Talk:Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Marketing

On Nov 19, Ron Burgundy publishes autobiography "Let Me Off at the Top!: My Classy Life and Other Musings". As of Dec 4, the book is the 53rd most popular book on Amazon.com.

On Nov 20, Ron Burgundy serenaded embattled Toronto mayor Rob Ford with the mayor's re-election song on TBS's Conan.

On Nov 25, Paramount launched the Anchorman 2, Scotchy Scotch Toss game for Apple mobile devices.

On Dec 4, Emerson College named its School of Communication the "Ron Burgundy School of Communication" for a day.

On Dec 3, Ron Burgundy interviewed Denver Broncos QB Peyton Manning for the interview issue of ESPN the Magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kil7676 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Release Date

So, at the moment, there's 2 release dates listed for the movie: December 1 in the intro line, and October 21 in the movie infobox. My question is, which is it? Especially since there's been no official date announced (to my knowledge). 110.175.224.75 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The current release date in late December indicates that the producers are anticipating the possibility of Oscar nominations for this film. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Filing on St. Simons Island

As of May 3rd, they were still filming on St. Simons Island, GA, and using the historic lighthouse, as well as a mockup, for the shoot.

They have a lot of work to do, if they are going to make a release date of December 20th!

108.203.44.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Kurtis

How come no mentions of him narrating the teasers, trailers, and the film as well? He did the first one, it is notable he is in this one as well.

BEN & JERRY's announces new Anchorman-inspired Ice Cream flavor "Scotchy Scotch Scotch"

Source: http://www.eonline.com/news/473164/ben-jerry-s-announces-anchorman-themed-scotchy-scotch-scotch-ice-cream-flavor

The press release states that "the flavor is a creamy concoction of butterscotch ice cream with ribbons of butterscotch swirl." while Will Ferrell has chimed in by saying "Scotchy, Scotch, Scotch is a delicious ice cream and I hope Ben and Jerry consider my other suggestions," said Ron Burgundy. "Malt liquor marshmallow, well liquor bourbon peanut butter, and cheap white wine sherbet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Will Smith source?

There is no official source that says "Will Smith will have a cameo in the film". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fred Willard seen in Second Official Trailer

Fred Willard is seen in the second official trailer at Brick's Funeral.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdGI5-z_hg (he can be seen at 0:15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Kanye West working with Paul Rudd to make 'Anchorman' album.

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1717170/kanye-west-anchorman-2-revealed.jhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.17.75 (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Emerson College to name school after Ron, Ron's new memoir

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/11/18/emerson-college-to-name-school-after-ron-burgundy/3628539/
Source: http://www.amazon.com/Let-Me-Off-Top-Musings/dp/0804139571

Will Ferrell doesn't rule out the Possibility of a THIRD Anchorman film and Meryl Streep

Source: http://www.eonline.com/news/480892/anchorman-sequel-meryl-streep-really-did-want-to-be-in-the-movie-but — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.110.5 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Marketing

It should be noted that there was a special teaser to promote the film during the cinema screening of The Day of the Doctor on the 23rd November. 147.197.251.155 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BismarCK

The mention of Bismarck in the Marketing section contains a spelling error, wherein Bismarck is erroneously spelled 'Bismark'. Please correct this, as the page is currently under protection.

65.183.249.34 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, i fixed it. Koala15 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Cameos confirmed

Here's a source to confirm the cameos from the film. Yes, Will Smith does cameo in the film. I'm going to clean up the page a bit and add those who have cameos only in the film to the "cameo" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.21.128 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

James Marsden is not on the Cast list

Why is this? He plays a major role and he's a big name actor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B162:5CC9:91A9:E20:CA72:BE4D (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I added it back, someone must have removed it by accident. Koala15 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Tweeted

First off I'm disappointed that the article was locked instead of require edits to be reviewed. This knee jerk response to lock down pages is not the open and collaborative idea Wikipedia claims to be.

