MovieChat Forums > Velma (2023) Discussion > Remakes have a responsibility to remain ...

Remakes have a responsibility to remain faithful to the source material!

posted 2 years ago by joej2923 (3026)
16 replies | jump to latest

I grew up watching Scooby Doo in the early eighties so I am mildly disappointed in this remake. The Scooby Doo shows started in 1969 and new animated shows were produced for twenty years. This means that there are probably grandparents who could sit down with the whole family to watch this reboot. I would consider this to be an affront to long-time fans in the way they have
presented alternative versions of the original characters. There is an existing audience of Scooby Doo fans who will be alienated by this show and I do not plan to watch the show.

Fred was the heroic white male leader of the team and he is now a feckless white male who will probably come out as gay. Daphne was the pretty red-headed white lady who is now a red-headed Asian drug dealer with two lesbian parents. Shaggy was a white comic relief character voiced by Casey Kasem and he is now a black male character using Shaggy's original name Norville. Velma was the white female nerd who used her intellect to solve cases and she is now an Indian superfemale voiced by Mindy Kaling. It's also odd that Scooby Doo hasn't appeared yet BUT I predict that he will be a pit bull that raps and smokes weed.

Many of these animated tv shows in the eighties were vehicles used to sell various types of merchandise and toys. The studio is damaging the Scooby Doo brand by releasing a bastardized remake. This show could generate more merchandise sales from multiple generations but many long-term fans won't bother buying merchandise with the new crew of misfits.

The original characters brought their strengths to the team BUT it seems like Velma is the only strong character in the show. The original Scooby Doo shows were kids' shows while this show has gore, drugs, penis jokes and lesbian kisses. I support jobs for BIPOC actors but I would rather see them come up with new original shows. Another approach would have been to introduce Velma's BIPOC friends from the science club who would work with her on cases.

My overall position is that significant/iconic cultural, historical and religious characters should not be race-swapped or gender-swapped AND their portrayals should remain faithful to the original source material. Fred Jones in Velma was not race-swapped BUT he was transformed from a hero to a ZERO.

[–] Kowalski (75537) 2 years ago

MY OVERALL POSITION...ITS A NETFLIX CARTOON AND NOT WORTH YOUR MAN TEARS.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

The show is on HBO MAX and I haven't shed any tears. My post definitely relates to this show and other similar remakes of classic shows, movies, books and video games.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Harley Quinn was fantastic though, and that show pretty much spits in the face of the source material.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

Harley Quinn was introduced in the nineties so she is still relatively new compared to the characters introduced in the 1930's. She has a big profile over the past few years but she was a minor character when she first appeared. I might have even argued that she was not a significant/iconic character a decade ago. I would argue that she is getting a boost because she is a female version of the Joker and Hollyweird can recruit hot babes to play her.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

I'm talking about the television show, not the character. All because Batman, his allies, and his rogue galleries have been around for decades, with significant and iconic cultural value, it doesn't mean that new iterations can't constantly play with the formula. Gordon's a raging alcoholic. It's funny.

I can't imagine it appealing to all Batman fans. Hell, those fans can't even speak civilly about the different live action movies.

Bottom line is, there is no need to remain super faithful to the original source material. It's arguably important when adapting a book to film. But it's definitely not important when you're adapting the latest of dozens of depictions for something that has been iconic enough to exist for multiple decades. There's no canon there.

In fact, I hated the scooby doo live action films. but I have my own reasons. Rejecting them because they aren't faithful to the source material isn't really a convincing position.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

The Batman show was a big joke in the sixties and my comic book friend mentioned that the Batman comic books were even wacky in the sixties. Women like comedy so superhero movies with laugh tracks can attract females. The MCU almost rivals the 60's Batman show with cheap laughs and that's a winning formula for short-term success. I believe the downstream merch sales plummet when shows go for cheap laughs but that's just my opinion.

Alcoholism should NEVER be a laughing matter. Many subjects should not be made the subject of jokes.

