I don’t know about you guys, but I consider myself a thunder-buddy. Because f*** you thundah! That was the main lesson learnt in director Seth Macfarlane’s debut flick, Ted. There was probably some other lesson learnt about growing up, which clearly has been forgotten about in the sequel.
Or maybe not, as Macfarlane explained to Collider how he was looking to not repeat the first film in the upcoming Ted 2. Unlike his work on Family Guy right now, which is pure recycled material. Hey-yo!
Only as far as that I didn’t want to repeat the same movie twice. Purely selfishly, as somebody making the film, I didn’t want to do something that would be an experience that would be un-engaging for me, or that would rehash the same material twice. When you’re working 15-hour days, that’s not something I would be game for. I wanted to work with these characters again, but ideally tell a whole new story.
Mark Wahlberg returns for Ted 2. Something that Macfarlane said was actually a dead easy decision for his main actor:
It wasn’t too hard. We both had a great time with each other, the first time around, and we had a great working relationship. The two characters have really strong on screen chemistry, I think. So, it didn’t seem to be that hard of a sell. And the second one was equally as smooth. He’s a great guy to work with.
Ted 2 merges several ideas into one plot. Primarily Ted’s need to be recognised as a legal entity, and Mark Wahlberg being showered in pearl jam:
It was a merge, accidentally. The first draft was actually going to be John and Ted trucking a pot shipment across the country, but We’re the Millers came out while we were writing it, and it was the same story, so we had to scrap it. When I was shooting A Million Ways to Die in the West, I was reading the John Jakes North and South series, in my spare time, and there was a section about Dred Scott, which jogged memories about my high school history class. I thought, “That might be something that could provide a germ of an idea for an interesting sequel,” given the fact that the question of Ted’s rights and his status would come up, if this were a real scenario.
The infamous Comic-Con will also appear in the film. An event that Macfarlane says resulted in a massive set of free advertising essentially:
Yeah. It was interesting because Comic-Con was all on a soundstage and we treated it the same way they treat the actual Comic-Con. We called a lot of different vendors and studios and comic book companies and toy companies and said, “Just send us everything you have. We’ll put it in the movie. It’s free advertising for you, and we’ll build a convincing set.” But, that was fun. It was a massive soundstage. I’ve never really seen anything like it. Our production designer did a really nice job of duplicating that environment.
Much like Family Guy, Ted was heavy on pop culture references (FLASH! AH-HA! SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE!). A process that Macfarlane says came about organically as the script was being written:
We don’t shoehorn anything in. The only thing that’s disconnected to the story is the opening sequence, and that’s designed to be exactly what it is, which is a big, fun, splashy opening credits fantasy sequence that ideally tells the audience that it’s going to bigger and more fun, from the get-go. You break the story first, and then you go into the specifics. When they get to New York, we need to establish Comic-Con and lay that thread in, so that when we show up later, it doesn’t feel like it came out of nowhere. So, these Star Wars characters in costume, walking across the street and John, Samantha and Ted having an altercation with them fit that story requirement, for example.
We live in a very sensitive age these days, with people being especially vocal about anything that causes them any offense. Like Kervyn telling me that the current game he’s playing is easier than my ex-girlfriend. And with a sequel that includes events that’ll most likely be grosser than a love gravy shower, Ted 2 could end up being quite offensive. But don’t blame the public Macfarlane explained. As the media is also partly to blame:
I should be asking you guys this question. Most of the outrage comes from not the public, but from the media, the press and writers. Nobody sets out to offend or shock for the sake of shocking. You set out to get laughs. And comedy is not always pretty. I think Seinfeld made a valid complaint recently when he said things have gotten out of hand. But I don’t think it’s coming from the public, at large. I think there’s a maelstrom that’s being stirred up by the press who, in many cases, are screaming at people to be offended at things they otherwise would just take as jokes. I think there’s been a little bit of a mis-characterization of the way the wind is blowing.
I don’t think that it’s something that’s coming directly from the public. I think if you asked an average person, “Were you offended by this joke in this comedy?,” I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been offended by anything I’ve seen in a comedy, and I don’t think I have. I’m offended by things like corporate pollution and animal cruelty. Those are things that offend me. There’s a disconnect there. Is there anything in the movie that you found you would sit down and write that it’s objectionable and offensive and shouldn’t fit in comedy?
Last Updated: June 25, 2015