|
Review
Feb 20, 2016 15:06:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by scoobylover on Feb 20, 2016 15:06:01 GMT -5
I really enjoyed this prequel episode.
A lot of references t the original series: Shaggy and Scooby dealing with the monster behind the door; the gang sticked together for the chase scene; a reimagining of Pietro the puppeteer from SDWAY and also the bait, the trap and eventually the Scooby Snaks. Hit me right in the feels. Brought nostalgia, good laughs and more.
Also liked Daphne's favourite quirk coming back and the monster was creepy for the first time. Still ain't seeing any girl between the talking characters tho.. Also was the head of security meant to look like you, Jcb?
|
|
|
Review
Feb 20, 2016 15:24:30 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 20, 2016 15:24:30 GMT -5
Must stay away from reading this.
|
|
|
Post by jcb on Feb 20, 2016 15:25:40 GMT -5
I really enjoyed this prequel episode. A lot of references t the original series: Shaggy and Scooby dealing with the monster behind the door; the gang sticked together for the chase scene; a reimagining of Pietro the puppeteer from SDWAY and also the bait, the trap and eventually the Scooby Snaks. Hit me right in the feels. Brought nostalgia, good laughs and more. Also liked Daphne's favourite quirk coming back and the monster was creepy for the first time. Still ain't seeing any girl between the talking characters tho.. Also was the head of security meant to look like you, Jcb? Yikes! I hope he's not supposed to look like me! SPOILERS BELOW! Glad you liked the episode, scoobylover. I always had issues with the idea behind Scooby Snacks (like I did with the gang all piling on top Velma to escape) and it was fun getting a chance to explore the moral implications. I think it worked really well with the characters as we've reimagined them - Fred, who tends to be controlling, goes mad with power, Velma finds it intellectually fascinating and sees it as a scientific experiment, Daphne is concerned with the human, moral and friendship issues and Shaggy and Scooby flip the whole thing upside down by reminding us that they've always gone into scary places before anyway without rewards, so they might as well get something out of it if Fred is offering. The joke's on him.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 20, 2016 17:23:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by scoobylover on Feb 20, 2016 17:23:35 GMT -5
Must stay away from reading this. A review is a spoiler itself. I thought it was clear for anyone thats why I didnt spoiler alert-ed.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 20, 2016 19:15:45 GMT -5
Post by somebody-doo on Feb 20, 2016 19:15:45 GMT -5
I loved it, my new favorite!
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 0:39:13 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 0:39:13 GMT -5
Must stay away from reading this. A review is a spoiler itself. I thought it was clear for anyone thats why I didnt spoiler alert-ed. I don't get into the whole "This is the internet no-spoiler thing." I saw this from the main page, and thought it was for one of the other episodes.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 0:45:55 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 0:45:55 GMT -5
This was strange in an in-universe kind of way, with the bribe system (which is expressed through Daphne, and I found it as off putting as she did), but it's was funny that Scooby and Shaggy were the ones fooling Fred.
Overall, though, it was a much better episode than the last. I found it fascinating how you (JCB) explored the bribary in a way that made sense (I truly found it fascinating). I'm glad the monster (who was cool) wasn't an actual creepy puppet going around, and noticed that it has allusions to "The Backstage Rage". I don't think the powers were explained. Something about machine oil was found, maybe that has something to do with it?
However, as fascinating as I found it, I couldn't help but see one flaw, in that we already saw the Scooby Snacks box (in regular form) from "All Paws on Deck", this was only a cameo, though, so I suppose we should ignore this? Another thing is the whole, "Does Scooby get royalties from his name and face being used?"
|
|
|
Post by jcb on Feb 21, 2016 0:55:01 GMT -5
This was strange in an in-universe kind of way, with the bribe system (which is expressed through Daphne, and I found it as off putting as she did), but it's was funny that Scooby and Shaggy were the ones fooling Fred. Overall, though, it was a much better episode than the last. I found it fascinating how you (JCB) explored the bribary in a way that made sense (I truly found it fascinating). I'm glad the monster (who was cool) wasn't an actual creepy puppet going around, and noticed that it has allusions to "The Backstage Rage". I don't think the powers were explained. Something about machine oil was found, maybe that has something to do with it? However, as fascinating as I found it, I couldn't help but see one flaw, in that we already saw the Scooby Snacks box (in regular form) from "All Paws on Deck", this was only a cameo, though, so I suppose we should ignore this? Another thing is the whole, "Does Scooby get royalties from his name and face being used?" Oh, they show a Scooby Snack box in "All Paws?" I didn't even notice that. Yeah, the artists and directors will sometimes throw stuff in after the fact without being aware of what I have planned down the line. Ignore it. As for royalties, my guess is Scooby settled for payment in snacks. I'm glad you found it interesting, as well.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 1:06:17 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 1:06:17 GMT -5
I forgot to mention, that I was truly unaware of who the culprit was going to be. I know there's this kind of stigma that the culprit is so obvious, but that's something can comes secondary to me, I'm more into what's happening in the episode. But, anyway, it wasn't until it got to the unmasking, I was thinking "Who is it! Who is it!" I thought it would be Beverly.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 1:14:44 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 1:14:44 GMT -5
"All Paws" could've happened after, I guess (I dread to think), but if the bribing is going to happen in every episode now, that couldn't be possible.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 1:29:04 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 1:29:04 GMT -5
Oh, right. The staff was explained. My bad.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 1:33:49 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 1:33:49 GMT -5
Also was the head of security meant to look like you, Jcb? Kind of reminds me how I thought the apartment owner with the moustache, from "Poodle Justice", looked like Mark Banker.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 1:57:58 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 1:57:58 GMT -5
I've just realised that it also gives an explanation how it can be edible for humans, too! It's not just a dog biscuit! Well done, Mr. JCB.
|
|
|
Review
Feb 21, 2016 3:49:29 GMT -5
Post by scoobypediapossible on Feb 21, 2016 3:49:29 GMT -5
So he is called Scoobert after all. Or should I ignore that, too?
|
|
|
Post by jcb on Feb 21, 2016 11:29:21 GMT -5
So he is called Scoobert after all. Or should I ignore that, too? Haha. Nothing escapes your pediabrain. I, personally, don't look at "Scoobert" as Scooby's "real" name officially, but more as a jokey, "formal" nickname the gang (or Shaggy, in particular) might call him in specific situations. Like my first name is "Jon" with no "H" and it's NOT short for "Jonathan" - on my birth certificate it says "Jon Colton Barry" BUT someone might jokingly call me "Jonathan" if they were affecting a formal, wealthy, posh kind of attitude, as Shaggy does here, "Come along, Scoobert...:" So you don't have to ignore it (you don't really "ignore" stuff anyway, right? You have a whole area set aside for mistakes in each episode, don't you?). Think of it as "nuance" not "error." And, yeah, I'm glad you picked up on the slight of hand of transforming "Scooby Snacks" into (also) a human food.
|
|