'Ted 2': Why the humor doesn't work for the comedy sequel

Though all agreed it was offensive, some critics were won over by the comedy in Seth MacFarlane's comedy 'Ted,' in part because of the believable and loving relationships between the main characters. But in the sequel 'Ted 2,' critics are calling the humor 'cruel.'

Universal Pictures/AP
'Ted 2' stars Mark Wahlberg (l.) and Amanda Seyfried (r.).

The upcoming release of the film “Ted 2” has many critics calling the movie's humor mean-spirited and missing the sentimental relationships that were in the first movie.

Seth MacFarlane, the director, co-writer, and star (via voice) of the “Ted” films, is no stranger to controversy. His series “Family Guy,” which airs on Fox, has long alienated some viewers with its politically incorrect jokes and he angered some viewers in 2013 when he hosted the Oscars. Cracks about female nudity in films and others were ill-received, with Monitor writer Gloria Goodale noting that “MacFarlane… has been criticized for making sexist, racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic jokes (does this miss any groups?) as well as general bad taste.” 

MacFarlane’s 2012 film “Ted” was a box office hit, so a sequel was probably inevitable, and according to early reviews (“Ted 2” hits theaters on June 26), the new film is just as full of envelope-pushing humor as the first movie.

There are some who will always be turned off by edgy humor, but others have noted that while much of the humor was offensive in the first movie, it was mitigated by the relationships between the stuffed bear Ted and his friend John (Mark Wahlberg) and between John and his girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis). Ty Burr of the Boston Globe called the film “mostly hilarious [and] surprisingly sentimental… The movie works not because the gross-out jokes are funny (MacFarlane bats about 2 out of 3) but because the two central relationships, between John and Kunis’s tough, tender Lori and between John and Ted, feel real – or real enough.” The Hollywood Reporter writer Todd McCarthy agreed, calling the film “raucously funny” and writing that “the relationship between John and Lori feels genuine and strong enough to make you root for it to work out,” while Los Angeles Times writer Betsy Sharkey notes that the three players make up “the warm and fuzzy love triangle at the center of the raucous rudeness… While nothing is sacred, the sacrilege comes with just enough sweetness to offset the salt.” 

But with this sequel, that sweetness seems to be gone (possibly partly caused by Kunis’s departure). Chicago Sun-Times writer Richard Roeper writes of the new movie, “The first time Ted makes a joke about Amanda Seyfried’s character and her big eyes, it’s startling and hilarious. The second time, it’s just flat and unfunny. The third time, Ted just comes across as cruel,” while Dan Callahan of TheWrap wrote that “bad taste needs to be more honest and more all-inclusive if it’s to make a lasting impression, and MacFarlane’s bad taste here is both too wishy-washy and too knee-jerk cruel to really make any impact.” New York Daily News writer Jacob Hall agreed, writing of the film, "Its penchant for casual cruelty masks a hollow soul."

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.