Secondly please remove the instance of "Tweeted" from the article. That it is wikilinked only further shows what awful unnecessary jargon it is, and more importantly there is zero need to say what specific location McKay _announced_ the news, so long as it is properly referenced, we only care what he said, not where he said it. Only in rare cases (such as conflicting sources) is it necessary for the article text to say in full "The New York Times reports" or "The Hollywood Reporter writes" instead of just including that information in the reference, but far too often Twitter gets tweeted in articles even though it is entirely unnecessary.

Please fix. Here and anywhere else you see the overcomplicated, unnecessary, and inappropriate mentions of Twitter that do not belong. -- 109.78.162.55 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely, this whole article suffers from the problem of excessively pedantic details saying exactly what date statements were made, and where they were made. The prose could be tightened up a lot with no loss of meaning, and the reading flow improved, so long as the information is clearly provided in the references. Read it out loud and get a better sense of how awkward and unnecessary the phrasing and writing in Wikipedia often is. -- 109.78.162.55 (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well i guess its good that the article is locked then, and yes the production section usually has to have a timeline. Koala15 (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely, the prose is poor. The same information could be presented without a whole lot of irrelevant junk. A timeline can be written without needing to specify every date and publication within the prose, that information can be moved out to the references to improve the reading flow. Read it aloud and then tell me it isn't clunky, pedantic, and poorly written. The key points of the Production section are about all the back and forth required to get the film made, the fact that Will Ferrel made comments at a charity or at a comic convention, or that it was reported by a particular publication is incidental. You will notice that before the article was locked in the sequel section that I commented out the dates on which Ferrel and Carrell made comments about a possible Anchorman 3 because those dates do not matter and add almost nothing to the content. I hope other editors can see there is lots of room for improvement, or at least set the article so that edits require review.

Also please remove that "tweeted" phrase already. The location of the announcement is clearly irrelevant, you may as well say McKay tweeted and Collider.com reported that Mckay said ... if you being deliberately pedantic about it.

It is not always terrible to mention where an announcement was made, you could argue it was notable that Ferrel announced on Conan and that case it might be worth including that extra detail. (It would be more notable if you also sourced the later interviews where Ferrel said he jumped the gun with the Conan announcement to push Paramount forward with the project, but no one seems to have included or sourced that other part of the story.) -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your reading into it too much the section looks good, and feel free to provide that source ill add it in for you. Koala15 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you show good faith by making the simple change and removing that awful jargon "tweeted" replacing it with the simple and clear phrase "announced" (that does not require any explanatory wiki linking) then I will do my best to find sources. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Moviefone points to THR and says the announcement was made on Conan because it was expected to leak anyway (and unusually the clip was posted on the web even before the show had aired). The LA Times explains why this announcement is notable in contrast to other films which only have an announcement on a Hollywood trade website rather than the lead actor in character announcing on television.

Deadline may or may not have managed to break the news before Conan but that isn't really worth mentioning.

Rudd was told to watch Conan, and that was when he got confirmation of Anchorman 2. Might be worth mentioning.

Trawled through Huffington Post which is where I thought I read Ferrell saying he pushed the announcement early to show Paramount there was interest and make them commit. Maybe I'm confusing it with the earlier Anchorman 2 announcements, can't find a precise source.

I do think the LA Times source proves why in this particular case it is worth mentioning the announcement was made on Conan, in contrast to other cases such as "At a charitable event in May 2012," should be shortened to just "In May 2012" because the location is not notable. -- 16:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.140.11 (talk)

I'd also recommend reverting this edit better to avoid jargon and try to write more formally like in an encyclopedia. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in tightening up the prose of the production section would do well to read the article from Huffington Post where Adam McKay explains the difficulty of getting the sequel made. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix one small thing? An encyclopedia should aim to be clear and avoid jargon like "tweeted" especially since the location of the announcement is not WP:NOTABLE and not even slightly relevant.

There is still the larger problem of the Marketing section becoming even more sprawling, mention more individual instances of the many many publicity appearances made for the film without properly showing they are notable. (i.e. The European premiere being held in Ireland seems unusual and notable, but the cast appearing on yet another talk show in Ireland does not seem notable.)

