Scooby-Doo Mystery Incorporated 2010’s Greatness is 2015’s Obnoxiousness


There are three moments in Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated that best represent the show’s biggest, most glaring problems.

Let’s start at the end and work backwards.

Scooby_Doo_Mystery_Inc

In “Gates of Gloom,” there’s a bit of misdirect in which it seems like Fred, Daphne, and Velma are inside a souped-up, armor-covered Mystery Machine, plowing through heavily armed killer robots. Sacrificing the iconic van with an explosion to take out the remaining robots, it’s revealed that the three teens were controlling it from inside a completely different vehicle. Fred proceeds to lament on his car’s sacrifice to ensure his love, Daphne, remained safe… only to toss a half-assed nod to Velma’s protection as well (Velma replies flippantly). And I get it. It’s a gag that emphasizes Fred’s simple, one-track mind; Fred just forgot about Velma as he declared his passionate love and devotion for Daphne. Yet even within the parameters of the gag, it’s pretty mean, particularly after two long seasons of uncommitted, un-established relationships among the group’s members.

This is more distinct in “Night Terrors,” admittedly Mystery Incorporated strongest technical episode. This homage to The Shining pits the individual members of the group against a series of hallucinations, including one that makes Daphne think Shaggy is Fred, and makes Shaggy think Daphne likes him – which leads to the two making out. Set aside the awkward sexual misconduct of the moment (Shaggy’s prideful boasts of this “conquest” is both gross and wildly out-of-character), the scene falls apart when Fred sees it. In typical Fred fashion, he freezes up (an act he has done before when he sees Daphne flirt with other men). Daphne and Shaggy express concern about Fred, but Velma – again, who knows this is one of Fred’s dumb freakouts – makes a sarcastic comment towards Fred. Shaggy and Daphne, for some reason, are deeply offended by Velma comment, and it’s at this point I just want to throw my phone out the window. For you see, Velma has been the ignored butt of the team for several episodes, the only member truly committed to solving the various mysteries, and often had to venture out on her own because of the group’s self-centered, whiny crap. They have abandoned her many, many times. So for the characters – and by proxy, the show – to turn a typical Velma bit of sarcastic comedy against her, so viciously… it just was so awful, a moment that pretty much made the show irredeemable in my eyes. Fred’s forgetfulness is portrayed as comedy, but Velma’s flippant gag is some sore of cruelty? In Shaggy’s own words, “Not cool.”

Yet it’s all the way in season one’s “Howl of the Fright Hound” where the show essentially falls into a character-narrative trap from which it never can escape. Mystery Incorporated started off with the show’s worst decision – a forced relationship between Velma and Shaggy. It’s wildly nonsensical and utterly ill-defined, with Velma acting as a nagging shrew, forcing Shaggy to do a bunch of crap he doesn’t like, all while keeping the relationship a secret from Scooby-Doo. Nothing good, worthwhile, or meaningful comes from this, and it creates eight-or-nine episodes of piss-poor sitcomy bit-writing. So in “Howl of the Fright Hound,” Shaggy finally tells Velma that he doesn’t want to date her any more so he can maintain his friendship with Scooby. There’s a lot of problems here (mostly because it’s unclear if Scooby is upset because Shaggy never told him about the relationship or if he’s jealous that Shaggy and Velma are dating, and also, is it that hard to date Velma and still maintain a friendship with Scooby?), but the show comes to a screeching halt when Velma yells out, in front of Scooby, “The boy I love picks a dog over me? That’s the most insulting thing a girl could have ever happen to her!” Velma says this with a tone that’s so off-putting that it becomes a real question of why in the hell are these four teens and their dog even hanging out together (the show is aware of this, but tries to gloss over it, which I will get into later). As goofy as Scooby-Doo is, he’s definitely not just “a dog,” but even beyond that, Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated represents an uncomfortably dated showcase of TV entertainment, part of the post-Lost landscape of shows that emphasize long-term mystery over characters and their relationships. The show’s second season scramble to “explain” that behavior, but right here, right now, I’m calling bullshit.

 


 

Of the many problems with Dreamworks’ theatrical flop, Mr. Peabody and Sherman, there’s one glaring one that occurs at the beginning of the film. I’m not quite sure how to describe it, really; it’s, like, a “character dissonance” of sorts, an inability or failure to establish an outlier character-type within the world that’s bigger than who the character-type is, or what he or she represents. There isn’t much to the original Mr. Peabody and Sherman after all; Jay Ward’s educational segment within The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show was just a tossed off bit that produced historical lessons along side Ward’s acerbic, smartass wit. The film, forced to double down on the familial connection between Sherman and his canine father, may have managed to contextualize that connection via a montage of historical trips and visual examples of nurturing, but it never establishes Mr. Peabody and Sherman as individuals within the modern world – especially Mr. Peabody. That’s because he’s a dog.

It’s hard to see how the movie wants to fit the very idea of “Peabody as a talking, brilliant dog” among humans. What is his place? Sure, he’s introduced as a figure providing the world with gift-after-gift of scientific achievements, but he seems to be the only dog in this entire universe, and the film never bothers to explore what that might mean. Other characters toss indirect insults in his direction, along the lines of questioning the entire premise of a dog raising a child, but it’s approached with a “seriousness” that is left hanging in the wind. Do other characters just “see” Mr. Peabody as a dog? Do they not know about his real accomplishments? Is the whole thing “the joke”? There is no context for this dissonance; it’s not really metaphorical, it’s not really comical, and it’s not really complex, yet it tries to be all three, which is vague and inherently lifeless. (As a counter-example, look at Aqua Teen Hunger Force, which establishes quickly, and often, that Frylock, Master Shake, and Meatwad are absolute abominations and thus completely part of the nonsensical joke of the entire premise of the show.)

I’m not even sure if I quite explained myself all that well there. It’s a tough subject to explain. Mr. Peabody is an outlier of a character (a dog in a purely human world), and the world never situates his place within it. It tries to showcase him as different but the same, but never works to establish how Mr. Peabody himself feels about that dissonance. And that dissonance is alive and present in Mystery Incorporated, right when Velma makes her blanket statement. Velma may be angry, but Scooby is not just “a dog,” and the idea that she would just say this without the show establishing Scooby’s reaction to such a disingenuous, belittling statement, is baffling. And the show knows it, because 1) that’s the joke and 2) the inanity of my complaint makes it immune from criticism.

Think about it. I’m basically complaining that we’re not provided with Scooby’s real feelings about Velma’s statement. Scooby-Doo! Who in their right mind would raise such a stink about an objectively mean complaint towards an objectively ridiculous character from one of the most objectively stupidest franchises in history? Why would you even care? Why would anyone care? Half of my life is spent arguing about the very nature of contextualizing cartoons, a medium that has been geared towards children for years now. Why would anyone bother to complain about characterizations in such an inane kids’ cartoon?

And, really, that’s been Mystery Incorporated’s shield, its safeguard from complaints and critiques. Scooby-Doo, ever since, oh, let’s say, A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, has become the great Hanna-Barbera joke, the epitome of self-aware self-deprecation, a franchise that has been ripped apart in order to make every obvious joke ever possible. Fred is stupid and Daphne is stuck-up and Velma is a nerd and Shaggy totally smokes pot and Scooby is a talking dog that’s hard to understand and what’s up with that? And we have seen every joke ever made about how insane it is for some old man or crazy woman to dress up in a scary costume to scare people away from “generic setting X” so they can steal gold or dig for oil in peace. It is the nature of this very formula that Hanna-Barbara established back in the 60s, that they themselves have repeated, knocked-off, ridiculed, and re-hashed all the way up until their passing. Scooby-Doo has been, and always will be, nonsense, and to even question that kind of nonsense in any way, shape, or form would be a fool’s errand. No, the show wants to say, you’re the idiot for wanting to know about Scooby’s feelings.

Not only does Mystery Incorporated know this, it uses it to its advantage, re-contextualizing it in a huge, series-length story arc. The very nature of Scooby-Doo’s inexplicable character behaviors is not just the lazy-turned-ridiculing nature of the show’s premise, but also part of a super-serious-guys-you-don’t-even-KNOW massive plot. There’s a whole lot of “things will never be the same,” “you cannot possibly understand,” and “this is bigger than you or me.” Abject world-changing cliches taken from so many movies and shows (particularly from the failed post-Lost shows like Flashforward and The Event), re-contextualized within the Scooby-Doo’s self-awareness model. It is the cartoon’s cartoon, the obviousness of animated inanity as applied to the biggest event in history, that literally puts the world in danger.

And every single decision and action and episode and choice is built around that – that self-awareness-but-also-world-changing story arc, and this allows criticisms thrown its way to be deflected to either “C’mon! It’s Scooby-Doo! Who cares!?” or “No, but see, it’s all part of the plan!” It is the Steven Moffat-ing of Scooby-Doo, and I actively, adamantly reject this. I refuse to be cow-towed to tossing aside real, legit complaints about the show’s poor, weak characterizations and relationships because it’s either part of the joke or part of the plot. Because I believe Mystery Incorporated could indeed have been both self-aware AND plot-driven without approaching its characters as misanthropic, one-note, antagonistic avatars under the control of an evil force.

And it sucks, too, because Mystery Incorporated is arguably one of the most fascinating, beautiful, and creepiest shows ever, purely at a technical level. Insanely tense chase sequences. Horrifying imagery. Terrifying art design. Homes, mansions, hotels, basements, dreamworlds and alternate-worlds are animated with lush, decaying details; oil-painting-esque backgrounds give everything an old, decrepit sheen. Villains are comically but dangerously overpowered, and when they give chase, viewers will physically jump and wince at every near-death leap, every close call, every death-defying dodge. Most remarkable is the show’s use of colors; a commanding use of reds, blues, greens, and purples give each and every scene a stark edge, applying visual sensations to every type of danger that occurs on screen. Taken away from its characters, Mystery Incorporated is an abject lesson art design and art direction, worthy of study for future artists, animators, and scenic designers. (I say all that with one caveat: the character designs themselves are lackluster, with basically three different body types for its male characters and only one, maybe two, basically body types for female characters.)

Yet Mystery Incorporated’s characters are there, and they’re rather unpleasant to watch in action. And I’m certainly not adverse to unpleasant characters – Darkwing Duck, Scrooge McDuck, and Master Shake are all my favorite characters and not-at-all role models – but it’s clear that Mystery Incorporated is not at all interested in exploring its five titular characters and how they relate to each other as friends and teammates, beyond establishing that they just are friends and teammates, and that “this has all happened before.” For you see, the four-humans-and-one-animal grouping is not an in-depth look at the concept of five figures pulling together in a world of craziness and danger; they’re the modern incarnation of an historical timeline of such groupings, manipulated by “evil” to eventually release a dangerous spirit into the world. It’s as silly as it sounds, but played deathly serious (as in, various characters are actually killed!), but worse, it becomes the reason the characters are dicks to each other. Because it was planned that way!

The funny thing about that is that I sort of saw it coming. Part of it because I watch a lot of cartoons, part of it is because I have been weaned off post-Lost copycats. Large-scaled arcs are narrative false-flags; unless you’re Joss Whedon, there’s little chance of major characters being killed off, which turns universal stakes into ho-hum affairs (see: the lowering stakes of the Cinematic Marvel Universe). The importance of these kinds of arcs (which Lost got right, despite its disappointing finale) is how individual characters and relationships are formed, strengthened, weakened, or destroyed, and Mystery Incorporated is only barely interested in that (mostly only with Fred’s connection with his parents). When the show dropped the “bombshell” that this has all been done before, I pretty much assumed this was leading to a giant circle-jerk of self-awareness, that the creators themselves would be revealed as the source of everything – think the 2003 TMNT’s “Turtles Forever” special, but taken deadly serious. And, really, I wasn’t that far off.

