Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 14:53:25 GMT -7
I know. Chances are pretty good that any movie put out by Seth McFarlane is gonna be rated 18+, since he did make Family Guy and that's not exactly known for being kid friendly. I just thought it was cool that Teddy Ruxpin was mentioned. Agreed. It just seems like such a perfect concept for a family comedy, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 15:50:54 GMT -7
Kinda like ALF was. Lol. Anyway, hopefully the mention of Teddy stays in the movie, because that would definitely put our favourite Illiop's name in mainstream media. No matter what it's rated, Seth McFarlane's work is gonna be popular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 16:33:01 GMT -7
Yep, exactly. It's for this reason that it's a shame that Teddy isn't currently on the market - that mention is very likely to remind parents, uncles, etc., of him, and make them think, "I wonder if my [kids/nieces/nephews] would like him, too?", and probably cause them to take a look on, say, Amazon for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 18:21:56 GMT -7
Exactly. I mean, it's been, what, six years since Teddy last came out on the market? And, as I've heard from all of you who have been more in tune with Teddy than I was, Backpack Toys didn't market it too well, and it had a fairly short release, compared to the original WoW version. Well, who knows, maybe adult family members, will do that anyway and go on Amazon to find him?
|
|
|
Post by retrobear on Jun 26, 2012 19:42:19 GMT -7
I just think it's sad that they're making a teddy bear cuss like a sailor. Probably most people are going to go see it thinking it's a family movie and then they'll need brain bleach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2012 20:57:50 GMT -7
Well, anybody with a gram of sense will know that Seth McFarlane is not known for making family movies or tv shows. So, as soon as they know who it is who made it, they'll know it's not a family movie.
|
|
|
Post by retrobear on Jun 27, 2012 9:15:31 GMT -7
Well I know a lot of people who don't know who he is and don't know about actors in general, and when they hear about a movie about a teddy bear that comes to life, they would probably think it was like Toy Story. Of course hopefully they'll look at the rating before they take their kids.
I was just commenting that it seems like it's a popular thing today to take something that appears innocent and make something dirty out of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2012 17:36:47 GMT -7
Yeah. Unfortunately that kind of "entertainment" is what people go for these days. I admit that I watched The Simpsons when I was younger, but stopped because it lost it's appeal. Same with Family Guy. All I know is, people, with sense, will look at the rating before they take their kids. Though, some parents won't care either way. Too bad Teddy isn't around to show them the light.
|
|
|
Post by sfxtd on Jul 6, 2012 12:58:58 GMT -7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 6:48:19 GMT -7
I don't have all the connections that Josh has, but from every interview and piece of research I've done on this show, my understanding is that it was always meant to be 65 episodes long. That seemed to be the standard running for most animated television shows of the era, so it makes sense that Teddy would have a standard run. Given Alchemy II's financial woes toward the end, I think it's lucky all 65 episodes were made. The apparent rumor of "lost episodes" is probably false, since I've never heard of any storylines existing outside of what was presented in either the Adventure Series (book & tape sets) or the original 65 episodes of the animated series (most of which are intertwined in some form or other.) As far as the 10 discs goes, this should bode well for Ruxpin fans. As most of us know, the original releases that can currently be found on eBay and Amazon were 6 discs total, and while it was nice to have the entire series available (especially for those of us who had never seen all 65 episodes), I think we can all agree that the overall quality of the transfer left something to be desired. Now, much of this will have to do with the source material Image Entertainment is working with (if the source you're working with looks like junk, then you'll get a junky transfer no matter what format you're transferring to), and I doubt a small distributor like them will invest too much money in digital restoration for a 25 year old television series whose fan base is relatively small when compared with other shows from that era. A lot of people suspect that 10 discs will mean some bonus features, but the official Image Entertainment page for the set www.image-entertainment.com/product/complete-adventures-of-teddy-ruxpin-10-pk-the/0a0f0192-79b3-49ba-882d-9b1a8f00ce08 as well as the product description on Amazon.com www.amazon.com/Adventures-Teddy-Ruxpin-10-Pk-Baroni/dp/B007FZ7LOG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342013806&sr=8-1&keywords=the+adventures+of+teddy+ruxpin both deny the existence of bonus materials for this set. While this may be disappointing to some, what we SHOULD be celebrating is that spreading 65 episodes over 10 discs rather than 6 discs will most likely mean a higher quality transfer of the source material, since putting fewer episodes on each disc will mean they can be viewed at a higher bit rate than would have been possible in only 6 discs. Whether or not Image has taken the time to work any restoration into the mix (with a name like "Image Entertainment", one would hope so), remains to be seen. My biggest gripe about the original DVDs had nothing to do with the picture and everything to do with the sound. The warbled soundtrack was completely jarring and took me right out of the experience every time. If nothing else, I hope Image has managed to fix some of those issues for their release. As far as the release date goes, I think a September release date is more fitting as it will just "bearly" (see what I did there?) overshoot the actual 25th Anniversary of "The Adventures of Teddy Ruxpin" (September 14, 1987). As for "Ted", I think it has a great concept, but feel like the true power of the film will be lost in Seth McFarlane's need to gear toward the lowest common denominator. Don't get me wrong, I am a HUGE fan of "Family Guy", but this subject is a little too close to home to simply be about a funny talking bear. I'd always wanted to write a similar story, but felt it was too cliche or conventional. I'm now kicking myself for not sticking with my impulse. Maybe I will do it anyway and post it here for you guys someday. Has anyone here seen "Ted"? Just wondering what other Teddy fans opinions are. And finally, sfxtd, I would definitely go see that movie. I remember my friend sending that to me when it was originally published. Seeing it again brought a smile to my face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 6:49:33 GMT -7
BTW~Does anyone know how to properly link a piece of text? All I can manage to do is paste the url into the message. Will proper HTML work?
|
|
|
Post by TRO Admin on Jul 11, 2012 7:56:32 GMT -7
Vilicles is right - there are no lost episodes or footage from the TV series.
Presumably, some episodes were edited for time and very small snippets of animation and voice may have ended up on the cutting room floor. It's very hard to plan for exactly the amount of time you have for a production without having to cut something or add something later. But, to my knowledge, that was nothing significant and certainly won't be appearing on the DVD set.
I wish they would include the couple of minutes of test footage that exists from the movie that was never to be in 1987/88. The voices are all fill ins except for Teddy's (much like a casting agent reading with an actor for a screen test) but it's still cool to see a glimpse of what could have been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2012 16:10:08 GMT -7
BTW~Does anyone know how to properly link a piece of text? All I can manage to do is paste the url into the message. Will proper HTML work? It's done like this; [url=http://teddyruxpin.tystoybox.com/]This example link goes to the Teddy Ruxpin page on the Ty's Toybox website[/url] This example link goes to the Teddy Ruxpin page on the Ty's Toybox website. I hope this helps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 15:35:48 GMT -7
Thanks, Cyborg! Had a feeling it might be something like that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2012 23:18:15 GMT -7
Glad to be of assistance.
|
|