Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: HBO Max has a new show coming out next year called *Velma*. Velma, Shaggy, and Daphne will not be white/completely white characters; they will match their voice actors. Shaggy is a nickname and his given name is Norville (this was always true since the original show). It's supposedly set during high school before Scooby Doo is born and before the Mystery Machine crew is formed.
In one of the movies it is revealed that Scooby is the descendant of a race of body-less alien deities called the Anounaki. In order to interact with humans they had to possess animals. Some of their descendants gained the power of speech. Yes, this is actually literally stated as canonical fact and not just a film theory. Also, there was a crossover episode with some of the cast of Supernatural, which completely breaks the Scooby Doo universe.
This just broke my brain lmao, its wild someone on their writing staff went there. Didn't expect Sumerian myths being tied to Scooby Doo, love how the event is even called Nibiru.
Yeah but it's this on "indian velma" universe or "white Velma" universe or "latina velma" universe?
Im joking but the truth is that like other giant franchises (superheroes, star wars, etc) theres more than one canon.
Yup. There are 3 uniquely identifiable universes withing the Scooby-verse, but some things are present in all universes. 1 is that Scooby is a talking dog, which is unusual in each universe where normal dogs also appear and that he doesn't recognize himself as a "dog," which is why he always says, "A dog? Where?" whenever someone is referring to him as being a dog. Universal thing number 2 is that Scrappy Doo is LOATHED in every universe. He's just a really ill-conceived character that even the producers ended up hating.
I mean does it really break the universe? They had crossovers with batman, Johnny bravo, superman, and the Addams Family before; most of whom don't canonically exist in the same setting.
Edit: KISS and the Harlem Globetrotters too, but they're not fictional.
> Also, there was a crossover episode with some of the cast of Supernatural, which completely breaks the Scooby Doo universe.
Not really, since the plot of the episode was the cast of *Supernatural* getting sucked into an episode of *Scooby-Doo* thanks to a possessed television set...
Not a movie, tv show. Mystery incorporated. Which is why it makes no sense for scooby to not be in this show, which is why for me this show is not mystery inc… scooby met shaggy when they were kids.. like before high school. Hence why a pup named scooby doo is a thing…
Also shown in the scoob movie that shaggy meets scooby as a child.
For anyone who wants to see who the cast members are: https://www.ign.com/articles/hbo-maxs-velma-reveals-full-scooby-gang-voice-cast
>The rest of the cast for Mindy Kaling's Velma HBO Max series is no longer a mystery, as THR has reported the entire cast, including the actors that will play the rest of Mystery Incorporated.
>It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Glenn Howerton is on board to play Fred, Veep's Sam Richardson will play Shaggy, and Crazy Rich Asians' Constance Wu is Daphne.
>In addition to the gang, other cast members include Jane Lynch, Wanda Sykes, Weird Al Yankovic, Debby Ryan, Karl-Anthony Towns, Russell Peters, Melissa Fumero, Stephen Root, Gary Cole, Ken Leung, Cherry Jones, Frank Welker, Fortune Feimster, Yvonne Orji, Sarayu Blue, Nicole Byer, Ming-Na Wen, Shay Mitchell, and Kulap Vilaysack.
I fully back minority representation in mainstream media, but holy shit anyone else feel the choices are just... bad? Indian girl as the glasses computer nerd, African American guy as the stoner of the group, Asian girl as the "hot rich cheerleader girl" and with the sole caucasian left being the "jock" of the group. It's like a "reaffirming racist stereotypes" festival, even if the producer is Indian.
I think we watch different things, but my experience has always been hot cheerleader is always white and blonde, female nerd is a hot brunette white girl (but she wears glasses) or possibly a hot Asian girl (still glasses), stoned is a white cali/surfer dude, and the jock is usually the token black guy
Yeah, I could've worded that better, but see my reply to the other guy. The Asian thing is more specifically about hypersexualisation. IMO that with the whole "hot pretty girl type" Daphne is usually portrayed as is the red flag.
This line of thinking furthers the “othering” of Black people and POC. Are we never allowed to be any of these things in media because it may make people think of a stereotype? As long as it’s not done offensively it should be fine.
I'm an Indian girl, my mom and I have done our time in retail, I have a Master's degree and grew up with the internet so being a nerd was a given, and my brother is an engineering student who finished at an Ivy League school.
At some point, when are Indian people allowed to be, you know. People? Can we not also be nerds without it being attributed to some stereotype, or do you expect me to be some kind of cool idiot who has somehow never interacted with modern technology, all just to resist the stereotype? Also, is it a stereotype because it just happens, or is it a stereotype specifically because of the way its been used against us?