The section does need to provide an overview of the huge marketing campaign, the unusual ways it was presented and the massive number of appearances made. I said it was poorly written before but it is fast approaching listcruft. -- 93.107.207.202 (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Correctly naming the people who cameo'd in the film.

Once the credits are officially released, can someone please give the characters who do have names, names? Like Tina Fay as Jill Janson and Amy's character and Wendy Van Peel, Kayne Wests' (he's not J.J. Jackson), even Kristin Dunst's character has a name, something along the lines of (something Alterius?: Maiden of the Clouds, Jim Carrey as Scott Riles, Will Smith as Jeff Bullington. Npabebangin (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for those names? Koala15 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no "Official" source for this inclusion, but as I've seen the film myself. I know that their names are these as they stated it in the film. We can wait for an official source comes, but I doubt a source will be released anytime soon. We'll have to wait until the page is not semi-protected. But these are the names of these individuals. Some of them, anyway. But I would go ahead and delete Kirsten Dunst as an "angel" as she is not. I've seen the film, so I know what I'm talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.21.128 (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we please go ahead and cite the names of the cameos. The Kanye West name is not right, his character J.J. Jackson, it's incorrect, as well as Kristen Dunst playing an "angel" is also incorrect. 71.188.18.94 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The band playing in the ice rink scene appeared to be real musicians, can't find a source so probably have to wait for the DVD. John a s (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014

Add an external link for rotten tomatoes.

• Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues at Rotten Tomatoes

Neilgalloway (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Koala15 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Production and Development

The Sequel section of the Anchorman article was overly long and an editor rightly cut out a lot of information about the development of Anchoman 2 but not all of it is included here so maybe someone might check it and try and merge it a few items. [1] -- 109.78.130.14 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything important that was there is in this article, it was mostly unsourced anyway. Koala15 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Skim reading I noticed the comment from Carell showing that early on he was willing to reprise his role. I didn't look at it very closely but it felt like it helped gave extra depth to the early development that helped make things happen. -- 109.78.130.14 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We could add it even though i'm sure he said that alot back in the day. Koala15 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Bloodsport or Kickboxer?

In one scene, Ron Burgundy brims over with so much rage that a close-up of his eyeballs reveals a scene from Jean-Claude Van Damme's Bloodsport playing across his pupils (or Kickboxer)? --IIIraute (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Shark Doby

Hi! Is the shark subplot part of the American theatrical release? It's not included in the German one... --NoCultureIcons (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Tom Tom Club - Genius of Love is clearly playing at around 1h30minutes. Not mentioned in soundtrack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9d9FA3fCf4&feature=kp Rabbithats (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Rounding Dollars in Infobox

