|
Post by barneynedward on May 19, 2020 20:19:47 GMT -5
I think All the best work with Daphne's character was done during the What's New seasons. that was the first time she consistently felt like a fleshed out character and not just some blank slate. Between the first seven seasons from where are you to Scooby-Doo and Scrappy-Doo show, Even Fred had a more fleshed out character than she did. He was still extremely boring but there was more to his character than generic straight laced guy. He was not only the leader of the team he was also the one who came up with the Rube Goldberg devices used to catch the crooks.
Meanwhile between 1969 and 1979, Daphne's on only real character trait was her clumsiness. Shaggy may have seemed clumsy at times, but those occasions are more accurately attributed to sheer bad luck. All Daphne really did in the first seven seasons was get kidnapped by the guy in the monster suit or pull the wrong lever on on a switchboard. She only appeared more useful seasons 12, 13, and 14, because Velma were inexplicably absent. However if you consider what's new Scooby-Doo to be seasons 15, 16, and 17, that was the first time Daphne was consistently a fairly well-written character. Personally I think that Daphne is probably considered the hardest member of the gangs to write for because she's basically the empath of the gang. Fred is the leader, The trap maker and The owner of the mystery machine, and there are a lot of jokes gags or plot elements that can be harvested from that. Velma is the brains, she's also the shortest member of the gang, as well as the lightest of the four humans. She also has something of an ego regarding her own intelligence. Shaggy and Scooby are basically the gang's sense of humor. All the best gags, jokes and other forms of comedy relief can easily be written for them.
|
|
|
Post by elemage on May 19, 2020 21:01:39 GMT -5
You can do a great story with multiple characters. Look at Infinity War or Endgame. They juggled dozens upon dozens of characters, mostly because you didn't need to deal with origins since most viewers knew who each character was. And with a franchise like Scooby-Doo, you can also jump right into the thick of it without needing any backstory. Personally if I were to ever do a Scooby-Doo movie, I think I'd have the A-plot be a mystery involving all six members of the Gang but mostly spotlighting Velma and Scrappy, a romantic B-plot with Fred and Daphne, and then a comedic C-plot to give Shaggy and Scooby something to do. I stated in a previous reply it's mostly just Scooby that has this problem. And to mention the amount of side characters episodes seem to have. Also, we don't need anymore forced teen romance in the series. With your idea why not have Fred tag along with Velma and Scrappy so he can have interaction with the latter and Daphne tag along with Scooby and Shaggy. The C Plot would need to be given to the villain and side characters. Well, I agree we don't need anymore forced romances. But Fraphne doesn't always have to be angsty (Mystery Incorporated/Curse of the Lake Monster), sexual (Bravo Dooby-Doo), sloppily paired up (SD 2002) or end in tragedy (Apocalypse), which is to me what tends to feel forced with romances in media. We've seen in Zombie Island, Witch's Ghost, Abracadabra-Doo and Camp Scare that Fred and Daphne can be written as a couple without them even being an official one, while we've seen them be a fairly cute couple in Monsters Unleashed (though that's probably because of SMG and FPJ's real life marriage) and I think the reveal of their mutual love for each other in Stage Fright was beautifully done, even if it was immediately underscored by them going back to the status quo afterward. Doing a romantic subplot, if well-written, doesn't really make anything feel forced. Especially if it's a subplot and not the main plot.