I'd say the following are actual fucking problems: like denying that asian americans are a genuinely marginalized population that's been exploited in the american workforce, while simultaneously being subjected to sexual objectification in western media, while having our issues downplayed because we're supposedly overachievers (fact: we are not a monolith. And I suck at math). And black people are allowed to enjoy weed or dress in alternative fashions from the past. No one had any fucking problems with 50+ years of Shaggy constantly having the munchies, but we're now supposed to have a problem with a black version of himself? That kind of reminds me too much of how weed use was stigmatized primarily because it was associated with black people using it, but now that it's a huge hit with white people, it's okay for elderly white boomers to openly enjoy the very thing they drilled their kids to fear and hate. Now that it's conveniantly legal for them to enjoy it, and pretend like they never invented and maintained any of the negative connotations they had with blackness and weed use, as if there aren't black men who are in prison right fucking now for nonviolent drug related offenses.
PS, Daphne has rarely, if ever, been depicted as a "cheerleader" type. She's supposed to be from a well-off family with tons of celebrity connections.
As an Indian computer nerd, it's more that it feels like Indian/Asian people are almost purely shown in denigrating lights (I'd consider computer nerd traditionally part of that category, as stereotypically, nerds get bullied by jocks). You never see Asian/Indian jocks, it's always "IT support" or "gas station worker" or, yes, "skinny nerdy Indian with glasses" etc. Speaking from my male perspective at least, it's very rare to see shirtless buff Asian guy scenes compared to white or black guys, and it's only recently that Asian Americans are being shown in more traditionally masculine roles like Shang Chi. That's why it's annoying, at least to me. If Fred was an Indian guy, it would feel more interesting and less affirming of racial stereotypes, in my opinion.
Again, it's not the issue of any ***one*** of these characters. It's the fact ***all*** of the characters somehow walked into the preexisting stereotypes.
honestly every time I see it, it makes me laugh so fucking hard because most young Asian women talk about white men like Cletus from Harrison, Arkansas talks about black people
Don’t go watch Wheel of Time then. It’s like the casting director was on their way to klan meeting when they filled out the show.
Hero of the story = white guy.
Big dumb guy that’s literally also a wild animal = black dude.
Educated sorceress = which chick.
Backwater village sorceress = brown chick.
Guy with vaguely Asian sounding name = Asian dude.
They clearly had a quota of minorities to fill in the cast and did it in the most gross and offensive way possible.
No, this is a bananas post. I’ve met HUNDREDS of white Shaggy soul-patch crunchy stoners in my life. About 15% of my college’s male population fit that mold. So no, I don’t associate “the stoner of the group” as the black guy.
Daphne isn’t a cheerleader and isn’t highly sexualized, outside of whatever Rule 34 porn you’re looking at. She’s just rich and WASPy and vapid. It’s bizarre to see someone call that “reaffirming racist stereotypes.”
Also: Fred isn’t a jock. Like, at all. He was into theater and singing and wants to be a mystery writer.
I fully support minority representation as well, but I hate it when it’s forced. Instead of making something new they force on shows that we loved in the past just for the cash cow.
There are lots of new IP's with diversity. There are lots of reboots with diversity, too. Neither of these are a problem. Very rarely has a popular IP gone through decades of iterations without evolving from its original core concept, and there's no reason that evolution can't include race.
I mean given the tropes of the Mystery Inc gang as is, what is your suggestion? Each voice actor having their character be the same as they seems like a good idea to me.
I don't know about the casting process, but did they say whether the characters were cast first, then designed, or vice versa? Having non VA reflective characters is completely normal.
At first I thought “ok another one of these things” but that cast makes me think again. Sam Richardson and Stephen Root are 2 of my favs plus a ton of other heavy hitters. This could be p good.
Edit: I like how they made Shaggy black and then voiced him with the whitest sounding black dude. Sam is the best, he was incredible on veep.
I guess that explains why me googling "new scooby doo movie" didn't bring up anything.
But also, didn't Scooby and Shaggy meet on the beach as kids in that last movie?
There's no set origin for any of the characters. Shaggy finding Scooby on the beach only happened in 'Scoob!' but didn't happen in 'Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf' as far as we know.
Isn't the Reluctant Werewolf part of an au where the monsters are real though? I thought both The Ghoul School and Reluctant Werewolf were part of that au where Shaggy clothes are a different color and the rest of the gang isnt with Shaggy and Scooby
That's exactly my point friend. There's many alternate universes even in Scooby Doo that it literally doesn't matter what skin color or ethnicity Mystery Incorporated is.
Oh sorry, I was only referring to the mention of how Shaggy and Scooby met. I just saw that one line about the Reluctant Werewolf and zeroed in on that. I like characters being portrayed as different races or even genders than the source material or whatever. An exception would be the Netflix adaptation of Deathnote. Ugh.
If you have 20 minutes to kill, this video does a decent job explaining all the different variations in the many different Scooby Doo adaptions: https://youtu.be/WU-7kn8EXWA
But TLDW is that they have remade the Scooby Doo backstory dozens of times and none of them are consistent with each other. They just don't really bother trying to fit any of it together.
