Ted Ted
BusinessCGIFeature FilmPixar

“Ted” Is The Highest-Grossing R-Rated Animated Feature Of All-Time

Seth MacFarlane’s Ted, featuring a cute animated teddy bear in the title role, exploded past expectations and grossed an estimated $54.1 million in its first weekend, which is the highest opening ever for an original R-rated comedy. The live-action/CG-animation Ted could be a watershed moment for the animation art form–the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs of R-rated animation–and proves conclusively that there is a huge market for original adult animation. Prior to this, the highest-grossing R-rated animated film of all time was the TV adaptation South Park–Bigger, Longer and Uncut which earned $52 million in 1999.

While I don’t expect that Hollywood will start greenlighting mature animated films tomorrow, the industry’s more enlightened executives will hopefully recognize that a massive audience for animation exists beyond the limited range of fare that studios produce nowadays. Ted is the clearest indication yet that audiences are hungry for different kinds of characters, different stories, and different styles of animated filmmaking than the safe family-friendly fare they’ve been force-fed for decades.

In its second weekend, Pixar’s Brave dropped to third place with an estimated $34 million, bringing its cumulative domestic grosses to $131.7 million. The 48.7% week-to-week drop was better than Cars 2‘s second weekend plummet (60.3%), similar to Toy Story 3 (46.2%) and WALL•E (48.5%), but not as strong as Up (35.2%) or Ratatouille (38.3%).

DreamWorks’ Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted continued to show legs in its fourth weekend. The film’s estimated gross of $11.8 million was good enough for 5th place and a total of $180 million domestically. It will soon become the highest grossing entry in the series. Madagascar 3‘s worldwide total stands at $424.2 million. It remains to be seen if it can eclipse the global franchise-high of $600.3 million set by Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa.

  • TimeForTimer

    I don’t consider this an animated film. It’s a live-action film with animation. BIG difference to me, and most audiences I suspect.

    • True, it’s a live-action/animation combo (in the Roger Rabbit/Cool World mold), but when there’s an animated character in nearly every shot of a film, it’s fair to label it as animated. If you removed the film’s animated lead, you literally wouldn’t have a film anymore, so animation was integral to the composition of the film.

      • yeah but…

        what if it was a Muppet, would it be live action? I think we’re stretching the animated film half a bit.

      • ‘What-if’s’ aren’t relevant to the discussion. We can only judge the facts: an experienced animation artist created a film with an animated lead and it was a huge success.

      • ElDoDo

        I was quite surprised when I reached the end of the article and failed to find a punchline.
        I think calling this an animated film is a huge stretch; It does contain animation, but so did Avatar and any freaking Star Wars for that matter, and I don’t remember anybody calling Paul an animated film last year.
        I mean, the difference between animation techniques used as special effects techniques in contrast to animation as a medium should be quite straightforward to grasp.
        Both examples Amid mentions above (Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Cool World) specifically address the animated characters as such, as part of the story and the universe those movies take place in. The Ted character is supposed to be a real, if alive and sentient, teddy bear.
        To be fair, there’s some will behind the decision to use an animated bear. Even if Seth MacFarlane had found some powerful warlock willing to infuse life and personality into inanimated objects for a reasonable, actually cheaper than animation fee, this movie would still had used a CG bear so MacFarlane could voice it.

      • wever

        It is not an animated film as A LABEL, even though the title and co-star is animated.

      • James

        By that definition the original King Kong and Mighty Joe Young are animated feature film.

      • Hal

        PAUL (like three boobs) is awesome. Not an animated film, but he was a pretty outstanding animated character. Underseen and unfairly maligned by geek reviewers.

    • In response to “yeah..but” (couldn’t seem to respond to the last comment), I think it would have been neat to see Ted as a puppet. I have yet to see the film, but I happen to like the look of muppetesque puppets — if that even IS a word.

      While I’m not entirely sure if it’s the nostalgic aspect or the tangible, I-can-really-touch-this aspect, it raises an intriguing debate. Would puppets have been more effective than CGI? Better yet, are PUPPETS considered a form of animation? Some people believe think so while some believe it’s only similar. Either way, it’s important to keep tabs on outside projects animators are working on. It’s still a representation of them and it will (hopefully) strike up one’s curiosity to watch their other work.

  • I would agree with your assessment Amid if Mila and Mark were animated as well. It definitely opens the door for other adult themed movies based on retro toys. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a Slinky slasher film soon enough.

  • Jason

    Now all we need is to green light ‘The Goon’ Movie and really get it going.

