I'm a fan of the show as well (and, I grew up in the 80s watching the original HB shows).
What I've noticed about the controversy is that it can be described as a TV Tropes entry: "they changed it, now it sucks." And yes, there are some dramatic changes to it. It is NOT the Hanna Barbera series. But, the thing is, speaking as an adult viewer, those changes really work.
Here's one of the things - I've been watching Mystery Inc, but I've also been watching reruns of the Scooby Doo Show on Teletoon Retro. And, coming back to it, well, it's alright, but it's not that great. Just looking at the characters from the original, Shaggy and Scooby are relatively developed, Velma is sort of developed, but after watching well over a dozen episodes of the show from the mid-70s, along with a few episodes of the hour long series, I still can't tell you who Fred or Daphne is as a character. They don't stand out as individuals at all. And, all five of them have the same roles that they play over and over again, and never go beyond them:
Fred: deliver dialogue and make decisions.
Daphne: deliver dialogue and occasionally get captured.
Velma: put clues together.
Shaggy and Scooby: eat, be scared, and run around.
Compare that with Mystery Inc., and not only do all of the characters stand out and have complexity, but they also get far more to do. They interact with each other in a far more interesting and human way, and they have chemistry. In the series from the 70s, I was left wondering why Shaggy and Scooby didn't just leave - they clearly didn't want to be there, and they didn't seem to share enough of a bond with the other characters to stay. With Mystery Inc., you can tell why they're there - the Scooby gang legitimately like spending time together and care about each other.
Another thing I really like about Mystery Inc. is that you get a real sense of danger. The show can actually be scary - something that the original show wasn't. Part of that has to do with the limitations of the animation at the time - a monster running around with its arms outstretched going "argh!" just isn't that scary (and back in the 70s, they lacked the budget to do much else). A monster taking a proper swipe at the characters and nearly killing them, on the other hand, is quite scary.
Ultimately, I just find that it's a better series. It's true that it's a departure from what came before, but it's a departure with better writing, jokes that are actually funny, and characters who really stand out as individuals with proper character arcs. There's a great moment in one of the first season episodes where Fred is looking a picture of his missing mother, and he sadly tells Shaggy that he just wants to find her and tell her that she's beautiful. It's a wonderful character moment, and you would never see the like of it in the original series.
reply
share
Oddark123
12 years ago
Yes it is polarizing and i for one am on the side this series is total trash.
It doesn't appeal to me in the slightest because i am a fan of the older style. It is what i grew up with and what i still enjoy today. What some people like in the response above me find as "improvements" other like myself find as the opposite.
Not to lump people in to one category but one board i visit where i am in a minority on, there is a huge devotion to dawn of the internet age posters loving shows with arcs and basically denouncing anything simpler as sucking.
Personally i really don't care for the need for them at all. I've been entertained my Scooby cartoons for years and the lack of them has never hurt the series in my eyes, so i see that as a reason to not like the show more than praise it.
I'm not a fan of over-thinking the monsters in this one either. The best monsters existed in the Scooby Doo Show where they were basic but really cool or 13 ghosts where they were actually badass.
Character development didn't really bother me as most of the time a lot of HB characters were intentionally one dimensional in design but made up for it in the area of fun. Which to me was always good enough. Daphne was the only one in the original run to receive character development by way of her coming back with a career. But the lack of it in the original again is not something i consider "bad". Hell even in extended HB by way of What's New Freddy got a little more development with recurring gags, but again that was it.
The relationship subplots to me seem useless as i never once in all my years of Scooby saw, Shaggy and Velma as a couple. I've had more favortism to the other Shaggy interests but then none of them ever took over the show as much as this one uses it as a plot. Sure Shaggy has a girlfriend in Reluctant Werewolf and there were subtle hints he had gotten with Daphne during 13 Ghosts, but to the point that the show was more importantly for fun and that wasn't put in the forefront, this show however does the opposite.
This is my first visit to this board and probably might be one of my few since i'm not going to troll people who do enjoy it but they need to also realize that some people just plain don't like it.
All in all i'm just not a fan of this type of show, i value sillier and fun Scooby over this overbloated show, as i think it was better. Clearly plenty of people agree with me and plenty disagree with me.
What's New Scooby Doo did a much better job resurrecting Scooby for me. And i'm plenty pleased Warner Animation are keeping with Scooby direct to DVD movies written like What's New instead of Mystery Incorporated. This way both sides stay happy
I refuse to argue on IMDB until the general populous actually uses their brains
reply
share
Argyle1968
12 years ago
I find myself more in agreement with oddark123's post below, but I can appreciate SDMI as a stand alone series and enjoy it for what it is worth. I don't like some of the things about it--the "character development" is silly, IMHO. Seeing Shaggy and Scooby watch Vincent Van Ghoul movies or Fred and Daphne angst over dating or the totally bizarre Shaggy/Velma/Scooby love triangle is a complete waste of time that could be better spent on more plot and more monsters. Making Fred a trap-obsessed doofus and the girls the "brains" of the group seems like too much of a feminist bent, and the idea of a series-long story arc by its very nature means that the show has a limited shelf life. Personally, I'd rather see more seasons of chasing "monsters" and villains and unmasking bad guys, whether any of it's connected to a centralized plot or not.