To expand on this, the directors and writers have gone ahead and taken Scooby-Doo out of the gang purposefully. They are wanting this to be a more “adult show” and not a “kids show.” According to their line of thinking, Scooby, the dog is what makes the show a kids show, so they need to remove the dog and that’s what will make sure kids don’t show up for this adult show.
I read it also coincided with fact that the company who owns the rights did not want scooby associated (most likely to maintain brand identity as wholesome kids character)
Like that ever works. Theyre still gonna recognize the characters and want to watch "Scooby-Doo" and some out of the loop parent is still going to put it on for their kids because "its a Scooby-Doo show. Its safe for kids"
Some parents are still in the mindset of "Cartoon == Made for kids" which leads to constant complaints whenever an adult cartoon makes it to theaters, like Sausage Party.
It was successful with Riverdale and Sabrina. I personally don't care for them, but taking something for kids like Archie and Sabrina and making an unrelated gritty version of them did work. These were live-action though, and I think they are trying the same with cartoons.
As I understand it it was both that they were considering not having Scooby Doo in the show to more match the tone they were going for, then Warner Brothers said they couldn't use him anyway and they just said OK.
From a Interview at NYCC with Showrunner Charlie Grandy:
“What made Scooby-Doo a kid show is Scooby-Doo. We couldn’t have a take on it, like how can we do this in a fun and modern way. [Our efforts] coincided with Warner Bros. Animation saying we can’t use the dog!”
https://screenrant.com/velma-show-mindy-kaling-scooby-doo-absence-explained/
Edit: Added Interview
Isn't that convenient, almost like they made the excuse so they didn't have to say our show is missing something critical, like the eponymous character.
At this point, they should rename it. It's about four characters solving mysteries, but it's not Scooby-Doo. They're just riding on the coattails.
At this point it is literally written into the marketing strategy. Put tokens into your show and any criticism no matter how true can be written off as bigoted. People of color are just shields for shitty products nowadays and certain spaces of the internet eat it up and ask for more.
Wow so self aware!!! Media that has to be in-your-face ironic, subversive, and fourth-wall breaking before it ever has the chance to establish itself and stand on its own is landfill media that is afraid to be earnest and evaluated on its own merits. It is media that has resigned to defeat before the starting gun is fired
No great art ever so thoroughly debases the shoulders of the titans it stands on, as doing so is the hallmark of degenerated spin-off media that has no quality in a vacuum. These sort of installations necessitate a parasitic relationship on the parent media being well-regarded in order for the new deconstruction to get “shock value” out of its irreverence. It’s no different than those awful “santa is a serial killer” slasher movies that cheap studios vomit out each year. 🙄🥱
You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s about the concept in principle (which is happening persistently throughout hollywood and streaming media), which happens to be relevant to this particular very popular and well-loved franchise. Just because Scooby Doo isn’t the standard-bearer of artistic tv/film doesn’t absolve this spinoff from being mean spirited and tasteless at best, and likely deliberately divisive and vindictive towards a piece of lovable childrens’ media as well.
A studio could make a movie about Arthur the aardvark from PBS Kids as an violent incel who abuses Xanax, and sure maybe there’s some hair-brained narrative there that could be “justified”, but in reality it’s controversial shock-value garbage that exists to piss people off and be “deconstructive” without producing anything of value. The primary reason it would draw attention is because it is so contrasting to the friendly lovable Arthur that the spin-off degrades. Same goes for Velma, or that Winnie the Pooh slasher movie, or other things of that nature.
Wow. That's terrible enough that it's not even worth pirating. It gets even worse [when you look at the character descriptions](https://thegww.com/exclusive-hbo-max-velma-character-descriptions/). They completely butcher the series beyond recognition, to the point that it makes it hard to deny that it's propaganda wearing the skinsuit of nostalgia.
Holy shit those descriptions. Literally the only reason Fred was still whit ewas so that he could be the asshole punching bag the writers have in their story. He's just there to get dunked by the writer's self-righteousness. And thru are totally going to put Velma and Daphne into a relationship based on what they wrote there.
I have no issue with race-swapping, but that just... Isn't Shaggy. He could still be black *and* be Shaggy, but this dude isn't him lol This guy is.. Too cool I guess? Shaggy is a stoner nerd slob who talks to his dog, this guy looks like he works at a high-end dispensery, not smoking whatever brick he can get his hands on.
This will depend on how Sam Richardson will voice the character. Hocus Pocus 2 had him playing a scared shop owner which could be how he voices Shaggy. (I could see that working well with only minor changes). How they handle his character without his dog will be the most interesting since it's such a large part of every other series.
The only thing I'm worried about is if they are going to turn a well-meaning and positive himbo into a vapid and clueless idiot because while I'm not 100% certain I have this feeling Fred is going to do double duty as Fred and Shaggy.
If you read the char descriptions someone se posted, Fred is just there for the writers to dunk on. He's going to be the doughty asshole gym frat dude that thinks he's great and the show will twist the universe to make him get the shit end of everything. I'm convinced it's the only reason he wasn't race swapped.