I take my comics seriously so I still believe that adaptions should be faithful to the source material for iconic/significant characters. I consider Harley Quinn to be a knockoff/sidekick of the Joker so I won't shed a tear if they aren't faithful to her story.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21470) 2 years ago

I haven’t seen this but I grew up watching Scooby Doo, like a lot of us did, and I feel it is indeed one of the most beloved of cartoons. I probably would never have known about this remake if it had not been listed on the trending bar here in MC. I consider myself a very middle of the road person, as I have sometimes conservative and at other times liberal views depending on the topic at hand. I also watch very few modern films.

So, if what I’m reading is true, what is the reason they changed the race and sexual orientation of most of the main characters? I’m guessing this is not for kids and is more of an adult oriented cartoon. Are they just trying to push buttons and create controversy?

Do any Scooby Do fans think this is a good idea? I’m genuinely interested in the answers to these things and I’m not just stirring the pot here.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

It's not a kids show at all, kinda like how the Harley Quinn show wasn't a kids show. With all the character alterations, I think they're just trying to push buttons, and mess around. They're doing an AU, might as well make it as wild as possible, I guess.

As a fan of the scooby doo franchise since I was a young child, I was looking forward to this. I'd hope it'd be fun and entertaining like Harley. Adult humor. Meta stuff. Subverted tropes. Parody. All that good stuff. But whereas Harley still had substance as a show, this one seems to fall too much into the parody department. And it's not a particularly good one in my opinion.

I've only seen the first episode, but I really don't have any interesting watching more. It's just not very funny.

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

I believe Hollyweird is making a push for diversity, equity and inclusion in a bid to raise profits. There were several studies that stated that Hollyweird would make more profits with more diversity. As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind seeing more BIPOC actors but I would prefer to see them in new original stories instead of race/gender swapped roles. A couple of the links below show that there are now inclusion standards that promote inclusion of underrepresented groups.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/02/12/275907930/redefining-hollywood-diversity-makes-more-money

https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility

https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf

Mindy Kaling stated that she wanted to make the show for a modern audience but she is getting a little old at age 43. I know the old Scooby Doo fans don't like it and I saw a couple young youtubers wondering who the target audience is.

[–] cyguration (3951) 2 years ago

I believe Hollyweird is making a push for diversity, equity and inclusion in a bid to raise profits.

This lie has never been true and has never resonated with profits in any avenue where it's been used.

This is a cover story for the ESG funding companies get for diversifying their portfolio, even at the expense of crashing the valuation of their property on the market.

It's further explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0YckbR8QVw

And here:
https://youtu.be/2T9s62BbwCg

And here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfJrmh2Q298

And here:
https://youtu.be/NyH-_9gcVNQ

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

Good points about ESG scores. Isn't it hypocritical and crazy to impose stringent ESG standards on western democracies while letting an authoritarian Chinese government manufacture the world's products, commit genocide, crush personal freedoms and pollute the world. I don't use youtube channels for news but I did find some interesting articles on ESG and DEI.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/16/american-financial-institutions-hypocrisy-on-china/

https://globaldiversitypractice.com/diversity-and-inclusion-are-more-than-the-s-in-esg/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/hollywood-losing-10b-in-potential-annual-revenue-from-black-inequity-says-mckinsey-report-4147545/ * Another diversity study *

[–] davebuffalo (3457) 2 years ago

Hollywood believes in the "Go Woke or Go Broke" mantra, when really it's turning out to be more like "Go Woke AND Go Broke".

[–] joej2923 (3026) 2 years ago

I hope they go woke and go broke! I've cancelled Netflix and I'm about to cancel Amazon Prime. I'm going to gather up the courage to cancel cable soon.

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 2 years ago

https://i.postimg.cc/fyps4spQ/PNDG.gif

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

Hear! Hear! Bravo👏🏻

[–] davebuffalo (3457) 2 years ago

I agree. Well said Joej2923.