|
|
|
Post by elemage on May 19, 2020 21:16:04 GMT -5
I do like that someone FINALLY pointed out how utterly useless Shaggy and Scooby are to the team. This is objectively not true? Shaggy & Scooby are always the ones who find the monster, always the ones who risk their lives to lure the monster, and usually end up being the ones who actually catch it (even if by accident). This plot was already done better in Monsters Unleashed which came to the same conclusion. These plots are hollow not because Shaggy & Scooby are "useless" (because again, they obviously aren't) but because they would be done better with Daphne who actually is pointless in the original show. The writers obviously feel more comfortable reinforcing Shaggy & Scooby's main character status than developing Daphne. They don't intentionally do any of those things except be the bait, and only when they're bribed to do so. Which, BTW, is a huge issue I have with the franchise, let the bait be decided on a case-by-case basis sometimes. Sometimes Fred can lure the monster too. Finding the monster could be a role given to any other character, and considering Daphne was originally "Danger-Prone Daphne", why can't she occasionally be the klutz who messes up the trap? Meaning Velma could likely get the "always encounters the monster" role. You can take away Shaggy and Scooby's roles and give them to other characters and make it make sense for those characters. (Fred being bait to protect Velma and Daphne, Velma encountering the monster because she's the easiest target, Daphne tripping her way into a capture due to being danger-prone.) That makes them useless characters because you can remove them, give their roles away to others and it changes nothing about the plot. However, you cannot do the reverse. Shaggy used to be smart in the early days, or at the very least had common sense, but he's since been flanderized into an idiot who only eats and runs (and it is most obvious in the past decade). So he can't be the brains like Velma. He doesn't have bravery (he USED to) or engineering know-how, so he can't be the leader like Fred. And he doesn't have martial arts skills or MacGyver moments like Daphne. Scooby is noticeably braver and smarter than Shaggy, but he couldn't replace Fred or Velma either. He is, however, pretty creative with his tail so he could probably be a MacGyver like Daphne. Scooby and Shaggy are only important because they're the faces of the franchise. But from an analytical perspective, they provide nothing to the team that can't be provided by the other three.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanmuddlemore on May 19, 2020 21:38:21 GMT -5
This is objectively not true? Shaggy & Scooby are always the ones who find the monster, always the ones who risk their lives to lure the monster, and usually end up being the ones who actually catch it (even if by accident). This plot was already done better in Monsters Unleashed which came to the same conclusion. These plots are hollow not because Shaggy & Scooby are "useless" (because again, they obviously aren't) but because they would be done better with Daphne who actually is pointless in the original show. The writers obviously feel more comfortable reinforcing Shaggy & Scooby's main character status than developing Daphne. You can take away Shaggy and Scooby's roles and give them to other characters and make it make sense for those characters. (Fred being bait to protect Velma and Daphne, Velma encountering the monster because she's the easiest target, Daphne tripping her way into a capture due to being danger-prone.) That makes them useless characters because you can remove them, give their roles away to others and it changes nothing about the plot. However, you cannot do the reverse. Shaggy used to be smart in the early days, or at the very least had common sense, but he's since been flanderized into an idiot who only eats and runs (and it is most obvious in the past decade). So he can't be the brains like Velma. He doesn't have bravery (he USED to) or engineering know-how, so he can't be the leader like Fred. And he doesn't have martial arts skills or MacGyver moments like Daphne. Kind of telling that your examples of what Daphne contributes was only established less than 20 years ago. Also, the only reason why you CAN give Shaggy & Scooby's roles to other characters but not the reverse is because Shaggy & Scooby were the only ones who were four-dimensional characters right out the gate. They made Fred the dumb one in Pup and WNSD. They made Daphne the smart one in the 80s. A character who could be anything is a much blander character than a character who has a defined role and personality.
|
|
|
Post by elemage on May 19, 2020 22:45:19 GMT -5
A character who could be anything is a much blander character than a character who has a defined role and personality. This is where I respectfully have to disagree. What you call blandness, I call versatility and the possibility for character evolution. A defined role and personality is what I could call being one-note and stunted character development. In this case, at least. Considering that personality is just "fear and hunger". Shaggy and Scooby just aren't, in my eyes, useful in terms of solving a mystery. In terms of being actual characters who interact with the other three members, they're fun and I do like what SCOOB did with explaining why three competent detectives would hang out with them. That clip of Shaggy taking a video when he meant to take a photo was adorable. I would definitely like to see more of Classic Shaggy shining through where he isn't an anxious mess in casual settings, but that's just the Flanderization of his character that's happened somewhere along the line. My issues are mainly with Shaggy, honestly. Scooby's fine for the most part. Except in Be Cool, he kinda sucks in that show because he's just as bad, if not worse, than Shaggy there.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanmuddlemore on May 19, 2020 22:57:33 GMT -5
A character who could be anything is a much blander character than a character who has a defined role and personality. This is where I respectfully have to disagree. What you call blandness, I call versatility and the possibility for character evolution. A defined role and personality is what I could call being one-note and stunted character development. In this case, at least. Considering that personality is just "fear and hunger". Shaggy and Scooby just aren't, in my eyes, useful in terms of solving a mystery. In terms of being actual characters who interact with the other three members, they're fun and I do like what SCOOB did with explaining why three competent detectives would hang out with them. That clip of Shaggy taking a video when he meant to take a photo was adorable. I would definitely like to see more of Classic Shaggy shining through where he isn't an anxious mess in casual settings, but that's just the Flanderization of his character that's happened somewhere along the line. My issues are mainly with Shaggy, honestly. Scooby's fine for the most part. Except in Be Cool, he kinda sucks in that show because he's just as bad, if not worse, than Shaggy there. I think I understand your point better now. For the record, Shaggy and Scooby's personality being dumbed down is something Takamoto was very vocally against in his book.
|
|
|
Post by barneynedward on May 20, 2020 0:31:54 GMT -5
This is where I respectfully have to disagree. What you call blandness, I call versatility and the possibility for character evolution. A defined role and personality is what I could call being one-note and stunted character development. In this case, at least. Considering that personality is just "fear and hunger". Shaggy and Scooby just aren't, in my eyes, useful in terms of solving a mystery. In terms of being actual characters who interact with the other three members, they're fun and I do like what SCOOB did with explaining why three competent detectives would hang out with them. That clip of Shaggy taking a video when he meant to take a photo was adorable. I would definitely like to see more of Classic Shaggy shining through where he isn't an anxious mess in casual settings, but that's just the Flanderization of his character that's happened somewhere along the line. My issues are mainly with Shaggy, honestly. Scooby's fine for the most part. Except in Be Cool, he kinda sucks in that show because he's just as bad, if not worse, than Shaggy there. I think I understand your point better now. For the record, Shaggy and Scooby's personality being dumbed down is something Takamoto was very vocally against in his book. Shaggy still isn't exactly stupid. He and Scooby simply don't have any real ambitions. They're the kind of characters who think more about the now rather than the then or the later. There have still been quite a few recent examples of clues that they noticed before the rest of the gang. Shaggy's not actually stupid he's just of normal intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by barneynedward on May 20, 2020 0:36:36 GMT -5
And Shaggy Scooby do provide something absolutely vital to the franchise. They are the comic relief, without them, we would just be watching an animated version of something like Veronica Mars. Scooby-Doo was never supposed to be a a dramatic mystery series. From the very first episode, it's always been a comedy dressed in a thin veneer of mystery.
|
|
|
Post by jonathanmuddlemore on May 20, 2020 12:35:21 GMT -5
Concept art for SCOOB. This depicts a much darker tone and way more HB characters than the ones who made it into the final film. Concept Art
|
|
|
Post by barneynedward on May 20, 2020 23:56:05 GMT -5
Was that Penelope Pitstop in one of those concept paintings?
|
|
|
Post by jonathanmuddlemore on May 21, 2020 9:42:18 GMT -5
Was that Penelope Pitstop in one of those concept paintings? Yes! It looks like she had Dee Dee's role when the movie was more Wacky Races inspired
|
|
|
Post by snesgamer83 on May 24, 2020 15:35:53 GMT -5
So, finally watched it. While the movie isn't nearly as catastrophic as Scooby purists were making it out to be, I don't think this is the way of the future for the franchise. We need Welker (for Fred, and he should've done Dynomutt as well in this film) and Lillard back for sure. Dynomutt lost part of what makes him who he is not having the goofy voice and personality. Brian is no Radley, that's for sure, but he does get better towards the very end. I did however feel like the emotional bits with Scooby's collar and Dastardly/Muttley's reuniting towards the end were done really well. And Fred DOES put his ascot on towards the end as well, so it's not like they forgot everything, lol.
|
|
|
Post by bizarremoon on May 26, 2020 12:40:26 GMT -5
I'm with the folks that found this movie ooookay. I loved the designs and animation. And some of the humor made me chuckle. The chemistry between shaggy/Scooby and dastardly/Dynomutt were adorable.
However, the origin story was super rushed. In the deleted scenes they were going to actually show why shaggy's lonely which leads to him getting Scooby, something they didn't do in the movie itself. They should have never removed that scene. Also I was looking forward to some emotional moments we don't normally see in the show and those failed bitterly. One minute, you think you're getting a heart-warming scene and then they throw some comedic scene or line or something which totally ruined it for me ☹️
I'm sad to say it was enjoyable for a one time watch but I'm prob never gonna watch it again unless it's shown for free somewhere. Which, by the way, totally not worth a 20 dollars rental fee. That's nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 9, 2020 16:13:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mattpricetime on Jul 9, 2020 20:47:14 GMT -5
I don't want to draw too much attention this, but everyone on here who is a member of Warner A-List should know there is a very long survey being offered on Scoob right now. If they offer it to you, take it. I'm pretty sure the results they get on this is going to impact the future of the film series.
EDIT: Warner A-list is basically a survey program WB uses. My invitation found me, so i'm not sure how they usually recruit. You're not supposed to talk specifics about stuff they sometimes show you, so in respect I won't publicly tell what was in it. But for the fair game, for those who wondered how WB would determine fan reaction given the shift from theaters to streaming from covid, the answer is they are most certainly looking for detailed answers and is strong evidence they are thinking of a sequel. And i will leave it at that.
|
|