success. Will it please fans as well?

“Anchorman 2,” to take a “frat pack” example, received a middling reception when it was released. Monitor film critic Peter Rainer gave the movie a C, writing that “too much of a good thing isn’t always a good thing… great gobs of this movie about the famously obtuse newscaster are scattershot and dim and obvious,” while the movie holds a score of 61 out of 100 on review aggregator website Metacritic

There are some movie comedy sequels like “A Shot in the Dark” and “Ghostbusters II” that have their fans, but even those that people like can be subject to the verdict “Not as good as the first one.” And when it comes to bad comedy sequels, unfortunately many, like “Caddyshack II” and “Weekend at Bernie’s II,” come to mind. 

However, back in 2011, Stiller told Empire he thought there was a lot of story potential for “Zoolander,” so fans can hold out hope for a creatively satisfying movie. Stiller said the sequel would take place 10 years after the first movie and said that in Derek and Hansel’s industry, “ten years is a thousand years. They’re both totally out of it and have to start from scratch… There’s a lot there, I’m excited about the idea of doing it.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.