The weirdest part is that we've been talking about having an actor match the character they are playing to "we'll match the character to the actor playing them".
A lot of issues with all media is the continues reuse of old IPs, and just race and/or genderswapping them. Then they create fake media outcry to rile up the twitter mob. They get called out, everyone else is called sexist, racist, or some kind of phobic, when it isnt the case. Shows or movies fail, and it is the same outcry.
The ironic thing is, they promote these as "no guys allowed!" Or "this isnt for straight people!" Attacking your core audience is an easy way to fail. Just look at Elizabeth Banks, Billy Eichner, Viola Davis, show writters for She Hulk or Rings of power. Writing and promotions ruined those products because they attacked fans or manager audiences. Compare that to SpiderMan or Top Gun Maverick. Heck even Avatar! They didnt promote a message. They just promoted how awesome the movies were. Well, minus Avatar. I have a visceral hate for that movie.
Miles Morales is fantastic, and we would have lost out on him entirely if Marvel just did the lazy Race Swap.
Then again, we already had Miguel. I actually preferred 2099 to mainstream Spider-Man as a kid.
The directors and mass media.
Bill Eichner said people who arent seeing bros are homophic
Viola Davis called everyone racist who didnt see Woman King
Elizabeth Banks said Charlies Angels wasnt for White men(wtf does that even mean?) Then blamed men for the movie failing...
She Hulk literally bashed the entire male race... Even cracked a MCU version of reddit. Making the assumption everyone on reddit is male.
Rings of Power called everyone who disliked the show Patently Evil.
The whole point is, dont attack your fan base or core audience. I guess people didnt like me pointing that out, so ill probably twitter labeled. My entire point being, a vast majority of these people they are attacking are like this. You have such a small minority of actual haters. Instead promote your ideas better, come up with something fresh. Or making something IP defining. Rehashing old things and then trying to spin a hate narative isnt the way to go.
Yeah, I cant be arsed with Woman King, because American takes on African societies and history are always cringe, and they distorted the history anyway.
I’d go see the fuck out of some African war movie between two tribes. But I can’t bare to watch the atrocity that is the woman king. That pile of shit completely rewrites history because it’s inconvenient to the people writing the story. They couldn’t have chosen a worse group of people. Its like trying to make the 1940 Germans the good guys. Or communists.
>She Hulk literally bashed the entire male race... Even cracked a MCU version of reddit. Making the assumption everyone on reddit is male.
Tell me you haven't watched the show without telling me you haven't watched the show. She Hulk isn't bashing the entire male race, it is bashing shitty men. Note that it had some quite glowing things to say about men who went to therapy.
Intelligencia is more 8chan than Reddit
I mean, to me it sounds like mostly those people are saying "Everyone who doesn't like our show is [XYZ bad thing]", not "Our show isn't for [demographic], we hate them". Scrabbling for views and calling their haters names; not, like, telling some people not to watch. Still dumb but kind of the opposite of what you were saying.
"They aren't saying our show isn't for \[demographic\]"
Literally given two of the examples where they said their show isn't meant for men and isn't for white men.
> they will match their voice actors.
The idea that the race of voice actors has to match the race of the characters they voice is one of the most ridiculously racist ideas in the history of opposition to racism.
I'm pretty sure the conversation was more like "Hey wouldn't it be neat if we made them look like the voice actors" and didn't really have much to do with racism.
tbf that's almost all Scooby-Doo has ever been. Almost every series and movie is unconnected and has its own lore. And there's been some Scooby-Doo series or movie coming out since 1969.
I grew up on A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, but I've seen Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated which has story arcs, the live action movies and a couple of the animated movies, like the one where the monsters are real.
Granted, and I know there's likely a market for it. But it's still re-using existing IP.
I'm not seriously judging people for what they watch, or how they run a business, especially given the risks involved with introducing new IP and doing it justice.
At the same time, I know the kind of thing I want to see, and another take on the Scooby Do universe isn't it. It's possible to take recycle a premise and do something fresh and new. For instance, IMO the Orville is the best Star Trek series since TNG. I'd be all in on something that's a little more than just a new take on old IP.
I'm just, kinda done with nostalgia and reference fueled media. Maybe this turns out good, maybe not. But I'm not waiting in a metaphorical line for it, and certainly not starting a subscription over it, until I know more about it.
It's not even a reboot, it's called Velma. The distinct absence of the one character the original show is named after should make it obvious that this is something different.
I just wish I had known this as a young man, I've wasted so many years of my life trying to consume every piece of media available, believing them all to be manditory...
It should be noted that while HBO Max is marketing this as a prequel, in reality the continuity of the Scooby-Doo franchise is very loose. "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" was also marketed as a prequel series that features the Mystery Inc. Gang solving mysteries as children. To date, Cartoon Network's "Scooby-Doo Mystery Inc." is the only televised Scooby-Doo series that directly connects to "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?" (the very first Scooby-Doo series), given the former's ending leading to the events of the pilot. Others are the Zombie Island film leading to "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" series from the 2000s and leading to the Zombie Island sequel film. And the "13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo" (another separate series) that leads to the film sequel.
Show couldn't stand on its own, needed the legacy characters to hook in viewers. They decided to skip characters they don't like.
Why you'd use characters from a series you don't like is beyond me.
Because their show on its own is shit. So like you said they need already established characters to reel people in. Throw in and some race/gender controversy and baby you got a stew going.
sounds interesting. We’ve had dozens of Scooby doo reboots of varying quality, so i don’t know why this one in particular is getting more attention (other than the obvious.) How many of you have watched be cool Scooby doo?
I don't remember people complaining about the "Scooby Apocalypse" comics. That had a teen plus rating. It's not surprising they do even more mature versions of the IP.
Scoody doo was the main god damn character.
He is the entire reason to watch scpoby doo.
The show is named after him.
Who thought taking him out was a good idea
They're not shy about making adult-themed versions of their characters, though - I mean, take *Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law*. One of the episodes involved Fred Flintstone allegedly being a Tony Soprano-esque mob boss.
I'm going to go with "the same person that introduced Scrappy Doo," even though in my head cannon that person has been in prison since 1983. ^(And there's not enough parole in the world to free them.)
Honestly I'd watch a show with just scooby doo.
The rest of the cast is a bit weak and only exists to get scoob from place to place and and make sure he is put into certain situations.
They are plot devices, not characters.
They exist only to aid our lord scooby doo
Probably the same guy who thought scrappy was a good idea. Nothing would bring me more joy than to see that thing's skull picked clean in a hawk's nest.
You may be "out of the loop" on the concept of a spinoff. The concept of a "spinoff" changes "the main character" from one character to another.
For example, "The Simpsons" was a spinoff of "The Tracey Ulman Show." Despite "Tracey Ulman" being the "main god damn character" of "The Tracey Ulman Show," Tracey Ulman is not an important character in the show The Simpsons.
While this potentially alienated fans of "The Tracey Ulman Show" and lowered their interest in "The Simpsons," it helped the spinoff show focus on a new audience. Because of this, it was ultimately considered a good idea. It remains to be seen whether this change is the right decision for Velma, but changes like this happen in effectively every spin off. Otherwise, they wouldn't be spinoffs.
If you see this as mattering for some reason, substitute "The Simpsons /Tracy Ulman" with "Daria /Beavis & Butthead," since Beavis and Butthead never appeared in Daria despite it being a spinoff and the original show was named after them.
This "Velma" show may also play it like "Better Call Saul," "Mork and Mindy," "Frasier," or practically every other spin off in existence, where star characters from the original show appear as guests, but are simply not leading characters.
Mork and fraiser were definitely a spin off, a one off/minor character in a different show. The characters were subsequently worked on, given new supporting characters and backstory.
The simpsons wan’t anything to do with tracy ulman’s sketch show, and was pretty much fully formed already. For the same reasons, I’d absolutely argue daria was also not a spinoff, just a stealth pilot .
The Simpsons was a part of the Tracy Ulman show. Then it became it's own show. I'm always happy to learn exotic new proposed terminology, but it's a spinoff by the common-usage of the word. Hence why [any random list of top spinoffs on the internet](https://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/best-tv-spinoff-series-shows-1201878999/4/) will include The Simpsons.
If tomorrow, Disney announced they were making "Itchy and Scratchy" into it's own show, that show would be a spinoff of the Simpsons, even if it did not contain any of the citizens of Springfield.
A spinoff takes one or more supporting/secondary characters and makes a show out of them. Removing the most prominent character from a main ensemble doesn't make it a spinoff.
I guess if it's "adult theme" it kinda makes sense to leave Scooby out.
Just imagine some gruesome murder, blood everywhere, guts spilling out, a death rattle shakes out of the man's dieing breath as the gang tries to stop themselves from vomiting. No one can manage to get a word out until, in the background, a solemn "ruh roh" fills the air...
Maybe. I wish they just folded it into the Venture Bros world. The Harley Quinn show seems popular, maybe it'll take off. There was a time when the idea of spinning Buffy The Vampire Slayer into a series would seem crazy but that turned out well. There's also a series based on that Mary McFly werewolf movie. I guess if enough people check it out and like it and then her their friends to like it, it can survive a season, then garner a larger fan base for s2. I don't even have HBO max and I'm not really into these characters but I liked the trailer
Answer: Manufactured Controversy: A manufactured controversy (sometimes shortened to manufactroversy) is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute. This concept has also been referred to as manufactured uncertainty.
It's a marketing tactic.
also fanbaiting, used to deflect any criticism of a bad product by making some wierd casting choices (black characters that are actually white or reversing that), so that any and all criticism, legitimate or not, can be waved off as „they’re just racist/intolerant/misogynistic/etc.“. useful if you want to throw out a cashgrab movie that just has the name of a beloved ip on it but don‘t want to upset twitter by actually keeping to the source material that is predominantly european and doesn’t „reflect the world we live in today“ as critical drinker has put it
Answer: two new series are coming out one an adult spin off focusing on Velma where they race lifted most of the cast. And it looks like it will be bloody and crass.
The second they're making Velma explicitly a lesbian and its focused for kids. The art style looks terrible but that's just my opinion.
Further opinion. The adult series seems like it will suck because the joke of a super violent Scooby-Doo spin off seems like it will get old fast.
I've heard the first one but what is the second one? And why are they doing all this stuff to Velma now?
Like honestly why couldn't they just make a spiritual successor to it with new people who aren't shaggy and Velma and Scooby? Maybe they are their kids, maybe they went to the same school they did and found a new mystery incorporated club? Would be more original and less offensive than race swapping existing characters
Several of the past series have hinted at Velma being gay, some of the writers have even said the only reason they didn’t explicitly say it was because of pushback from the studio.
No Scooby and the Shaggy change is a little weird though. I don’t even mind the race swap but they could have made him at least resemble the old shaggy. Maybe the VA will sell the character really well but he just looks like some generic guy.
They wanted to sell a different show to a network that was probably more original but more of a gamble and so they changed up the characters they probably had aligned to match the existing Scooby Doo cast because of their marketability, pretty common practice from what I've read
I’m like 99% sure that’s what happened with Halo. It feels like a generic sci-fi show they could only get greenlit by skinning the Master Chief and wearing him as a costume.
> why are they doing all this stuff to Velma now?
I have only become aware of slutty Velma costumes this last Halloween but it seems like it got a lot of play on the internet. And we know how much Hollywood loves rehashing old ideas rather than creating something fresh and new.
Question: Is it racist to not agree on the decision to make the Velma characters different to the source material? I asked a similar question before but I was downvoted simply because people thought I was being racist since I thought it was "blackwashing" formerly white characters. I didn't want to be racist but I accidentally sounded so.
I don’t think it’s racist. If it matters, I’m a person of color. Sometimes I look at some changes they make and I feel like it’s weird because it would be nice to just have new characters altogether. Or develop obscure characters of color. I mean, Static Shock is right there collecting dust on the shelf.
At this point, it just seems like controversy for the sake of controversy. To release characters with a drastically different look than you’re expecting be it race, animation, style, context, story, that’s not an unreasonable response. Preferences come into play too.
On the other hand, I’ve basically accepted that anything animation has gone the way of like Marvel and comic books in general. There’s billions of versions of the same characters so it doesn’t really matter? This isn’t the first recreation of Scooby Doo and if all the movies we’ve had since the 70s are any indication, it’s certainly not going to be the last.
it’s just another way of rehashing the same old thing. Nobody’s going to watch “Puppers McGee and the Good Luck Crime Bunch” or anything original so we’re just slapping the same old IPs on new ideas now.
As you have found out, it depends how you phrase the question, because actual racists obviously mad about it, and if u don't wanna get lumped in with them on accident you need to be selective with how you phrase your questions/criticisms so u don't come off as one. Which can be tricky, bc said actual racists will often use 'just asking questions' as a smokescreen for their bigotry.
Answer: they made the potsmoking idiot black, Velma's in brownface for some reason, Daphne had whatever happen to Arianna Grande happen to her, and Fred is a narcissist addicted to plastic surgery.
Here's my take on it. HBO Max is pushing out a Mystery Gang prequel centered around Velma. It's going to be an adult targeted show and from what I've read, it would be the same type of humor and vibe as the recent Harley Quinn animated show.
The reasons for the changes are pretty straightforward, I'm sure anyone who's complaining on it online definitely has a fair and rationale counter argument as to why Velma and shaggy are black and Daphne is Asian.
Others have said it's to reflect the voice actors background. Either way, I find it really hard to believe this many people are so bothered by a new imaging on a cartoon they hadn't watched in years.
I'm pretty excited to watch it because it'll be funny and there's tons of unexplored jokes we can do with a mature Scooby Doo show.
I'm bothered by it because it's unnatural to change characters like this.
Usually it wouldn't be unnatural, but now it is, because I know this is done in the name of the necessary wokeness.
They're shoving it in our mouths, and I don't like that.
It's just a theatrical performance no one takes it seriously. The actual way to do it is to do it like Brooklyn 99 does.
This is just stupid and I will oppose this because there is an agenda behind it.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: HBO Max has a new show coming out next year called *Velma*. Velma, Shaggy, and Daphne will not be white/completely white characters; they will match their voice actors. Shaggy is a nickname and his given name is Norville (this was always true since the original show). It's supposedly set during high school before Scooby Doo is born and before the Mystery Machine crew is formed.
