Claire Folger/Universal Pictures Seth MacFarlane.
When Seth MacFarlane calls to talk about his directorial debut, “Ted,” he’s multitasking, of course. He’s just finished another day of work overseeing the three Fox animated comedies he produces – “Family Guy,” “The Cleveland Show” and “American Dad” – and is preparing to attend a benefit that night. “It’s a little crazy,” Mr. MacFarlane said. “But I can shower and get dressed while we’re on the phone.”
“Ted,” due June 29 from Universal, stars Mark Wahlberg as a man still living with the toy bear he wished to life when he was a boy. Mr. MacFarlane, 38, not only directed the movie (on a reported budget of $65 million) and wrote the screenplay (with “Family Guy” collaborators Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild), he plays the title character: a living, talking, cursing, pot-smoking teddy bear that he portrayed using motion-capture technology.
In these excerpts from that interview, Mr. MacFarlane talks about making “Ted” and the many responsibilities he juggles as a television producer and first-time filmmaker.
Universal PicturesMark Wahlberg, with Ted, voiced by Seth MacFarlane, in “Ted.”
Q.
Compared to some of the things you’ve done on “Family Guy,” the story of an obscene talking teddy bear could almost seem conventional. Where did the idea for “Ted” come from?
A.
It was an idea that I had for an animated series. And when I decided it’s probably about time for me to make a movie, that seemed like a cool idea. The “Avatar”-slash-“Lord of the Rings” technology had reached a point where you could create a fictional-looking character that was completely real in movement. It’s been in adventure films, in fantasy films. Where more than a comedy do you need subtle character actors?
Q.
How much of your “Family Guy” sensibility – the pop-cultural references; the Patrick Stewart voice-overs – did you want to have in your film debut?
A.
I tend to not overthink that stuff too much. It’s a melting pot of a million different factors. You want to do something that’s fresh, and at the same time, you don’t want to completely alienate your audience by doing a Holocaust drama. It’s a balancing act between wanting to try new things and at the same time being conscious of what your fan base wants to see.
Q.
In prime-time network television, you have many boundaries and content restrictions. How do you decide for yourself, in an R-rated movie, when a joke has gone too far?
A.
If nobody’s laughing, you know that you went too far. Oftentimes you’ll hear an audible groan from an audience. Unless you think it’s the greatest joke in the world and you’ll just absolutely kill yourself if it’s not in the movie – if that joke just dies at 7 or 8 screenings, then it just doesn’t work. You have to trust the audience, because that’s who you’re making the movie for.
Q.
Do you see deeper meaning in this story of a man who cannot achieve adulthood until he parts ways with this literal artifact from his youth?
A.
Absolutely. It’s a classic story in a lot of ways, but it just hadn’t really been told in this literal sense, with the symbol of childhood right there, next to you, smoking a cigarette. But that was a conscious choice. We didn’t want this to be an episode of “Family Guy.”
Q.
Is that a criticism that gets leveled against you, that you can’t seem to avoid cultural nostalgia in your work?
A.
To me there’s nothing wrong with being nostalgic about pieces of pop culture that are important to you. You see it in every generation. Certainly in film, and definitely in animation, there is that daily struggle between acknowledging that you’re an adult, and at the same time, being in a business that requires you to keep a very juvenile part of your brain alive and active, on a regular basis.
Q.
The campy 1980 film version of “Flash Gordon” gets referenced a lot in “Ted.” Were you a fan of that movie growing up?
A.
I actually wasn’t as a child. I had a lot of friends who were. But it’s a film that’s so absurd and so ridiculous and something that is the subject of sustained debate over whether they knew what they were doing or whether it was just a horrible accident. On any give day, how many times do you reference a piece of pop culture or a brand name? I bet it’s a lot more often than we think. “I’m going across the street to Starbucks.” “I’ll make a Xerox of it.” Our daily lives are packed with proper nouns of the corporate kind.
Q.
Do you feel the stakes are particularly high because this is your directorial debut?
A.
There is a lot of that. There’s two ways to look at it. One, it’s my first movie so there’s going to be a lot of eyes on it. Two, if it doesn’t do well, eh, it’s just my first movie, I’ll get better. For me, it’s got to be received well enough that it doesn’t seem insane to make another one. My first movie can’t be “Ishtar.”
Q.
If it doesn’t do well, could people conclude, “He’s a TV guy, but that sensibility just doesn’t translate to film?”
A.
Yes, that is possible. My God, there are plenty of worse thing to be known as than a TV guy. Television has been great to me and I’ve had a blast doing the shows. It wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Q.
Are you already planning your next movie?
A.
Yes, I do have thoughts of what the next film will be. And I wish I could tell you something about it. [laughs] “Ted” was an idea that happened to be somewhat expensive, compared to other comedies and certainly other R-rated comedies. The next project that I have an eye towards is a lot less expensive, just because of the nature of the story. Believe me, if I could have done “Ted” for $15 million, it would have been great.
Q.
You told The Hollywood Reporter, “Part of me thinks that ‘Family Guy’ should have already ended.” What did you mean by this?
A.
Whenever I see a popular show start to wane, I always wonder, do the people working on it know that? Or are they thinking that what they’re doing is full of greatness? And that’s all that was. I always said to myself, if and when “Family Guy” ever gets to that point, I would try to be objective enough to ask that question. None of us are sick of it yet. It’s a question of whether the fans will ever get sick of it and I’m sure at some point they will.
Q.
Could you envision a scenario where “Family Guy” continues but you aren’t working on it day-to-day?
A.
Yeah, that happened during the movie. I was in Boston so there was only so much I could do. I could see that at some point down the line.
Q.
There was a lot of excitement when it was announced you were preparing a TV revival of “The Flintstones.” What happened to that project?
A.
It’s been postponed. When I suggested the idea to Peter Roth at Warner Brothers, at the time I had a lot more free spots on my schedule and it sounded like something that would be a good fit with the current prime-time animation landscape. By the time the I’s were dotted and T’s crossed, I was just so busy that I couldn’t accommodate it. I think at some point it could still happen. Probably not within the next year or two years.
Q.
Emmy voters recently got a “Family Guy” mailing with a picture of Peter Griffin calling them “bloated, overprivileged Brentwood Jews.” I assume this was your handiwork?
A.
I don’t remember which one of the writers pitched it but it cracked me up because it’s clearly Peter saying the line and it felt in keeping with the irreverence of his character. The Emmys gets into a rut from time to time where the same shows will be nominated and awarded over and over, and it becomes a little club. [That was] our subtle, dry, witty way of commenting on that. I say that with enormous sarcasm.