  • wgan

    [Comment removed by editors. Per our commenting guidelines, “Stay on-topic. Comments are not a place to discuss ideas not directly related to the post.”]

  • Not to be unfair to Ted, but seriously, what was it’s competition for that title?

    Beavis and Butthead do America, from 1996
    South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, from 1999
    Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters, from 2007

    Am I missing any?

    Also, I feel James Cameron and the Academy would argue it’s not animated feature.

    • Ross

      all of Ralph Bakshi’s films

      • James

        Not sure about some of them. While under present ratings they are R-Rated, Some like Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic were originally released as X-rated which limited box office more than what a ’70s R-rating would have.

        Also Wizards, Lord of the Rings, and Fire & Ice were all rated PG

        American Pop and Hey Good Lookin’ were the only two of Bakshi’s films originally R-Rated

    • top cat james

      “Heavy Metal” (1981)and its 2000 follow-up.

      And “Beavis and Butthead Do America” was rated PG-13.

      • Amid says rated R ‘comedy’ in the article, not just movie. Most of Bakshi’s movie aren’t comedies nor is Heavy Metal.

        So seriously, how many rated R Animated comedies are there? Not counting Aqua Teen because it’s just so damn bizarre (mind you I’m a big fan), South Park was the last one with general appeal and it was 13 years ago.

    • Gumbasia

      Beavis and Butthead and Aqua Teens weren’t rated R, they were rated PG-13.

  • I don’t know… what defines an “animated” movie? Just having an animated character in a live action film I feel doesn’t really classify it as an animated film. (Even if the character is in every shot of the film)

    If you want to make that case, then you might as well say that “Avatar”, and the last three “Star Wars” films were animated films.

    At least the characters in Cool World and Roger Rabbit were caricatures…( a common element as to what we like to traditionally define in “animated” films.) The Ted character looks pretty straightforward to me.

    Anyway, I’m glad it’s a plus for the animation medium and a success for an artist who usually works in that medium .

    • Funkybat

      I think the mental dividing line is whether or not the animated characters seem like “cartoons” or more like “real” character achieved via VFX. By this criteria, I would put “Ted” in the latter category, despite it being the creation of a TV animation veteran.

      When I see “Ted,” I think more of Dobby or Gollum in “Harry Potter” or “Lord of the Rings.” Those characters were supposed to be flesh and blood entities, native inhabitants to their respective worlds, even though they were a combination of mo-cap and keyframe animation. Something like Roger Rabbit, Cool World, or even Mary Poppins is more “animated” by most people’s definition.

      Of course, I’m coming at this from a perspective that barely allows for films like the recent “Yogi Bear” or the “Chimpmunks” to be considered animated. In both cases, the “world” is some version of the live-action “real world” but it just so happens these cartoony animals are somehow considered to be native to it, rather than aliens from another dimension. I’d call “Beowulf” animated before either of those, or “Ted.”

      PS: I suspect quibbling the likes of which we see in this and the above comments would seem like the ramblings of crazy people to most members of the general public. Still, it doesn’t stop me from chiming in…

  • Al

    I wasn’t really paying attention to the marketing for this film, and had assumed the main character was actually a puppet from what I’d seen (mostly posters,) until I read otherwise here. I really wouldn’t call it animated. Still, cheers to the creators for trying something a bit risky and succeeding.

  • Mac

    By the time people in general could have realized Ted or Avatar is basically produced, if not written and pre planned, the same way as a Shrek movie, the technology will keep getting so that the fantasy of this motion capture(that it actually works as well as they wan’t people to think it is) becomes the reality.

    I do wonder though why Hollywood prefers for people to think that these movies are not made by hundreds of people sitting at a desktop computer. Does the pulling back of the curtain on how our entertainment is made in general just cause that documentation to become fictionalized entertainment and part of the meta marketing?

    • Jason

      Because they want to sell the idea that actors still control the stage. It’s sexy to see actors in mocap suits run around and do their thing. Not so sexy seeing guys sitting at their computers playing with 3d dolls.

  • SKent.

    To someone who cares about animation as an artform, movies significant only for their financial success, and the output of Seth McFarlane, are of little interest.

  • Sorry, not an animated film. The character was meant to be a for-real VFX character like Jar-Jar or (as someone else mentioned) Paul. I don’t recall either film being referred to at Cartoon Brew as animated.

    The Matrix Reloaded has more “animation” in it and unless Ted grosses 281 million, it is not the highest grossing R-Rated Animated Feature of All Time.

