Entertainment Magazine

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

Posted on the 30 July 2018 by Weminoredinfilm.com @WeMinoredInFilm

I don't know if you've heard by now, but Hollywood kind of likes making sequels. In fact, 2018 is currently on pace to have more sequels released into theaters than any year over the past decade. Obscure horror movies, cult comedies, quirky animation, underperforming action movies, beloved and widely-known superhero movies - you name it, Hollywood's made a sequel to it in 2018. Like any other kind of movie, some of these have flopped, others have soared, and yet others have landed somewhere in-between at the box office.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is thus far in the "soared" category. After 10 days of release, it is outperforming its predecessor, injecting a healthy dose of estrogen into the summer box office's steady diet of testosterone. However, one of the maddening parts of all this is just how insanely long it took for Hollywood to finally make a Mamma Mia! 2. The first film came out 10 years ago - 10 years! - and all it did was make more money than any other live action musical in history, at least until the Beauty and the Beast remake:

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

Yet, we've had to wait all this time for a sequel. In that same exact timespan, Marvel Studios released 20 different superhero movies.

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

But, wait, there's more.

Since the release of the first Mamma Mia!, Hollywood has gone through two different Spider-Man actors, two different Batman actors, two failed Terminator revivals, over 10 different failed YA franchises, two different Final Destinations sequels claiming to be the actual final Final Destination movie, the entirety of the Kung Fu Panda, Paranormal Activity, Twilight, Taken, rebooted Star Trek, Hangover, Hunger Games, and Fifty Shades of Grey franchises, multiple failed cinematic universes as well as the regrettable post- Avatar 3D craze. You mean to tell me in all of that time they couldn't be bothered to crank out a sequel to one of the most successful musicals in film history?

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

What about the cautionary tale of Grease 2? - Like a failed sequel in the past would really stop Hollywood from trying it again in the future. Also, some people actually prefer Grease 2 to the original.

What about the fact that Mamma Mia! is based on a Broadway musical and to make a sequel would mean coming up with an entirely new story instead fo just adapting something from the stage? - Isn't that why you hire screenwriters? Plus, isn't the storyline obvious - show us how exactly Streep's character met those three chaps in the first place.

What about the fact that the first film used up all the best ABBA songs? - Most recognizable, sure, but you're working with a pretty deep catalog there. The first Mamma Mia! didn't completely tap that well dry.

Any other excuses? Come on, they made a Hot Tub Time Machine 2 before they made a Mamma Mia! 2!

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

Actually, it's not quite as simple as all that. You can't just blame Hollywood sexism here. According to a recent Yahoo report - and, yes, Yahoo is still a thing...apparently - the studio was ready to move forward on a sequel almost immediately: "As early as the fall of 2008, just months after the first film's release, Universal co-chairman David Linde was telling press he wanted to bring the band back together for another installment."

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

But, as with many a challenging band reunion, there was one member of the group who could make or break the deal. In this case, without Meryl Streep there would be no reunion, and she just wasn't interested. A sequel full of ABBA songs could be fun, but the first film was Streep's coming out party as a singer. She's since done Into the Woods and Ricki and the Flash, but in its day Mamma Mia! was largely sold on the have-to-see-it-to-believe-it spectacle of one of history's greatest actors dancing and singing fluffy pop songs. Moreover, her character forms the heart of the story. Hell, she's the "Mamma" in "Mamma Mia." How can you do a sequel without her?

You can't, but sadly, much like Denzel Washington, she had a rule against ever doing sequels. It's a rule she eventually broke, obviously, agreeing to a significantly reduced role in Here Wo Go Again. It just took the producers a decade to get her to say yes.

Here's original Mamma Mia! creator Judy Craymer, who first thought up the musical in the 80s and has remained involved as a producer for every iteration across stage and screen, on the process of convincing Streep: "She's the most lauded actress and the most extraordinary actress in the world so she doesn't do sequels, so to speak. I think it was like, what would she be doing in there? And it had to be something really interesting. She gave 295% of her energy on the last film and I don't think she wanted to be running around cliff tops singing a bunch of ABBA songs if it wasn't interesting."

Why Did It Take Hollywood a Decade to Make a Sequel to One of the Most Successful Musicals of All Time?

The turning point came when Craymer turned to Love, Actually's Richard Curtis to come up with a story idea. It was his unique bit of inspiration to use The Godfather II as a story guide for a flashback structure contrasting the child (Amanda Seyfried's returning Sophie) and parent's experiences when they're roughly the same age that cracked it. By flashing back to the younger version of Streep's character - ultimately played by Lily James - and exploring exactly how she met the three men from the first film, they could continue the story without overly burdening Streep.

Here's how the Here We Go Again cast reacted to Streep's general absence

Not everyone was on board with this, though. Neither the first film's director (Phyllida Lloyd) nor its writer (Catherine Johnson) agreed to return to see it through. Ol Parker, a friend of Curtis' and well-established with his won Best Exotic Marigold Hotel movies, stepped in to direct. Once they finally got Streep to agree to return and sing two ABBA songs they had the green light from the studio and a 44% increase on their production budget from the first film.

Now, the hope is Here We Go Again will have enough legs at the box office to warrant a third film. If so, they won't wait another decade to make it. "I know it would have to be done much faster," Craymer laughed, because otherwise, "we'll be quite old."

Every Direct Sequel Released Into Theaters Since the First Mamma Mia! Came Out 2008
  • The X-Files: I Want to Believe
  • The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
  • High School Musical 3: Senior Year
  • Saw V
  • Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
  • Quantum of Solace
  • Transporter 3
  • Punisher: War Zone
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog