Recent Posts

Rules? I'm sorry, but there are no rules, nor should there be any rules for any creative work, including Scooby Doo. But when you actually create and write a SD series you first have to deal with what WB wants the new series to be - in my case with BCSD, they wanted a lighter, funnier version in contrast to SDMI, which is fine, but. from there, everyone has different ideas what defines a SD series - what elements HAVE to be there in order for it BE SD. It's totally subjective, of course, and you're handed a list from whoever happens to be the execs and producers in charge ("Monsters shouldn't talk, just growl!" "Dialogue is death!"). So before you even begin trying to come up with your "take" on the show, you've been boxed in and handed restrictions around which you must try to work. What you're calling "rules" are simply an individual's (or a group of individuals') subjective opinions and there are, understandably,  a LOT of them for a property as important and valuable as SD - everyone is scared of messing up whatever magical formula exists that has allowed it to remain a beloved franchise for so long without really analyzing or thinking about what that formula IS or if one ever really existed at all. In the end, creativity by committee just never works. Of course, once you've created your version of the series, you'll have your own internal "rules" for how YOUR show works, but that's different - that's just keeping the tone and characters consistent.

And then there are the fans. EVERYONE has a different opinion about SD and most people's favorite SD show or what they define as SD is whatever series they grew up watching. They also tend to not want change, even though SD has been 50 years of constant change. You will NEVER please everyone, there's no point in trying to guess what people will like, so all you can do is try and make a show you are proud to have your name on. A show that YOU like. Sometimes that's even difficult to do if you get pushback from the studio and changes are made beyond your control.

So, maybe that's it, there is ONE rule: work as hard as you can to make a SD show of which you can be proud. If you pander to what you imagine the audience wants and even followed every single one of the OP's rules, that's no guarantee you will make a SD show anyone likes. It just makes you a cowardly hack writer who is bringing nothing original or creative to the table.

SD needs fewer rules. It needs fresh ideas and original approaches. Otherwise, there's no point in making any new series or movies. In fact, I've heard many people say it's time to put SD down. I disagree. BCSD got very strong reactions, both negative AND positive. I can't tell you how many people have written to let me know that Fred or Daphne was their favorite character and how amazing that is since they were always so bland or underwritten before. SDMI added something new to the way one can approach SD. BCSD also added something new. Not every series is going to be to everyone's taste, but, with each addition, each new idea or approach, the whole Scoobyverse gets richer and more interesting. The discussions become more passionate and fun. The DNA of SD is elastic and the fun of it is to push and pull on what the world and characters can do and be - to explore the possibilities. I believe we've only seen the tip of the iceberg, but it will take a LOT of people, both inside and outside the industry, opening their minds and forgetting about their "rules" for more truly great SD work to be created.

I'm sorry, but I've seen a lot of people celebrating the "Pizza O Possum" ep here and elsewhere and it's getting increasingly difficult for me to be quiet on the subject. As I might have told you, I had NOTHING to do with this episode, apart from suggesting (and being mostly ignored) that it be kept character-driven. That we make the prize for winning the game a stuffed dog that was the same look,  shape and size of Scooby to create conflict between Shaggy and Scooby with Scooby suddenly feeling like this whole time Shaggy REALLY wanted this stuffed animal he's been obsessed with and Scooby is just a consolation prize. I felt this could be serviced in 11 minutes and pay off big when Shaggy realizes that its just the opposite - that this whole time he's been obsessed with winning this stuffed animal from his childhood, when he had the REAL THING all along, which is the far more valuable prize. That storyline is perfectly in keeping with the character-driven storytelling of BCSD and was sorta of hinted at but not really explored or developed in the episode.

Another big problem for me is that the characters in this episode simply don't speak, behave or act like we established in the series. The comedy tone is back to the 70's corny humor and all nuance and carefully constructed points of view are simply tossed out the window as each character does whatever the creative team behind it wanted the character to do in each scene, as opposed to what THAT character, as established WOULD have done in each scene. Nowhere is this more horrifically blatant than in the Velma/Daphne storyline.