  • A Writer

    which is the highest opening ever for an original R-rated comedy.



    thats a huge accomplishment. Seth has teens by their horns

  • Aymanut

    Most of the movies that make 200 mil opening weekend have more animation in them than Ted.

  • No way, Jose, is this an animated film.

    No way.

  • ben

    Ted is essentially along the same lines as movies like 21 Jump Street and Thats My Boy. Movies that are not hilarious, but you get a good laugh out of them, sometimes due to the vulgar humor, its like a guilty pleasure. I would not put Ted up next to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, considering in that film, there were tons of animated characters, not just one, and the idea of an animated world was central to the plot.
    But, please, Ted is not the beacon of light to show the world we want mature animated films. Its Seth MacFarlane cashing in on his Family Guy audience who follow him everywhere. Add sex and drugs and cursing, and you have a typical R rated comedy flick. Some get trashed by critics, others get praised.

    I honestly feel like animation studios are stepping their game up. Who cares if they make films that are for kids/adults to enjoy? I’m not saying I didn’t enjoy South Park’s movie, and I loved The Simpsons movie, but does animation really need to stoop to Ted humor to win over an audience? No.

    I think Pixar is leading the way into better film making for other animation studios. I mean, watch the first five minutes of UP. Plus, I am really excited for a lot of upcoming animated films (Legend of the Guardians, Epic, Wreck-It-Ralph, Hotel Transylvania, ParaNorman), and I am enjoying shows like Adventure Time, Gumball, Gravity Falls, Regular Show, etc. I think animation is on the right track and will only continue to improve as more people get chances to tell new stories and get their ideas out there. Animation absolutely could use more people to tell stories…

    …We just don’t need more Teds.

  • Kardo

    Yeah, this ain’t an animated feature in the public’s eye. It’s a live action film with a protagonist that happens to be animated. Nothing else aside from the protagonist is animated. No one will remember this as animation. When a fully-animated movie intended for mature audiences strikes gold, as it was the case with South Park, then we can talk.

  • The kneejerk reaction of a certain segment of the animation community was expected. It’s also a perfect illustration of why the animation medium matures so slowly: a lot of the people who profess to love animation lack the imagination to foresee the possibilities of the medium. It’s reminsicent of the 1960s when the top Disney animators barely considered films like Fritz the Cat and Yellow Submarine to be animation because it didn’t look like the type of animated filmmaking they were familiar with. The lone individual at Disney who saw those films as valid forms of animated expression was Ward Kimball, and of course, he turned out to be right—animation can be more than just a Disney style cartoon.

    You may choose to diminish the film’s animation component, but I’ll be celebrating Ted, which used character animation to create a successful and effective adult comedy. In fact, it’s nice to see American animation finally catch up to where Italian filmmaking was twenty years ago:

    • James

      So are Ray Harryhausen and George Pal feature films now officially in the “animated film” genre?

    • Kardo

      Let me put it this way. If “Ted” was a film about a live-action human character, surrounded by cartoon characters, and living in a world that was all animation, would you call it a live-action film?

    • “The kneejerk reaction of a certain segment of the animation community was expected.”

      Where “certain segment” is the overwhelming majority. You make it seems like the people claiming this isn’t animated are on the outskirts. They aren’t. You are in the minority calling this an animated film.

      You mentioned earlier “what if you took out the animation (main character), then the film wouldn’t exist.”

      I counter with “what if you took out the live action?” If that was the case, you wouldn’t even have a FILM anymore.

    • Jon

      Nice plug for your book. This is not an animated film. This is a live action film that uses animation to create a special effect to help tell its story.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I see someone remembers Volere Volare!

    • IMHO- To be an animated film (not just a film was some animation in it like say “One Crazy Summer”) the majority of the frames need to have been created by an animator.

      So if the bulk of the movie was created by actual filming in real time, then it’s not an animated movie. Like wise, if the bulk of the movie was created by someone manipulating the frames, then it’s an animated movie.

  • Funkybat

    I’m glad to see “Ted” do well. Even though Seth has a lot of detractors (and with some good reason) I still enjoy much of his TV show output, and enjoyed Ted as well.

    I don’t think arguments about whether or not films like “Ted” or “Chipmunks” qualify as “truly animated” hold back the evolution or commercial progress of the art form. It comes back to the whole “genre-vs-medium” argument. Movies like “Ted” and “Chipmunks” clearly utilize the medium of animation, in combination with traditional live-action filmmaking. Films of this *genre* seem to be able to make money while being raunchy.