And so we’re given a show where Fred, Daphne, Shaggy, Velma, and Scooby-Doo are essentially one-dimensional jerks, plopped with their signature characterizations but played up to eleven for the occasional self-aware gag (Velma tells Scooby she can barely understand him on the phone! Fred loves ascots and traps! Shaggy and Scooby eat a lot!) and not much else. Potentially interesting aspects, like Daphne’s rich family and her jealousy of her sisters, or Shaggy’s constant disappointment to his parents, are hardly explored. This isn’t a show where Velma and Scooby hash out their complex emotions towards Shaggy, or Fred confronts Daphne’s parents about their obvious dislike of him. This is the kind of show where Daphne leaves the group and is replaced by Marcie (“Hot Dog Water” is her nickname, because they’re jerks, remember), only for Daphne’s new boyfriend to be revealed as a criminal so she can join right back in – and for Marcie to be consequently kicked out because “it’s always been the five of us,” despite her being legitimately helpful. (Nice for Mystery Incorporated to make Daphne’s boyfriend villainous and for Marcie to be secretly working for a big bad to justify all that.) Also all their mean behavior isn’t about five disparate characters struggling to come together as a group, but the results of a “supreme evil,” because that’s easier to make work than, you know, character development. Hell, it doesn’t have to be deep characterization, but it would’ve been nice to see something other than the lame collective of forced feelings the Mystery Inc. team formed to plunge a stick into the heart of said supreme evil spirit. In “Dark Night of the Hunter,” when this master, manipulative evil is revealed, Shaggy wonders aloud if they were ever even friends, which is less of a genuine, pressing concern from Shaggy and more of an admission of characterization failure from Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone, two of the show’s producers who, interestingly enough, screwed up the characterizations of the Looney Toon characters in The Looney Tunes Show.

 


 

Honestly though? I feel bad. I really, really do, because I can see the real, genuine effort that the animators and artists and writers put into the show. I can see them pouring their heart and soul into every loving frame, every tightly scripted moment, every sharply-delivered gag, every genuinely terrifying moment. I know so many people who swear by this show, who recommended it to me and sung its praises often, and who declared it the best iteration of Scooby-Doo ever. And I get that. I do. I was so ready to like this show. I was ready and willing and eager to love this show and be among those who happily, finally found a version of Hanna-Barbara’s enduring franchise that worked.

And then, right after Velma’s awesome introduction, I watched episode after episode of her constant nagging on Shaggy, and the on-again, off-again relationship woes of Fred and Daphne, and the complete lack of knowledge on what the hell to do with Scooby (an issue they admittedly use to their advantage in the second season). Then Velma called Scooby “a dog” with that distinctly dismissive tone, and then the criminals became more and more obvious, even by Mystery Incorporated standards. Flashes of brilliance, like “Mystery Solvers Club State Finals” and “Heart of Evil” were undercut by other episodes’ stretched-out chases and belabored villainy. Then Crystal Cove got a potentially cool mayor, who was once in the Air Force(!) – and then she was neutered and forced into an eye-rollingly inane love story with the incompetent Sheriff Stone. And the characters continued to be jerks with little to no attempt to make them into a cohesive team – or even friends – only for it to be revealed that that was the entire point (which is fan fiction’s number one go-to for bullshit explanations of all crappy storytelling). Then the overall long-term arc even begins to fall apart (did the other previous animals of past groups talk like Scooby?) and then it became clear that the creators were trying to be both clever and funny with it all, to which I just:

fuck_this_shit

You can’t be self-aware and serious at the same time to justify weak characterizations; it’s a show writhing with visually fantastic noise but lacking real substance.

So it’s with a heavy heart that I, as a fan and supporter of Mystery Incorporated’s technical achievements, must declare my disappointment with the show overall. Shallowness masked as a comic bit/plot point is no excuse for poorly drawn characters, and being able to see through all the tricks, only to find a hollow, undercooked cast of characters has left me cold. Pulling the well-designed mask off Mystery Incorporated was no easy feat, for the reveal was empty and the culprit was my expectations.

Share

, , ,

  1. #1 by George on May 13, 2015 - 10:29 pm

    Wait wait wait.

    So, you’re basically complaining about Scooby having a meta-plot (which was one of the greatest decisions in the franchise’s history) and basing your entire review on Velma calling Scooby a dog? Am I following you?

    Because, you know, that’s what Scooby is, has been, and always will be. No matter how we see it. A talking, awesome dog, but a dog anyways. Especially in a realistic series like this. And the fun part is that the producers took that ridicule plot, well took the entire absurd premise of the franchise, and turned it into a super-serious, love-craftin, House-of-cards story arc. That yeah, is also absurd and cliched, but super-epic in its core. A first for Scooby and a great step into modern animation landscape for this otherwise mediocre and formulaic franchise, that not only embraces, but pokes fun at itself. Something that no one dared to do til now, and probably will not be repited again. And it was so, so spectacularly and brilliantly done, for me at least. We have different points of view.

    You know? Velma’s animossity towards Scooby never affected me or bothered me so much as other people claim it did to them. Because I can remember that, once in the original 1969 series, Velma called Scooby “a dumb dog.” Yeah, she did that in one episode. and I wondered if Scooby maybe had something to say about that when I was a kid. And, if you have had the chance of watching/hearing the interviews with the SDMI crew, you’ll know that this show utilizes the bast Scooby previous materials, especially and particularly the original Scooby-Doo, Where are you! series.

    I remember Tony Cervone (who, by the way, worked alongside Joseph Barbera himself for a few years, and had the chance of hearing his ideas about Scooby) in an interview, saying something like, “I sat and watched the entire two seasons of the original Where are you! series, and started to annalize the characters as they really where. I decided not to change anything, treat the show with the respect it deserves, and make the best Scooby series I possibly could. And it was so, so great.”

    I think it all comes down to what particular point of view you have about things. I watched the original series a lot, that’s why many of the things you (and a small fraction of other people on the internet) complain about didn’t surprise me or bother me. That’s why I understood Velma’s story arc, characterization and place in the show (well, that and an interview with Joe Ruby and Ken Spears where they described the character’s personalitties, also Mitch Watson, writer/producer for SDMI and Beware the Batman, explained in detail how they wanted to portray Velma, I think she was his favorite character, at least that’s what I got from his interview), that’s why Velma’s relationship with Shaggy, though handled wrong, wasn’t weird for me (because, anyone who hasn’t seen their interaction on the original series is eather clueless, or completely blind. Really, til this day I don’t get why many people was initially so shocked by the idea, given the great amount of fanfiction out there.)

    But well, all those who complained should be glad now. WB is making another comical, poorly scripted, Family-Guy-looking show, Scooby will revert to the mediocre, childish show we all know and, apparently, many love, and Warner will probably never make something like this again, at least not until within maybe ten years from now or so, when the animation landscape has evolved and people are more willing to accept Scooby with a serious, dark plot and well-rounded characters. Until then, we’re back to regular Scooby again, which is not bad, but… well, not so good eather.