I rounded the gross dollars per MOS:LARGENUM. I had also started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_52#Rounding_Dollars_in_film_articles_and_Infoboxes if you want to add more opinions on this subject. (The BoxOffice Mojo website also rounds numbers where appropriate and are only estimates). Before deciding to go against an established style, please justify the reason the style does not apply in this case and gain consensus before making the change. I see no need to go against a style since more digits are not needed for a summary and rounding aids readability and aids comparisons.AbramTerger (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I also endorse the rounding per MOS:LARGENUM. It also improves readability in being straightforward about the most important figures. The amount in tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds, etc. is not of value here. Reliable sources round box office figures like we are trying to do here. Just look at this, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to round the numbers their aren't even a lot of zeroes in it. I think movie grosses in the infobox is an exception. Koala15 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You should wait for a consensus before changing. It requires more than just your opinion to change the style. I have put back to MOS:LARGENUM style. Please do not revert it until you can justify it and gain a consensus wanting to not stick to the WP style guidelines.AbramTerger (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about movie grosses. Koala15 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It says, "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits..." Are you arguing that it is important for a film article's purposes to know how many thousands and hundreds were made after the millions made? I pointed to a box office article that shows how these figures are being rounded. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, MOS:LARGENUM says it all. It looks like all film articles should have their grosses rounded. It does not need to specifically mention movie grosses, what is the difference to readers if it made 45,573,839 dollars or 45,574,395 dollars? STATic message me! 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Koala. I agree MOS:LARGENUM does not explicitly mention grosses. It is a general style. It can not specify the applicability to everything. The implicit assumption is that it the style applies unless it explicitly states it does not, or if there is a reason to ignore the style a consensus can be made to do that. Other than your own personal preference, why do you think the summary needs the information to the dollar? AbramTerger (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I will accept it being paraphrased in the prose, but i feel the infobox should have the full number. I have done tons of work on film articles and brought countless to GA status and not once did they say we should paraphrase the gross in the infobox. I feel like you guys are editing from your opinions and not whats best for the article. There has also not been enough discussion for you guys to just change it like that. Maybe get this in the actual MOS and then we can talk, ok? Koala15 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone please take it easy with the edit warring and be mindful of WP:3RR. Neither approach is detrimental to the article, especially since the rounding approach is relatively new. I've made my case here. If we need other editors' input to solidify the consensus, we should do so. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement in your comment is incorrect. It has been rounded for the past week. And it is not that you can't, you have to get consensus to go against the wiki style standards. Since the style seems clear about rounding, it seems to me a justification and consensus must be required to go against the rounding. How is "detrimental to the article" to round the gross? AbramTerger (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have restarted the previous discussion at WP film Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rounding_Dollars_in_film_articles_and_Infoboxes_.28Revisited.29 to see if we can get some overall consensus and perhaps more explicit guidelines to prevent the reverting back and forth.AbramTerger (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Film articles don't do this, you're attempting to set a new precedent (and others have suggested this before and the best you can say is that it didn't catch on). This article had the detailed figures far longer than it had the rounded figures, Koala15 has precedent on its side of the arguement. Largenum just says how you should round large numbers, not that it is required or even necessarily desirable to so. I'm surprised you to through some much revert warring without a moderator shutting you all down. -- 109.79.101.68 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. Some films do, some don't. The point is to try and keep a consistent style within WP. I agree that none of the styles are MUSTS, but if we, as editors, are going to ignore the style, it must be justified and we must gain a consensus. That has not been done. The style is to round and that is the local consensus.AbramTerger (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Based on"

I didn't remove this, because the hidden note rationale is a valid one. However, I'm a bit stumped as to if this needs to be included. Personally, I don't see a reason that a direct sequel written by the same people should have a "Based on" crediting those exact same people. I'm sure there is a guideline about this somewhere that I would be violating if I removed it, but I still think it should be removed. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be kept, since it is a parameter in the template and it is explicitly credited in the film. If there was no film credit, I would see no reason to create a based on for the original.AbramTerger (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Based on" field is supposed to be used for source material per the infobox guidelines. It's not necessary to include here; it's just extraneous. It's sufficient to make it clear in the lead section that it is a sequel. (If we still had the "Preceded by" field, that would be the more appropriate alternative.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a direct sequel, with the same people involved, it is irrelevant. Just being a parameter does not mean it should always be used. STATic message me! 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Liam Neeson

Is there a source for Liam Neeson being in the film? The credits list the actor (History Channel news host) as Micheal Neeson (exact spelling), though I am willing to accept it could be an error on their part -- the character certainly looks older than 18 to me. MrSeabody (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I added citations for all the cameos. Liam is not credited in the film. Michael is Liam's son and appears alongside his father with the History channel people and is credited in the film. See the picture of them together.AbramTerger (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409224951/http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/anchormans_new_relevance/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/anchormans_new_relevance/singleton/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.10news.com/entertainment/anchorman-2-casting-call-san-diego-filming-051013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524032753/http://news.moviefone.com/2012/05/21/anchorman-2-trailer-will-ferrell-steve-carrell_n_1533312.html to http://news.moviefone.com/2012/05/21/anchorman-2-trailer-will-ferrell-steve-carrell_n_1533312.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)