We had already established Velma's dislike/indifference to video games in the, admittedly, lackluster (in execution) "Protein Titans" episode. Velma doesn't think video games are worth wasting time on. This goes back to her views all the way in "Party like its 1889" when she dismisses the costume mystery party as a waste of time because they should be using their problem solving skills to really do good in the world and help people. It's consistent with her character. But they makers of this episode just thought it would be HILARIOUS to suddenly give Velma a "video game addiction" that destroyed her childhood (out of nowhere) and literally left permanent physical deformities on her body. I, personally, found this sick and distasteful. Video game addiction is actually a very real, serious condition and nothing to make light of. It's a VERY serious problem in many parts of the world, especially in places like South Korea. Here's a entry for it from a medical website. Look it up. It's real and ruins people's lives.

www.addictionrecov.org/Addictions/?AID=45

To casually give Velma this problem makes no sense for the Velma we carefully developed over two seasons. It's just NOT built into her character. But even worse, perhaps the worst thing I've ever seen someone jam into BCSD, is the moment when Daphne, OUR big-hearted, empathetic, loving, creative, funny, kind Daphne, wickedly TAUNTS Velma to give into her dangerous, damaging addiction just to win a video game. She has a malicious look on her face, smirking as she waves tokens in front of Velma, who practically begs her to stop. This is EXCTLY the same as if Daphne waved a bag of heroin in front of a junkie and coaxed them into giving in, giving up and just taking it (and possibly destroying their life again) - so they could beat a damn video game and unmask a rodent. It's sick. It's disgusting. It's inhumane - and it's NOT the character AT ALL that we established. I wouldn't show this episodes to children. It's cruel and evil and manipulative. The others don't even step in and protect Velma. I am ashamed of this scene and this episode because of this moment (even though I fought against it as hard as possible).

Either way, its supposed to be Shaggy's story and the solution to beating the game should have come from him or Scooby, resolving the conflict that I thought should have been driving the story from the beginning. Scooby really believing that once Shaggy gets the stuffed animal, he will no longer need Scooby, but since Scooby loves Shaggy so much he will use all his skills and four legs and tails to beat the video game, solve the mystery and win Shaggy the toy. Then, Shaggy realizes that he already won the the best prize of all: Scooby Doo. Maybe Scooby reminded him of that childhood prize, but he's come to mean so much more and is his best friend. He no longer needs the stuffed animal and he gives it to the little girl.

That would have been a nice clean arc for the story and NOT made Daphne become this evil, psychotic sadist taunting an addict to throw away their hard earned sobriety for no reason.

I'm sorry, I simply cannot get around the horrible moral implications of this episode and the completely off-model and off-tone execution of the story and characters.

I wrote a very angry email when I first heard about all of this and was, as usual, ignored. I can't believe WB allowed this to make it to the screen. I know there are so many who HATE a lot of BCSD and lots of MY work on it, as well. I think I'm entitled to be critical of the show once in a while too and "Pizza o Possum" is just a wrong, sad ending to what could have, should have - been a great series.

People are always entitled to their opinions and I'm glad whoever liked this one enjoyed it. I am just not one of them for the reasons stated above.

Best,
JCB

They also ended up in "Forest Jail" in the Viking Ghost Camping BCSD episode (whatever it was called).

That was the original goal for the episode - to create a strong, character-driven story about "pointlessness," but they changed the original intention and removed the whole, first "strong, character-driven story" part. Further viewings will not help much, but some people seem to enjoy it just fine, which is great, I guess. I never want anyone to HATE any episodes, but I am biased, personally, for and against certain eps. 

Let's see how Pat 6 3/4 works goes for you, as it was changed even more drastically.

Haha. Right? When I first saw that, I was totally confused, as well. I still am. It's certainly not suggested in the script. I guess I could ask Zac what he had in mind for that but, honestly, I don't really care that much at this point. In fact, I wish THAT was the most puzzling change they made to an episode. It doesn't bother me as much as baffle me.

Absolutely fair and thoughtful opinions. If what we attempted on BCSD didn't work for you, I understand. Clearly, you are not alone. If you found the whole gang better, more well rounded and dimensional characters whom you really knew, understood and cared about in other SD series, I'll admit I'm surprised, but, again, the beauty of this world is the variety of perspectives.

We went for something bold and different while still trying to remain true to the DNA of classic SD. Whether we failed or succeeded, I'm proud of the attempt and what we were able to achieve under not always ideal circumstances. I hope future SD writers will, at least, take note of the REASON we approached the show the way we did and service the characters, while moving the property forward instead of backwards. xo

Hey Peter - thanks for the nice comments regarding the art. I know a lot o people have problems with it, but as russ mentioned above, it really DID have to be pushed in a more cartoony direction for the tone to work. Could there have been OTHER cartoony styles that may have worked, as well? Maybe. This one worked well, though, for what we were doing. I found the gang very expressive and human. We could do so much with them from being very broad and silly, to being very real and emotional. We could get a lot of great acting out of them - more so than most other versions of SD. And, yes, a group of very talented artists created beautiful environments, backgrounds and effects for the show, giving each episode a unique feel, while retaining a coherent  visual style. Again, thank yo. It's nice to see someone bring attention to the beautiful work of the BCSD visual crew.