    But you know Kevin? I really loved your review. Really, I liked it. You were able to express your ideas in a respectful, sincere, organized, I-don’t-want-to-bash-the-show way. You really constructed your review with great care for the show and Scooby, and it was great reading you went in expecting to like the show but didn’t. Most of the people who complain about the show wouldn’t even dream of doing that. I’ve seen, like, seven people on the internet bashing the show, and most of their badly-written critics go along the lines of, “Bla bla bla i don’t like the show they changed this and that, Scooby shouldn’t be this way, velma is this way, fred is that way, they destroyed my childhood,” etc. You are the first and only reviewer that not only makes a lot of sense, but gets what the producers where trying to do, understands their ideas and tries to say why you didn’t like it. Loud, clear, respectful and to the point. I can apreciate that.

    I strongly encourage you to look for the interviews with the SDMI writers/producers. I’d give you links but I’m on the phone right now, in fact I’m writing this while studying… but really, great, well-constructed review. I think I get where are you coming from.

    And for the record, I don’t think they “fucked up” the characters in the Looney Tunes show. I love the original LT shorts, but I also loved what they did with the characters and their take on the new show. It was different, enjoyable and downright funny. For me at least, but I get why you and others didn’t like it. The changes, always the changes.

    P.S. Did you know that SDMI was, and probably will be, the only series for which the producers required the supervision of Joe Ruby and Ken Spears, original Scooby-Doo creators? Many of the show’s humor, characters, places and trends come from Ruby/Spears’ input on the show. Tony Cervone and his crew not only dug up the original SD Where are you! pitch materials (that revealed a lot of the characters background and history), but also when to Ruby/Spears for ideas, characterization and to hear their take on things. It was very interesting this was the version of Scooby that Ruby/Spears originally wanted, but weren’t able to pull off in 1969. There’s a lot of production details, references and points to this series, many awesome writers that worked on it and had a blast doing it (there’s an interview with the writer of the second season where he explains a lot about the characters and talks in detail about Velma’s arc if you are interested), I’d point out more of them but I don’t have the links at handy and am running out of time and probably space, so yeah, again great review. Cheers!

  2. #2 by Admin on May 14, 2015 - 2:21 pm

    Hi George,

    I want to thank you for not only reading my missive but also replying in kind. I have thought for a while about Mystery Incorporated after writing the piece, about my response to the show and to the entire group of supporters of the show. And reading your response (and what looks to be an large, obvious amount of care and level of detail the writers and producers put into the show [including the original creators!]) did provide me with a lot of clarity on the show, although I did suspect that, yes indeed, this was *the* take on Scooby-Doo that they always wanted to produce. I mean, you can feel it in every frame, every beat and executed scene, in every sound effect, music cue, and delightful reference. And I really do get it.

    But I guess that, at least to me, there should be a limit to how self-aware a show should be? At times, SDMI was bordering on, to put it bluntly, “head up its own ass” levels of self-awareness, which isn’t necessarily a problem in and of itself, but in combining that with a heavily-serialized, intensely-serious plot, that in itself was meta, it was taking that kind of self-awareness to a layer that I simply wasn’t comfortable with, especially when combined with specific character moments and relationships that weren’t just poorly done, but were distinctly toxic. And by not really addressing that toxicity in a meaningful way, particularly since SDMI was clearly aiming to approach the material so seriously (as, for example, Fred’s various heart-to-hearts with his fake/real parents) felt like real, palpable missed opportunities. This combination, of being 100% serious and being 100% meta (where being meta is, essentially, being not-serious) creates a tonally uneven, tonally vague direction of the show. In other words, I kept asking myself, “How dedicated, how in-tuned to the show’s sensibilities show I be?” Should I be amused at the meta-arc and its grandiose nature (in, let’s say, the same way one would react to Pinky and the Brain’s world-conquering schemes?), or should I be 100% engaged in its dramatic stakes (like one would be in Legend of Korra or The Last Airbender). Clearly, the creators’ wanted to do both! And I felt it just did not, could not work. It created, like, a Gotham-effect (and I’m not sure if you watch that show or not), which also leaves me cold but at least keeps my interest in the few times that it does come correct.

    I have too watched pretty much every iteration of Scooby-Doo that ever aired; Cartoon Network was, at one point, fairly obsessed with showing them as often as possible. So when the creators mention their analysis of the characters, I honestly get it. I mean, I honestly loved Velma as well! She was so, so great, despite her early nagging on Shaggy’s behavior. That being said, 1969’s Scooby and 2006’s Scooby are tonally and creatively two different beasts, and Velma calling Scooby a dumb dog in 1969 is of a wildly different nature than her doing the same thing in 2006. For one, the shows’ endgames are completely different (despite whatever Ruby/Spears may have wanted the original show to be like); for another, I would ask how Velma’s tone in calling Scooby a dumb dog in 1969 differed from the more hostile, more toxic tone she used in 2006. It’s marked, and perhaps the creators never gave that much thought, but it’s sort of part of the problem with their dedication to the meta-story; their focus on the self-aware big picture seemed to disconnect them from the little character beats and moments that, to me, are way more important than huge, complex stories.

    Honestly, though, part of that is personal. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned in life is recognizing toxic situations, even among close friends, within the little, subtle, passive-aggressive things that they do, and how they wear on you and break you down. And because I loved Velma so much, watching her basically go through that kind of toxicity hurt. Worse, the show seemed to know that it was being toxic to its characters (hence the whole meta-plot of the great evil causing that toxicity), but never made the kind of effort needed to at least address it, to show that the modern MI group could stand beyond this evil force, come together, and conquer it in the end. And it could! There’s one episode late in the second season where, after yet another frustrating talk with the MI group, Velma goes out on her own, but this time, Scooby follows her. And it’s such a sweet moment, when Velma sees Scooby happily joining her on her clue-hunting venture. But… that’s it. It seemed like the perfect time to kinda address the tension between her and Scooby about Shaggy, but the show doesn’t do it – and, again, it’s not as if the show is adverse to that kind of drama: see the Fred-parents saga, or Velma’s warm-hearted moments with Marcie (Hot Dog Water).