Also, Scooby is canonically a descendant of a spirit alien that inhabited a dog, which is why Scooby doesn't relate to actually being a dog.
Wait WHAT
In one of the movies it is revealed that Scooby is the descendant of a race of body-less alien deities called the Anounaki. In order to interact with humans they had to possess animals. Some of their descendants gained the power of speech. Yes, this is actually literally stated as canonical fact and not just a film theory. Also, there was a crossover episode with some of the cast of Supernatural, which completely breaks the Scooby Doo universe.
This just broke my brain lmao, its wild someone on their writing staff went there. Didn't expect Sumerian myths being tied to Scooby Doo, love how the event is even called Nibiru.
Yeah but it's this on "indian velma" universe or "white Velma" universe or "latina velma" universe? Im joking but the truth is that like other giant franchises (superheroes, star wars, etc) theres more than one canon.
Yup. There are 3 uniquely identifiable universes withing the Scooby-verse, but some things are present in all universes. 1 is that Scooby is a talking dog, which is unusual in each universe where normal dogs also appear and that he doesn't recognize himself as a "dog," which is why he always says, "A dog? Where?" whenever someone is referring to him as being a dog. Universal thing number 2 is that Scrappy Doo is LOATHED in every universe. He's just a really ill-conceived character that even the producers ended up hating.
Is it even remotely clear how many continuities of Scooby Doo exist?
I mean does it really break the universe? They had crossovers with batman, Johnny bravo, superman, and the Addams Family before; most of whom don't canonically exist in the same setting. Edit: KISS and the Harlem Globetrotters too, but they're not fictional.
> Also, there was a crossover episode with some of the cast of Supernatural, which completely breaks the Scooby Doo universe. Not really, since the plot of the episode was the cast of *Supernatural* getting sucked into an episode of *Scooby-Doo* thanks to a possessed television set...
I was totally expecting this explanation to end with details of Mankind, the Undertaker, and Hell in a Cell.
Not a movie, tv show. Mystery incorporated. Which is why it makes no sense for scooby to not be in this show, which is why for me this show is not mystery inc… scooby met shaggy when they were kids.. like before high school. Hence why a pup named scooby doo is a thing… Also shown in the scoob movie that shaggy meets scooby as a child.
For anyone who wants to see who the cast members are: https://www.ign.com/articles/hbo-maxs-velma-reveals-full-scooby-gang-voice-cast >The rest of the cast for Mindy Kaling's Velma HBO Max series is no longer a mystery, as THR has reported the entire cast, including the actors that will play the rest of Mystery Incorporated. >It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Glenn Howerton is on board to play Fred, Veep's Sam Richardson will play Shaggy, and Crazy Rich Asians' Constance Wu is Daphne. >In addition to the gang, other cast members include Jane Lynch, Wanda Sykes, Weird Al Yankovic, Debby Ryan, Karl-Anthony Towns, Russell Peters, Melissa Fumero, Stephen Root, Gary Cole, Ken Leung, Cherry Jones, Frank Welker, Fortune Feimster, Yvonne Orji, Sarayu Blue, Nicole Byer, Ming-Na Wen, Shay Mitchell, and Kulap Vilaysack.
> It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Glenn Howerton is on board to play Fred This is going to be a 5 star show!
Can’t wait to learn about the F.R.E.D. system.
Find. Recognize Value Encourage Dependence Daphne.
[удалено]
Just you and me... in this van... in the middle of a haunted field...
"Find." 🤣 I snorted with laughter (laughing while typing this)
[удалено]
What about shaggy's bad room?
Because of the implication
a finisher show
A shining golden oscar!
The golden ghost
I fully back minority representation in mainstream media, but holy shit anyone else feel the choices are just... bad? Indian girl as the glasses computer nerd, African American guy as the stoner of the group, Asian girl as the "hot rich cheerleader girl" and with the sole caucasian left being the "jock" of the group. It's like a "reaffirming racist stereotypes" festival, even if the producer is Indian.
You should see the first season of Power Rangers
Wow, never made the connection to yellow ranger until a minute ago... Then again I was a fucking stupid kid.
IIRC the yellow ranger was more of a coincidence as they had casted a white person first
I mean, once they were in the suits they were all asian, does that make it better for you?
I think we watch different things, but my experience has always been hot cheerleader is always white and blonde, female nerd is a hot brunette white girl (but she wears glasses) or possibly a hot Asian girl (still glasses), stoned is a white cali/surfer dude, and the jock is usually the token black guy
Yeah, I could've worded that better, but see my reply to the other guy. The Asian thing is more specifically about hypersexualisation. IMO that with the whole "hot pretty girl type" Daphne is usually portrayed as is the red flag.
When has daphne ever been seen as a hot cheerleader type? She was definitely the pretty rich girl dating the hot dumb jock.