    Meanwhile, try to pitch something 80%-100% 2D or even 3D animated as “adult” in this country, and no one in a position of power will greenlight it. It’s seen as dwelling in the “cartoon genre,” which pegs it as either kid-only or “family.” If more people could see completely animated films as being first and foremost *films* that happened to be created using the medium of animation, I believe they would have a better chance at commercial approval and success.

    Arguments like the ones above are not what is holding this back. Calling films that are 80%-90% live action with a couple of animated characters “animated” will not bolster the case for greenlighting fully animated adult features. What *will* is someone taking the chance to produce and market a fully-animated film aimed squarley at adult audiences. Doesn’t necessarily mean raunchy, but as a starting point to prove marketability, it wouldn’t hurt. Seth MacFarlance is probably the only person who could spearhead this. He has the money and influence (especially after this weekend) to propose almost anything he wants. He wouldn’t even need to be the director or lead animator, just a “Producer” credit (and the cash that comes from that) would be enough. I hope that Seth looks at this as an opportunity to push through a fully animated (either 2D or 3D) film meant to appeal to adults. It could open the floodgates for American animation to do what Japan and much of the rest of the world has been doing for decades, and smash the “cartoons are just for kids” perception once and for all.

  • Kevin

    I loved “Ted” but nobody is calling it an animated film. It had less animation than “Avatar” (which was basically a fully-animated film with live-action wraps.)

  • JC

    You may like the movie, but TED is not an animated film. It’s a live action film with some animation. Even though the lead character is an animated character and he is on screen the majority of the time, that is still just only some animation in a live action film. If you categorize TED as an animated film solely based on that. Then you are dead wrong with the title of this article. Then there are a lot more R rated films with animation in it that would be considered an animated film by your definition. I think it’s an insult to the term animated film and all who work in animation to classify TED in that group. An animated film is completely created by artists. From the backgrounds to the characters and everything in between. I never thought that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was an animated film. Because it was a live action film with animated characters in it.

  • The Gee

    Movies like this are like what fumetti is to comic books.

    Where are all of the praises for fumetti?

  • I don’t think it’s really matters whether you, I, or any artist considers Ted to be an animated film in order for executives to green light more R rated animated films.

    It’s how they classify the film. If you pitched this same movie without the live action element, it wouldn’t have been green lit by a major studio.

    What Ted has done, is allow CG characters to be stars in R rated romps, diminishing the notion that live action hybrids with animated lead characters have to be just for kiddies like Alvin and the Chipmunks or The Smurfs.

    For the bigwigs to green light an R rated fully animated film, it would need a Seth MacFarlane behind it. Maybe the Family Guy film will be R Rated.

    But even if that were to happen, and speaking with experience in pitching such films, the response will be, “Well it’s based on an established property and we have Seth MacFarlane and an all star voice cast…” But at least that would be a true step in that direction.

    • The Gee

      Well, you say that. But, you know it would always take Seth MacFarlane. It could take any non-Robert Zemekis, or Zemekis himself, to make the next R rated ones.

      The thing is this is an R rated comedy. It has a cartoonish element in the stuffed teddy bear. This is essentially using anthromorphization to create a character.
      There could be a lot of different uses for such elements and they would not need to be in comedies. But, they almost certainly would need to be “less real” in order to be acceptable to an audience.

      That isn’t even getting into the story.

      The thing is it is more like Ki Innis wrote above that this certainly isn’t the only example of one CG character in a sea of film. In addition to “Star Wars” movies there is the two “Garfield” ones.

      All I can say is “Weekend at Bernies” “Howard the Duck” “Herbie the Love Bug” “The Incredible Mr. Limpett”….

      So many movies have and future ones will have cg and mocap elements in them. From a creative standpoint, tht allows for great possibilities. But, at a root level these things will still be live action films, shot with cameras to capture the action.

      At some point, this is nothing special or new, or even new-ish. I won’t even get into the Opening Weekend inspired fainting spells. By next weekend, what do the box office watchers focus upon. It is a game to them, one which allows them to generate content through the summer. For studios, it just furthers how precarious making multiple successful movies actually is to do.

      I say stop pitching and get the tech (or some version) and do what everyone else will begin doing: making similar Live Action Plus movies themselves. Don’t bother pitching for anything more than money. The studios won’t bite unless, like you mention, it is based on an existing property.