    Everything with Hot Dog Water, in fact, speaks to the core of the show’s “forest for the trees” approach to Scooby-Doo. When Velma kicks her off the team because “there’s always been the five of us,” how did you react to that? I’m honestly asking. Did you laugh at the ridiculous of the logic? Were you upset at the dramatic rhythms of the moment, at losing such an effective character and, essentially, the only person Velma could really connect to? Or did you just ignore it, as part of the show’s overall approach to the story it wanted to tell, where events happens because they just did, because the writers simply willed it that way towards their greater arc? I think they wanted all three, and I can’t in good conscious accept that as a valid reason, mainly because it leads to a narrative-free-for-all of arbitrary character and narrative choices. Basically they could do whatever the fuck they wanted.

    And the other issue is that because I was so familiar with the Scooby-Doo, uh, mythos, as well as cartoons in general (I watch way too many), sensing the overall direction of this meta-arc so early diminished my general appeal, and that might be a jaded 2015 viewer watching arguably a 2006 show, where such developments would’ve been novel and game-changing – as you said, bringing animation out of a “Lost Era” of sorts and paving the way for shows like Gravity Falls and Korra and Steven Universe (Also a culprit of Lost/The Event/Flashforward/ etc., multi-arc serials that proved to be mostly failures). Yet something like Pirates of Dark Water could build its world while keeping its core characters close and interconnected as a motley band destined to work together, while I strongly felt SDMI failed in that regard. And no amount of “we were aware of it all along” could satisfy me. Honestly I couldn’t care less about what they “got wrong” about Scooby-Doo, in relation to its past shows and character beats (I think they got the individual beats correct!). They just never really pulled the beats they did come up with together to make a dramatically (or comically) complete whole.

    So as much as I appreciated SDMI and what it wanted to do, and despite everything that the creators put into it, I just couldn’t put my support behind it (and whatever love I had for the show completely left me during that Velma scene in “Night Terrors,” a moment that left me so cold and angry that there really nothing that could’ve brought me back, barring Velma telling everyone to, quote, “Fuck the fuck right off”). If I can get the time I’d love to see those interviews among the creators, to see if there was something to support or oppose my opinions on the show as a whole. But I just couldn’t do it, and I do feel bad it just really wasn’t my kind of show. (A similar opinion I kinda share with The Looney Tunes show, a show that I never really hated despite acknowledging its flaws, since it never had any pretense of a huge arc or the need to bring its characters together as any sort of unit.)

  3. #3 by George on May 15, 2015 - 11:08 pm

    Thanks for replying. Your stance on things is so much clearer now. It wasn’t the kind of show for you, and you expressed your ideas, very fairly and thoughtfully, as personal opinions. I apreciate that, and I’m sure many SDMI supporters will do the same.

    As to my reaction at chapter 30, I knew at the time they kicked her out for a reason, since this is a serialized plot and, in interviews, the producers confirmed they had been planning over the whole story arc for years, developping the narrative like two years before the premiere. In fact, since Cartoon Network ordered 2 seasons (Sam Register, WB vice-president, wanted a deep dark meta-plot, they were very entusiastic about the progect, contrary to the creators’ fears that it would be rejected), they were able to work backwards the entire time, ocasionally needing Ruby/Spears supervision for the characterization department and hiring a lot of talented writers (if you have seen the credits, the staf of writers on the show is diverse, at the least). I didn’t ignore it because it was important to the plot, especially considering that, a few seconds after being sadly kicked out, Marcie called Mr. E, her intentions of betraying the gang still palpable in the air. Luckily she didn’t follow them through, her friendship towards Velma prevailing, leading Mr. E and Pericles to ultimately kill her in the epic final trilogy.

    I must ask you a question in turn, as honestly as you asked me yours, I hope you answer it: Why do you keep refering to Mystery Incorporated as a “2006 show” if SDMI wasn’t produced in 2006? Is it just for the “Lost” ironic reference? In 2006, Scooby was in the hands of a different production team altogether, WB was making the worst Scooby show in the history of worst Scooby shows: Shaggy & Scooby-Doo, get a clue! (god, that was horrible, even Ruby and Spears hated it with a passion and I don’t blame them, I’m okay with change but that was awful), Tony Cervone and his crew were in other progects, and Joe Ruby & Ken Spears were busy with their production company.

    Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated started production in mid 2008, and was anounced in march 2009. The series debutted to a 2.7 million audience on Cartoon Network on april 5, 2010 and ended exactly three years later, on april 5, 2013, airing the three-parter finale. Actually, SDMI was the sole reason for the existence of shows like Gravity Falls: the Disney executives wanted their own version of SDMI (a serialized mystery show, that’s why the premises are somehow similar), to compete with Warner Bros./CN.

    SDMI was, also, the first animated show to approach storytelling in a dramatic, dark way for an animated cartoon. Till then, the only cartoons to incorporate continuity, character arcs and dark themes were, if I’m remembering correctly, the japanese anime shows, Pirates of the dark water (great show, a Hanna-Barbera/WB production as well) and the DC Animated Universe that begun with Batman: the animated series, though that show didn’t had that strong of a continuity. SDMI, Young Justice and the legend of Korra were produced almost simultaneously, the former paving the way to the others.

    I had the chance of watching all 52 episodes when they originally aired (weekly in my country, I don’t live in the US) and was able to properly digest the turns and twists of the plot (the show ended april 26, 2013 in my region). I, too, watch a lot of cartoons, but I sincerely wasn’t able to predict anything as I was going. I didn’t know what to expect. At first, what really impressed me was the fact that, clearly, the show had been made by people who loved their original source material. That’s the difference between the SDMI creators and the 2002 live-action movie producers, who disrespected the core characters and gave us a big, fat joke.

    SDMI, however, is something altogether different. When I saw all the Scooby-Doo, Were are you! monsters in the spook museum I just lost it. And then, it was its scope, depth and genuine wit what caught my attention and kept me watching (seriously, I can’t count how many times I laughed with Daphne, Fred [boring, bland, I-have-0-personality Fred Jones! I never thought Fred could have a personality and a background and a tragic story but… god, the creators proved me wrong! And Frank Welker was the best, did you know he totally loved Fred’s backstory on the show?], Velma or Scooby). For one thing there was an overarching plot – and when was the last time you ever saw that in a children’s cartoon series? – creating genuine suspense by having the consequences directly affect the individual characters’ lives. That sold the show for me. But I think the real greatness of the series shows in the way the creators fleshed out the Scooby-Doo cast, who before this series, were among the most flavorless and simplistic ever displayed on a television screen. Scooby had never been so intense, so well-written before, and probably it won’t be in a long, long time. A couple of weeks ago, Tony Cervone said on twitter, responding to a fan, that he’d loved to continue the series someday in the future, but for now, WB is making the second worst Scooby show in history, so we’ll go back to that again.