What I do like about SDMI is the artwork, which is beautiful for a modern cartoon, and a credit to the Scooby Doo franchise (though I still prefer the animation style/art/layouts/backgrounds of the original 1969/70 Scooby Doo). I also think there are moments of humor in SDMI that are inspired. And SOME--though certainly not nearly all--of the mysteries are fun and intriguing and seem like a throwback to the classic SD cartoons. Usually the ones that don't involve much of the "original" Mystery Inc. characters or the overall story arch.
reply
share
Walter_Skinner
12 years ago
I like elements of it such as a long running story arc, the story location, the homages and the style but the romantic subplot between Velma/Shaggy/Scooby is without a doubt one of the most irritating things this show could do. Velma probably wants to jump Shaggy's bones as much as any western animation character in a cartoon aimed for kids probably could. The idea that someone could be so dumb and not understand any sort of subtext makes me wonder if Shaggy is mentally retarded. In fact the character of Velma as a whole is terrible. She's interested in going to the prom (so much for social outcast) is a fan of a big pop band, holds out on who she thinks is the real criminal (thanks for not being a secretive bitch) and scary possessive to the point where it seems like they could easily do a homage "Misery" episode and never skip a beat.
Hannibal 2013
reply
share
Argyle1968
12 years ago
Since I wrote my post above, the final episodes aired and I also went back and re-watched the entire first season on Netflix this weekend. I changed my mind about a great many points. I am still not a fan of the Shaggy-Velma-Scooby triangle, and to a great degree, I couldn't really get into a lot of the preoccupation of Shaggy and especially Scooby with food, which seemed excessive, even by SD standards. (I keep thinking about Scooby cradling the blender of smoothies in Grim Judgment and telling Fred it wasn't the smoothies' fault), but now that I paid more attention to the mystery of the disappearance of the original Mystery, Inc., the "treasure" of Crystal Cove and its tragic past now makes for a much better story. I can appreciate it in a different way from the original Scooby Doo, Where are You? or Scooby Doo Show mysteries, and that's a good thing--I enjoy them all for what they bring to the table. The things I particularly dig about SDMI upon a second watching--incredible humor, and an ability to poke fun at the SD mythology, Daphne being a strong, take charge kind of character with some edginess to her, Fred being subtly deeper and more in tune to Daphne than he lets on with his trap-obsessed dumb guy act, Janet Mayor Nettles, and some incredibly creepy, kick-ass visuals that the art/layout designers outdid themselves putting together for this series. Every episode looked beautiful, but one of my favorites to watch is The Creeping Creatures, which was dripping with atmosphere (loved that overhead shot down through the spinning fan!)
I will say, regarding the whole Velma-Shaggy-Scooby thing, I did laugh out loud at Scooby acting out his frustrations through his new "friend", Harry. That was some funny &$^%&$.
reply
share
b-touch
12 years ago
Problem is, you can't describe the animation style of "Scooby-Doo, Where are You" without using the words "cheap", "off-model", or "sparse".
reply
share
Oddark123
12 years ago
And the problem here is that someone doesn't "get" it.
I know in this era we have people who might as well sit there with a magnifying glass being a shrew to any possible thing that isn't "OMG PRETTY PICTURE!" but give it a rest.
The majority of people from then and plenty now don't give a ****. Who cares if they cut budgets on the drawing? I damn sure never did. Animation style was never the studios strong point. Why? because they never needed it.
Unless you are some blind Chuck Jones following fanboy or someone who grew up with the internet telling you what the past was like you know the truth of what happened during that era. A studio without a lot of money made characters who entertained people just as well as the quite frankly better drawn ones with bigger budgets do. In a lot of cases the talent behind them didn't even change that much but only proved that looks pretty much were trivial to most people.
To act like an older show can't be enjoyed because of how it was drawn shows someone is really young and gullible or very much in denial.
Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB
reply
share
snsurone
10 years ago
I have no objection to the limited animation of such "cartoony" HB shows like YOGI BEAR or THE FLINTSTONES.
It's when they try to be "serious" that the cheap quality becomes galling.
Not that much with the Scooby Doo franchise (which does have "cartoony" characters Shaggy, Scooby, and the latter's relatives), but such humorless programs as THUNDARR, THE BARBARIAN, GALTAR, and THE CENTURIONS.
These are shows that could greatly benefit from WB animation.
reply
share
b-touch
10 years ago
Oh, know-it-alls on the Internet...you have no idea how old or young I am, so you needn't make baseless assumptions and immature personal attacks because we don't agree. That isn't how you "win".,
I get "Scooby-Doo, Where are You!" I like "Scooby-Doo, Where are You!" But, even from a young age, the show looked cheap to me, because it was cheap. Saturday morning cartoons in 1969 didn't have high or even mid-range budgets -they were cheap by nature and design. There's nothing wrong with that; that's just the way it is. The quality, or lack thereof, of the animation in Hanna-Barbera cartoons is something that was hotly debated ever since they were on the air. Yes, a lot of people (especially the target audience for the original show of small children) didn't care how the programs looked, but a lot of people did.
Moreover, there's no need for a new Scooby-Doo series to slavishly recreate what ought to be better executions of Iwao Takamoto's designs for the original series. That's sort-of being done for the DTV movies with mixed results (by the nature of the budget, it still requires the characters to be somewhat stiffly drawn); the redesigns for "SD:MI" were meant to evoke the original designs while allowing for a bit more flexibility in posing and expression (and also to add in a little more of a mid-60s Hanna-Barbera flavor to the mix versus the late-60s style).
reply
share