      • Bob Harper

        The point I’m making is that Hollywood won’t buy this kind of thing unless it has Live action stars in it like this does. I think Lord of the Rings, PLanet of the Apes, have proven that audiences will accept CG characters as “real” and not having to be for kids. Ted proves that they can star in this year’s Hangover, which isn’t a bad thing.

        And something to note about Hangover – R Rated live action comedies used to be Taboo, but now it’s a selling point thanks to Hangover.

        And I’m no longer pitching or producing for this market, I’ve moved on to something more enriching for myself.

  • Kevin H

    I think people are objecting mostly to your attention grabbing headline when your previous post on Ted included the phrase “it’s a largely live action film”. Then, you turn around and unabashedly call it the Highest-Grossing R-Rated Animated Feature of All-Time…

    Paul, as referenced before, is in the same boat…its got a major character that’s animated, but no one’s going to mistake it for an animated film by a long shot. I’m all for new forms of mixed media and animation, but its nice to be able to distinguish what we call them. My opinion though, I’m sure not everyone’s.

  • Joel

    More than anything, I’m surprised that Amid liked this movie in spite of his (and many of the Brew readers’) disdain for MacFarlane. I’d even be curious enough to check it out if I wasn’t so repelled by the mean-spirited nature of his other works. (I don’t mean to prejudge this film by that statement; I’m too surprised by the generally positive reception to this film to do that at this point) I can see a possible connection the public can make between this and animation, since Seth MacFarlane’s name is famously attached to animated works and the character is a teddy bear, which would have a more “cartoonish” reputation with the public than, say, a relatively humanoid alien. I don’t, however, think that the higher-ups will treat animation with a phenomenally greater deal of respect than they do as a result of its success, but I could (and may) be very wrong, though.

  • James

    The key word is “animated.”

    And I still fail to see how this is officially an “animated film” since the only thing animated in it is one character that is super-imposed into the action of what is otherwise an entirely live-action in cast, cinematography, and setting.

    Maybe “Highest-Grossing R-Rated Animated/Live Action Hybrid Comedy”?

    Just saying if the Guinness Book of World Records decided to do a listing on this particular claim, it’s very unlikely the South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut would be dethroned by Ted.

  • What a completely fruitless discussion! Is it a good film? Does the audience have fun? I don’t know, I only see people arguing whether they are the People’s Front of Judea or the Judean People’s Front, err, whether “Ted” is Animation or Not Animation.

    “Animated feature film” is a category which even at the Oscar’s gets disputed. It’s not important. It’s just a label, and not a good one either – “contains animation” would be more exact (and please no “may contain traces of animation” jokes). It’s a label like all that stupid “R PG P X” ratings, a label which has much more consequences for a film and it’s viewers, but is surprisingly undiscussed here. Insofar the title “Highest-Grossing R-Rated Animated Feature Of All-Time” is a big load of misleading bs, I say – “all time” started in 1990? I don’t care much about how much money they make, but I like to know more about that “R” rating.

    I’d like to see more articles and discussions about the dubious role of the MPAA Ratings Board, their influence on the commercial fate of controverse films, of foreign film’s distribution, cuts and other forms of censorship, and so on. Oh, by the way, does the iTune store destroy swear words in animated (or other) films as it does in music files now?

    • Funkybat

      The human in that film looks like a live-action version of Linguini from “Ratatouille!”

    • So you’re telling me a Seth McFarlane product turned out to be derivative and not 100% original? SAY IT AIN’T SO!!!

  • I dunno Amid, if your argument is about ‘succesful R rated animation’ then the question is not about technique, its about the perceptions of the masses by which they made it successful. And for most of the audience I think they were going for ‘the first movie from the creator of Family Guy’ going specifically to see a McFarlane product that ISNT a cartoon, to see what that is like.
    Sure there are hard working animators behind this film, there always are, but it’s no more ‘an animated film’ than Paul or E.T or Iron Man, and while you may think that subjective, the fact remains its SUCCESS is not tied to any popular perception of it being an animated film.

  • Well, on one hand I agree with most of the comments about general audiences not thinking about this as an animated film and I also agree that it doesn’t differ much from Paul or other CGI/life action combination.

    On the other hand I think it’s proof that mature audiences can enjoy a movie with an animated character or a puppet for that matter as the main attraction. It’s still the same point whether it’s animated or a puppet, cause both things are generally considered as “fantasy” characters that are mostly aimed to children. That’s why the last Muppets movie, even if it was enjoyable and a little nostalgic, didn’t have some of the anarchic humor or adult jokes that you could find in certain episodes of the original show or even Muppets Tonight, cause in cinema it’s more safe to make movies for the whole family.