    SDMI’s style was very influenced not only by Lost (in an interview, Tony Cervone described the show literally as “Lost for kids.”) but also by contemporary and classic cult live-action shows like Veronica Mars, X-Files, True detective, Game of thrones, the invisibles and, of course, by the Stephen King novels, H.P. Lovecraft mithos and the thousand horror movie refferences like Aliens, Beverly Hills: 90210, Batman: dark knight returns, Watchmen, Terminator, Saw and: most importantly, David Lynch’s works like Dune and Twin Peaks, to name a few. Nova, Scooby’s girlfriend, was based on Linda Harrison of the original version of Planet of the apes (Ruby and Spears produced an animated version of that movie in 1978). Crystal Cove, the Scooby gang’s true hometown, was
    the 2010 version of Laguna Beach, California, the original 1969 town were Ruby/Spears situated their Scooby-Doo, where are you! series. They revealed that, in the original series, the gang was not travelling the word on the mystery machine, by any means, but simply driving around the suburbs of Laguna Beach, their original hometown, located in California. They decided it would be more interesting and fun to change it to Crystal Cove, and tell the story of a tourist-trap town, like the real place in Orange County in southern Cal.

    Another fact that many people ignore and even refuse to accept, concerns the main characters’ real ages. In the original Ruby-Spears pitch materials, it said Shaggy and Fred are 17. Daphne is 16 and Velma is 15. It makes sense, but they sure didn’t act that way. So Ruby and Spears decided to portray the characters as they originally were in their pitch pilot: real meddling kids. Kids get in and out of relationships. They fight and support each other. They do kid stuff. In the process, Tony Cervone and his team developped a story arc around the characters, being Scooby fans themselves. Production of the first season ended in 2011 and the second season was anounced that same year in july at Comic-Con. It took them a whole year to complete the second season, which was the hardest to make, considering that they employed the help of another animation studio to improve the quality, hired more writers and a new art director, and all of that while running production on the Looney Tunes show, which had premiered in may 2011. They worked on many episodes, plots and things at once, so the production of season 2 wasn’t complete until january 2013, when the rest of the season was delivered to Cartoon Network for airing. Only recently the show was put on Netflix, I’m guessing that’s the way you saw it (right?), so it probably was a very different experience for you.

    But yeah, SDMI is a 2010-2013 show, the most recent actually, and has gained some of a still-growing fanbase, with many animation experts and critics considering it “the best itteration of the Scooby-Doo franchise ever produced,” with some of them adding “it even surpasses the original by a long shot.” the A.V. Club website gave it an A and a great review, animation historian Jerry Beck was fascinated by it, Deen of Geek made a list of ten reasons for watching it, and I’m glad each day more people are knowing and pouring over this great but somehow underrated series, which I had the pleasure of seing since day one. I’m also grateful to Tony Cervone and his crew, for keeping the Hanna-Barbera legacy still relevant and going to this day (he and one of the writers worked alongside Mr. Barbera himself, who better than them to do it?). I don’t know if you know this, but Mr. Cervone and the SDMI crew produced an updated version of Wacky Races, the 1968 famous H-B cartoon in 2006, but Cartoon Network executives rejected it. The pilot is on youtube and is so, so creatively awesome. In an interview, Mr. Cervone said something like, “We are fans of this cartoons too, and people need to understand that. We love and respect these characters,” and he is right.

    Because,, let’s face it, dear Kevin: the Warner Bros. producers could have easily decided to throw out yet another lame rehash of the original formula, another What’s new Scooby-Doo or something, and called it a day. That they decided to put some effort and imagination into this iteration is a remarkable thing in and of itself. That they succeeded so well in an age when most entertainment – both children’s and adult’s – is content to be as lazy and uninspired as possible is somewhat astounding and worthy of, at least, some praise. Really. When I saw the Jonny Quest/Blue Falcon episode I honestly thought I was dreaming and had gone to animated nostalgia heaven. And chapter 14… that was just for us fans. there’s no way the kids watching are gonna even know all those characters!

    There are so many small details, references, plots, character traids inspired by the original series that ended up being an integral part of SDMI’s story, it would be worthy of a completely separate article/review. So I’ll leave it here, I had another question for you but I forgot what it was. So yeah, thanks for replying and for hearing what I had to say. SDMI isn’t the perfect Scooby series, but its the closest we will ever get. Special thanks to Mr. Ruby and Mr. Spears, for many of the SDMI events, humor and places came from their minds, and having the original creators of the characters supporting what you do and helping you do it is something that rarely happens, especially in the animation industry these days. They hadn’t participated in any Scooby-Doo related progect since 1976! Warner didn’t even asked them or consulted them for anything, and probably will never do it again.

    P.S. Re-reading my previous comment, I’m ashamed of how many grammar/spelling mistakes I made. In my defense, I can only say that’s what happens when english is not your first language, and you try to do five things at the same time, failing miserably. Sorry for that, Kevin :/

  4. #4 by Admin on May 17, 2015 - 12:22 pm

    Hi George,

    First, I want to say this: I was completely, bone-headedly wrong about the show’s date.

    All this talk about Scooby-Doo has gotten me completely mixed up about which Scooby-Doo show aired when and where. Then I got somewhat confused by mixing it up with What’s New Scooby-Doo, which ended in 2006 but was shown around a bit on repeat after that. For some reason I got it trapped in my head that Mystery Incorporated was in 2006, and that’s just a grievous error. It has been fixed in the main post.

    Thanks for the explanation, I really appreciate it and no worries, your English is perfectly fine! What I noticed about your explanation (and this doesn’t necessarily pertain to just you, as many people have made this argument to me) is that there’s a lot of focus on everything the creators did outside the show. You mentioned Velma kicked Marcie out for a reason, but the reason provided is just the creators two-year plan of plotting, and that it was important to said plot. That’s all well and good, but I want to know why Velma, herself, kicked Marcie off the team, a reason that’s integral to the characters and their forward-progression towards their endgame. Explanations of characters actions that ends with, “well the writers needed to happen” is generally understood to be bad writing. Normally it’s in bad taste to suggest what they should’ve done, but an easy fix would’ve been to spend one episode exploring how all six characters tried to solve a mystery, how that wasn’t working out, and that being the reason they kicked Marcie out. Considering that they showed why four characters didn’t work in “The Night the Clown Cried,” the fact they didn’t narrow their focus to why these specific five only just feels like a missed opportunity.

