Review: ‘Ted 2’

Oh comedy sequels. Why do you even exist? We enjoyed the original the first time around when it was fresh and new and interesting, we laughed, we had a good time, and when it was all said and done, we told our friends about it and we all had a good laugh together as we recounted our favorite jokes and bits. And then a couple of years go by, and along comes the inevitable sequel, and we all go see it, and it is just not as good. We chuckle, maybe we’re amused throughout, but familiarity breeds contempt and seeing the same jokes repackaged just feeds right into the law of diminishing returns. It’s more of the same, but somehow it is also less. That is the essence of the comedy sequel. That is “Ted 2.”

When “Ted” came out a few years ago, the idea of a foul-mouthed talking teddy bear hanging out with Mark Wahlberg and doing crazy shit was novel, it was ridiculous and absurd and then we saw the movie and we were surprised when it worked so well. But there is a moment in the beginning of that movie in which it is explained that the world got used to Ted and his talking teddy bear status and he faded into cultural obscurity as a relic of a by-gone era (i.e. 1980’s celebrityhood), and when people encounter him, they don’t care as much as they used to. So should anyone be surprised that the movie is the same way? Because here is “Ted 2” and it is less special and interesting this time around because we’ve already seen this. We get it. It is a talking teddy bear and he hangs out with a guy and they smoke weed and love Flash Gordon and consume Bud Light in every other scene. Why are we spending another two hours with these guys?

I feel like that question is something that writer-director-creator Seth MacFarlane never had a real answer for, unless of course his answer was simply “make money.” The first movie had an  emotional arc that centered on Mark Wahlberg’s character, and it was based on a 35-year old person still dealing with childish things and not being a fully grown adult person, and this man-child dilemma is actually something that is very prevalent today and easily identifiable. “Ted 2,” however, focuses on Ted this time, pushing Wahlberg to sidekick status. This time around the story is about Ted’s legal status as a person, and whether or not he has the rights that other people have. He has to sue for his civil rights but because he is poor he has to get an inexperienced lawyer willing to work for free (Amanda Seyfried), and these three characters spend the rest of the movie together trying to get the federal government to recognize him as a person so he can get married, get a job, adopt a kid, and so on.

The obvious parallel here for Ted’s dilemma is the unfair legal treatment of various minority groups in this country (and other countries, really). Because subtlety is not MacFarlane’s strong suit apparently. several very overt references are made to the civil rights movement for racial minorities as well as the very current fight to ensure equal rights for people regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, just to hammer home whatever point they are trying to make with this movie. Which is that everyone is equal, we all have dreams and desires and hopes and shouldn’t be denied these dreams? Not very original, and really I am not going to my weed-smoking teddy bear movies for primers on civil rights, but on the other hand I don’t want to blame these folks for trying to take their dumb premise of a movie and actually say something with it and use it to put forth some very honorable ideas about equality. But it would have helped if they had actually thought the premise through a little more and actually found a way to say something truly interesting about this topic. Simply having a character very dryly reciting Plessy vs. Ferguson and plainly making that comparison to Ted doesn’t actually say anything other than “man that was not cool, hunh?”

And like the first movie, there is a sub-plot about a weirdo named Donny (Giovanni Ribisi) who wants a Ted all his own, and in “Ted 2” he somehow convinces the head of Hasbro (John Carroll Lynch) to help ensure Ted’s legal status is denied so that they can steal him, because a piece of property doesn’t have the same rights as a person, hence they can’t be charged with kidnapping Ted, and once Hasbro has him, they can cut him open and see what makes his different from other teddy bears so they can reproduce him over and over. Can you imagine that? A world filled with a million Ted dolls, all of them sentient and making gross jokes and drinking beer and causing problems wherever they go? That actually sounds like hell. Like “Gremlins” meets “Dawn of the Dead” meets “Teddy Ruxpin.” Okay, actually, that movie sounds awesome. If they ever make a “Ted 3” (and please don’t), I would see it if it had this premise. This whole Hasbro story line feels so shoehorned in and weird, and also since it stands out so much from the rest of the movie, we know how it is going to come into play in the end of the movie and sure enough, we get exactly what is expected.

And also. what’s up with the rampant product placement in this movie? It feels like this product placement shit is getting really out of hand lately. In this movie, bottles of Bud Light are strewn about the film as if this movie was called “Bud Light Presents Ted 2” and there is at least one moment in which Ted is sitting on a couch very clearly getting down on a bag of Doritos. I know if I was more of a car person I would easily recognize and remember the vehicles featured in this movie because they all got prominent placement, and character use their iPhones like crazy, constantly whipping them out and holding them in a way so that we can see the logos and we know exactly what product is being used. And there is even one scene in which Ted and Mark Wahlberg tell an attorney about their assets and holdings and they are clearly describing elements from the game of Monopoly, which was a funny enough joke, but then it felt dirty because shortly after that scene we are introduced to that whole Hasbro sub plot and not only does Hasbro get inserted into the story as ac actual plot element, but the Monopoly riff feels like paid product placement itself. Quite simply this shit is getting ridiculous. When I go see a movie, especially a comedy, I am trying to get away from the real world usually, so it sucks to have it thrust back in my face like this.

And the amazing amount of product placement and weak story wouldn’t have been an issue if this movie was just funnier, but personally speaking this movie was amusing at most, with only a handful of jokes compelling me to laugh out loud. As this is from the creator of “Family Guy” and “American Dad,” offensive humor is to be expected and sure enough this has it in spades, though whether or not it is funny it up to the viewer. For example, I didn’t find it very funny to see a character get covered in semen, yet other people in the theater I was in indeed laughed in horror at this visual, so just because it didn’t work for me doesn’t mean it won’t work for you (you disgusting asshole). I generally like MacFarlane and his brand of irreverent humor and I enjoy both “Family Guy” and “Ted,” so the chances of me liking this movie were pretty good. But it just isn’t a solid enough film for me to recommend without caveats. It made me laugh here and there but I wouldn’t call it consistently funny, and I would totally understand if someone saw this and didn’t like it at all. The humor is pretty specific and you really have to be on this movie’s sort of gross out wave length to appreciate a bunch of the jokes.

So in conclusion…”Ted 2” is okay at best. But enough with the comedy sequels, people. “22 Jump Street” is the exception that proves the rule, not the movie that shows comedy sequels can work as well as the originals. So put away the old characters and just try to come up with something new, because this is what happens when a movie is made because people liked the first one and a solid story couldn’t be cracked for the second one.