    The question is: would Ted have made the same money if it had been entirely animated? Probably not SO much money, but I think it would have worked fine due to MacFarlane’s fame. And it if had been based on an already existing show like Family Guy or American Dad it could have made simmilar digits.

    So, even if there are a lot of other movies that kind of use simmilar techniques and nobody considered them as animation I think Amid’s point is still kinda valid cause the success of these movies proofs that they all enjoy animated characters saying and doing mature things. The problem is some people know it and don’t mind, so they would go and watch it too if it were entirely animated, and some other peoples maybe do have some prejudices or they just find actors more glamourous and wouldn’t watch it if they couldn’t see Mila Kunis or Mark Whalberg in flesh and bones.

    Anyway, unless somebody starts greenlighting completely animated features that are aimed to adults, we’ll never know. Somebody has to take a little risk.

    • Right. On to our next discussion then: The gender of angels ;)

  • CJ

    Well according to wikipedia: “Animation is the rapid display of a sequence of images to create an illusion of movement.”
    So by all technicality almost anything can be animated film and Ted itself is an animated film. I remember in the 90’s that there was a huge debate wether PIXAR films were animated or not because the elements of the characters were more or less realistic in lighting, texture and form. Also because the characters were not done frame by frame via “traditional” methods of animation.
    Now there is virtually no one here on this thread who will debate the side of, “PIXAR not being animated because it’s not Disney styled.” And that’s just it. The medium is a style or tool of making something animated. Stop motion, CGI, Sand, 2D, ect are all tools and styles of animation. With stop motion being more akin to live shot movies than anything else, just with puppetry. So on a critical thinking sense I suppose, Ted is just as animated as any other form, and just because most of the cast isn’t animated, doesn’t necessarily make it not so.
    To paraphrase 3 Angled Blue, “everyone’s right, everyone’s wrong.”

  • If this even makes Hollywood considers greenlighting any mature animated films that are R rated they need to have the following.

    1. Hand-drawn animation.
    2. Having actual voice actors voicing the characters.
    3. Have actual cartoonists like Lauren Faust, Craig McCraken, Genndy tarakovsky, Danny Antonucci, John K, Ralph Bakshi, Joe Murray, Steve Purcell, Doug Tennapel, Milton Knight, Teddy Newton, Don Bluth, Matt Groening, Kyle Carzozza, and hell even Trey Parker and Matt Stone for that matter.
    4. Let the cartoonist have full creative control over the project over a dumb executive to screw things up for the product.
    5. Make sure the writing is good so it doesn’t follow the routes of Seth Macfarlane’s work or South Park. To me, those aren’t adult cartoons. Those are animated products that are abusing adult animation by following the same repetitive routes of humor. If you see an animated character cursing a lot and making sexual jokes a lot its not a mature adult cartoon. It childish.

    If most animated features for adults follow these 5 things, I would see them. If they don’t, I wont. Unless if its damn good like The Goon and Zombie A.D(speaking of which, what the hell happened with those? Are they still happening or going through development hell?).

  • TimeForTimer

    Amid, this comment of yours: “a lot of the people who profess to love animation lack the imagination to foresee the possibilities of the medium.” is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with not being able to foresee the possibilities. Jeez!

    But, if I take your argument that because the teddy bear was integral throughout the film, and therefore it’s an animated film, then I suppose that “Roger Rabbit,” because it has a human character integral to that film, is considered live-action? After all, since an animation professional directed Ted, and therefore — according to your argument — that also puts it into the animated film category, then Robert Zemekis, being primarily a live-action director (up until the time of RR) also cements Roger Rabbit as a live-action film??

  • Hal

    Isn’t it more about the McFarlane “brand” than anything else? Its great that an original R rated comedy did well, but when you have a track record of the past half a decade’s Fox Sunday Nights that helps. In any event, we haven’t had many live action movies using animation and high end visual effects to be FUNNY (I’m thinking Ghostbusters, Men in Black, Little Shop of Horrors, Roger Rabbit, etc.) and that’s a trend I can get behind.

  • AnthonyA

    I haven’t had the opportunity to see the film yet, but according to several close friends who went to see it at the Sunday matinee, there were a lot of pre-teens that had been brought to see the film.

    I wonder how much of the ticket sales were sales to those kids brought to see the film by parents not realizing that it does carry an R-rating?