    And that’s really my issue with it. Listening and reading about all the hard, detailed work that everyone put into this show, from the animation, to the plotting, to the designs and scope of the show at large, to all the references, details, plots and character traits from the original series (as well as the obvious horror allusions), what I’m not seeing is anyone sitting down and asking a central, basic question: why do these five characters work so well together? How do they relate to each other, as friends, as colleagues, as co-worker, etc. And we’re only provided the basics – Fred and Daphne’s romantic woes, Shaggy and Scooby’s gluttonous friendship, Velma’s stoicness. I kept wondering, like, what did Fred think of Scooby? How do Velma and Daphne work past their social differences and click together? How about Fred and Shaggy? That core interplay between the teammates, that cohesion, that allowed them to solve crime after crime while essentially pushing past that manipulating, controlling evil – that’s what I wanted see. What did the the Mystery Inc. team possess, intrinsically, that the other groups in the past did not have, and that they didn’t have when Marcie was on the team? Why do they need each other? And if no one can answer that question outside of “well, the writers were planning…” then I personally can’t see that as a good thing.

    And that’s what made Night Terrors (chapter 36?) such a viciously divisive episode for me. That one moment, from Shaggy/Daphne’s makeout session, to Fred’s freakout, to Shaggy gross boasting, to their hostile response to Velma’s snark – everything about that scene represents how little, I felt, the writers actually cared about the question of the characters’ cohesion and camaraderie. I guess they thought that was funny? But it just presented a buttload of questions (did Shaggy always feel that way about Daphne?) while at the same time placing the characters in an awful, awful light. And saying that this was all part of some grand plan, to me, is emotionally and narratively dishonest. Part of Lost’s downfall was its creators claiming it was all about the characters; here, the claim is that it was all about the plot, and that really comes off worse in my eyes. (I’m very vocal about this Night Terror scene because of how representative it is of the show’s flaws, and how it emotionally unnerving it made me. Just thinking about it gets me upset, and if that scene didn’t exist, I might’ve left the show with a slightly more favorable opinion.)

    Two things about me. 1) As you can probably guess I tend to get really engaged with characters in cartoons, I really love and emphasize great character dynamics, and how a great, fun cast can make any weak cartoon premise into something at least watchable; it can make or break a show. 2) I’m not at all that interested in “dramatic, dark” storytelling as a core virtue of quality, and I actually tend to push back pretty virulently against the idea that a show (animated or otherwise) is inherently worthy of discussion just because it’s dark or dramatic (it reeks of immaturity, to solely praise mature shows, without the necessary irony to contextualize it – I mean, a “serious, mature Scooby-Doo”? Let’s slow down a bit there!) Also, not to be that guy but SDMI isn’t the first animated show show to approach long term storytelling in a dramatic way. You have Gargoyles, Last Airbender, the DCU, Pirates of Dark Water, Project GEEKER – hell, the Aladdin TV show has a small layer of growth to it, the misguided Loonatics show was building towards something, not to mention shows like Jem and the Holograms. Hell, Rocky and Bullwinkle had mini arcs that lasted a few weeks or so, and sillier cartoons like Penguins of Madagascar and Phineas and Ferb all possess forward momentum. SDMI really isn’t doing anything new, just applying it to a Scooby-Doo formula. (And I don’t mean to be dismissive of SDMI’s scope, I’m just can’t give the show a pass because they put a ton of work into it – I mean, that’s technically what you’re supposed to do as a creative staff on a TV show.)

    And I guess that’s really it, I mean I picked up on most of the references, and I figured the museum was old school villains (and, FYI, I have a soft spot for Scrappy-Doo, but that’s something for another day), and while you may have “lost it” when those references were made, I was more concerned whether they’d, you know, do something with that? And to me, they didn’t; love letters are all well and good (Cats Don’t Dance is a pure love letter to the classic 1930s Merrie Melodies shorts) but if the characters aren’t working for me, I can’t sing the show’s praises.

    So, yeah, sorry if that came off a bit rant-y – I just feel as if that the writers missed a huge opportunity in their overall focus on the big picture.

  5. #5 by Carrie on July 3, 2015 - 11:48 pm

    I think you hit the nail on the head as to why I just can’t enjoy this show. It had a lot of good things going for it, but I just couldn’t get past how just unpleasant a lot of it seemed and I could not buy the supposed “friendship” between this version of the gang.

    Also, that new “Be Cool, Scooby-Doo” show that’s being called “another comical, poorly scripted, Family-Guy-looking show, Scooby will revert to the mediocre, childish show we all know”… the show isn’t even out yet, maybe it should be given a chance before calling it poorly written. I mean yeah, I think the style looks bad myself, but the writing might be able to make up for it. Just because something is more comedic than dark and edgy doesn’t make it mediocre or inferior. Plus, Scooby has done serious, dark plots before (Zombie Island, Witch’s Ghost, heck even that 13 Ghosts series whether you like it or not had some interesting elements with a dark theme and story arch even if it was still very much comedic) which a lot of people in the Scooby fanbase loved in those cases. I also fail to see why it’s only in Mystery Incorporated that the gang are finally well-rounded characters; they’ve all had a fair amount of growth over the years in different shows, but with Mystery Inc. they feel like nothing more than one-note jerks.

    I’ve seen very brief and unscourced claims of how much Joe Ruby and Ken Spears were involved in MI and how they said it was exactly what they wanted to do in 1969. But then again, I heard from someone that went to WonderCon some time ago where the two were having a meet and greet, that they said that they HATED it because it didn’t get the spirit of the series/characters. It doesn’t really mean much anyways, I suppose, as I wouldn’t start liking the show just because they did, and the many fans of this show wouldn’t stop being fans if it was the other way.

  6. #6 by David on September 5, 2015 - 6:45 pm

    All I get from this is person that doesn’t have a sense of humor at all. And takes everything as serious as possible.

  7. #7 by Greg on November 24, 2015 - 10:25 pm

    One small point that may or may not have been pointed out… Mr Peabody is the genius dog. Sherman is the boy. You kept getting it the other way around.

  8. #8 by Colines on December 1, 2015 - 3:21 am

    David :
    All I get from this is person that doesn’t have a sense of humor at all. And takes everything as serious as possible.

    You seem to have missed the point of all this or simply doesn’t have enough vision or understanding to review a show. Remember that cartoons have so much impact to the culture as the series like X-Files, Friends, etc, so it’s valid to take a deeply analizys on them.

    Also, if SDMI tried the humor approuch, then it miserable failed to do so.

  9. #9 by David on December 23, 2015 - 3:25 am

    Colines :

    David :
    All I get from this is person that doesn’t have a sense of humor at all. And takes everything as serious as possible.

    You seem to have missed the point of all this or simply doesn’t have enough vision or understanding to review a show. Remember that cartoons have so much impact to the culture as the series like X-Files, Friends, etc, so it’s valid to take a deeply analizys on them.
    Also, if SDMI tried the humor approuch, then it miserable failed to do so.

    If you call being stupidly nitpicky over such trivial matters a “review” You really need help.

    And as for humor, that’s entirely subjective. It failed buy what? You standards. Don’t make me laugh.

  10. #10 by David on December 23, 2015 - 3:28 am

    Colines :

    David :
    All I get from this is person that doesn’t have a sense of humor at all. And takes everything as serious as possible.

    You seem to have missed the point of all this or simply doesn’t have enough vision or understanding to review a show. Remember that cartoons have so much impact to the culture as the series like X-Files, Friends, etc, so it’s valid to take a deeply analizys on them.
    Also, if SDMI tried the humor approuch, then it miserable failed to do so.

    The so called deep analyze fall flat when it comes to being stupidly sensitive over trivial matters.

  11. #11 by Admin on December 23, 2015 - 11:58 am

    Hi David,

    I’m not of the illusion that people would not massively disagree with my review. And that’s fine. I actually feel bad I didn’t like it, because I wanted to, and as I mentioned, the effort is there, and there’s definitely a commitment to the series as a whole that screams potential. But, for whatever reason, it just didn’t click with me, and I’ll readily admit that the show did indeed do a few things that… well, I wouldn’t call it nit-picking per se, but there were some minor details that rubbed me the wrong way that other viewers seemed okay to ignore. Which, okay, is fine. For example, I’m more lenient with fart jokes than most people, so there’s always some aspects that exist in TV that really just “get” to people, you know? I don’t think it’s about sensitivity. It’s just a subjective response to certain creative decisions. Just like humor itself.

    Regardless, the details I pointed out were just specifics that represented what I thought overall was MI’s biggest issue: poor characterization. The adventures and stories were fine, but I think how the characters were portrayed and/or developed were… well, bad. Again, a lot of people disagree with me, and that’s fine, I just was not feeling them. I tried to explain why in the review.

    I’m glad you and others enjoyed it – it just wasn’t for me.

  12. #12 by Philip on March 6, 2016 - 8:20 pm

    Thank you! I love this review. You nailed the problems spot on. Now that I’m watching Be Cool Scooby Doo, I’m realizing that when you remake a franchise, you don’t have to make as many changes as you think.

    Be Cool keeps the story and everything simple and more importantly fun. While Mystery Incorporated is beloved by SOME people, I think the better one is the new Be Cool.

  13. #13 by ZC-Infinity on November 1, 2016 - 11:59 pm

    I really liked what you said about the Mr Peabody and Sherman movie. The major problem with it is that they never establish what Mr Peabody IS in the movie. He’s shown as a dog at the beginning, relegated to eventually being someone’s pet… but he’s also talking, inventing, graduating from prestigious universities… and nobody bats an eye? How does the relationship between dogs and humans work in this universe? In order for the joke that he’s an intelligent, talking dog that nobody questions to work, they would need to establish that there are OTHER talking dogs in this universe OR they could establish that he’s the only talking dog much to the surprise of the other characters in the movie OR they just ignore it altogether and pretend that he’s just a regular guy and not a dog who’s different from the others around him, as they did in the show. The message the movie constantly pushes about dogs being able to raise humans makes no sense since we’re never given an alternate look where either Peabody is seen as a one-of-a-kind freak or he’s a rebel who chose not to take the role we would have seen most dogs take, aka, being subservient pets. It’s made all the more confusing when animal control comes to take him away to euthanize him, because, again, the context of dogs’ role in this universe isn’t established, so why is the pound coming to take him away and not the police? The movie tries to give so much backstory and drama to these characters from the 60s, they forget to create a foundation for the rest of the movie that syncs with how others are supposed to act towards them. We can see this same problem in the movies Horton Hears a Who and the upcoming Boss Baby. If the main character is calling attention to the obvious, there has to be a reason why everyone else is oblivious to it in order for the joke to work. Put simply: If you’re going to call attention to it, then explain it! Otherwise, have the joke be that they exist and nobody cares. This problem, among others, is why the Sherman and Peabody movie is, unfortunately, one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.

    And I liked what you said about how the characters are basically the one-note personas they’ve been since the sixties, upped to ridiculous levels to the detriment of the show. It’s the same I feel with the Muppets TV show, how they refuse to let the characters grow and instead go to great lengths to keep them in a bubble where everything’s the same no matter what, and when something does happen, it’s forced and uncomfortable and just paints the characters as neurotic wrecks. There could have been different team line-ups, there could have been characters gaining new hobbies, there could have been obstacles everyone would need to overcome to return to normal. It wouldn’t have to be permanent, but it could be an arc that would span several episodes or even the entire series, reverting back to the status quo at the end. Velma and Shaggy’s relationship didn’t work since it was forced and no chemistry or hints to anything lasting were given. I would have been ok with it if they were actually willing to go through with it, but instead, they were afraid of the fanbase(like the Ghostbusters reboot) and hit the reset button.

    So yes, the show was very interesting to look at and the creepiness levels were fascinatingly intense. It’s just a shame that the characters were basically the same blank slates they’ve been forever and couldn’t contribute to their own show…

  14. #14 by Cheryl Martin on January 22, 2017 - 1:38 am

    I don’t like the Artist. They need to get a couple of different new artists. Please bring the old ones back. I don’t mind the story line . The artist isn’t keeping with the old artists classic art. In this age of so much change you need to have more variety of artists. That’s why I don’t watch Family guy or American Dad Anymore. The same artist is on To many . Please get another artist for the other cartoons, Please! Not the same one

Comments are closed.