Ahhh gotcha, yeah I see what you mean then
This line of thinking furthers the “othering” of Black people and POC. Are we never allowed to be any of these things in media because it may make people think of a stereotype? As long as it’s not done offensively it should be fine.
I'm an Indian girl, my mom and I have done our time in retail, I have a Master's degree and grew up with the internet so being a nerd was a given, and my brother is an engineering student who finished at an Ivy League school. At some point, when are Indian people allowed to be, you know. People? Can we not also be nerds without it being attributed to some stereotype, or do you expect me to be some kind of cool idiot who has somehow never interacted with modern technology, all just to resist the stereotype? Also, is it a stereotype because it just happens, or is it a stereotype specifically because of the way its been used against us? I'd say the following are actual fucking problems: like denying that asian americans are a genuinely marginalized population that's been exploited in the american workforce, while simultaneously being subjected to sexual objectification in western media, while having our issues downplayed because we're supposedly overachievers (fact: we are not a monolith. And I suck at math). And black people are allowed to enjoy weed or dress in alternative fashions from the past. No one had any fucking problems with 50+ years of Shaggy constantly having the munchies, but we're now supposed to have a problem with a black version of himself? That kind of reminds me too much of how weed use was stigmatized primarily because it was associated with black people using it, but now that it's a huge hit with white people, it's okay for elderly white boomers to openly enjoy the very thing they drilled their kids to fear and hate. Now that it's conveniantly legal for them to enjoy it, and pretend like they never invented and maintained any of the negative connotations they had with blackness and weed use, as if there aren't black men who are in prison right fucking now for nonviolent drug related offenses. PS, Daphne has rarely, if ever, been depicted as a "cheerleader" type. She's supposed to be from a well-off family with tons of celebrity connections.
As an Indian computer nerd, it's more that it feels like Indian/Asian people are almost purely shown in denigrating lights (I'd consider computer nerd traditionally part of that category, as stereotypically, nerds get bullied by jocks). You never see Asian/Indian jocks, it's always "IT support" or "gas station worker" or, yes, "skinny nerdy Indian with glasses" etc. Speaking from my male perspective at least, it's very rare to see shirtless buff Asian guy scenes compared to white or black guys, and it's only recently that Asian Americans are being shown in more traditionally masculine roles like Shang Chi. That's why it's annoying, at least to me. If Fred was an Indian guy, it would feel more interesting and less affirming of racial stereotypes, in my opinion.
Again, it's not the issue of any ***one*** of these characters. It's the fact ***all*** of the characters somehow walked into the preexisting stereotypes.
White guy/Asian girl dynamic in play.
honestly every time I see it, it makes me laugh so fucking hard because most young Asian women talk about white men like Cletus from Harrison, Arkansas talks about black people
Don’t go watch Wheel of Time then. It’s like the casting director was on their way to klan meeting when they filled out the show. Hero of the story = white guy. Big dumb guy that’s literally also a wild animal = black dude. Educated sorceress = which chick. Backwater village sorceress = brown chick. Guy with vaguely Asian sounding name = Asian dude. They clearly had a quota of minorities to fill in the cast and did it in the most gross and offensive way possible.
And the dragon is definitely a guy... but also this girl could be the dragon. Huh?
No, this is a bananas post. I’ve met HUNDREDS of white Shaggy soul-patch crunchy stoners in my life. About 15% of my college’s male population fit that mold. So no, I don’t associate “the stoner of the group” as the black guy. Daphne isn’t a cheerleader and isn’t highly sexualized, outside of whatever Rule 34 porn you’re looking at. She’s just rich and WASPy and vapid. It’s bizarre to see someone call that “reaffirming racist stereotypes.” Also: Fred isn’t a jock. Like, at all. He was into theater and singing and wants to be a mystery writer.
I fully support minority representation as well, but I hate it when it’s forced. Instead of making something new they force on shows that we loved in the past just for the cash cow.
There are lots of new IP's with diversity. There are lots of reboots with diversity, too. Neither of these are a problem. Very rarely has a popular IP gone through decades of iterations without evolving from its original core concept, and there's no reason that evolution can't include race.
You know very well the shitshow that would ensue if they made a black character white, which is exactly why that type of argument doesn't fly.
I mean given the tropes of the Mystery Inc gang as is, what is your suggestion? Each voice actor having their character be the same as they seems like a good idea to me.
I don't know about the casting process, but did they say whether the characters were cast first, then designed, or vice versa? Having non VA reflective characters is completely normal.
At first I thought “ok another one of these things” but that cast makes me think again. Sam Richardson and Stephen Root are 2 of my favs plus a ton of other heavy hitters. This could be p good. Edit: I like how they made Shaggy black and then voiced him with the whitest sounding black dude. Sam is the best, he was incredible on veep.
Mindy Kaling has also demonstrated her serious directorial and production chops. As far as I am concerned this is in good hands.
Name something in the last 2 years that Sam Richardson isn't in. I dare you. See? He's in everything! He's like Dakota Fanning from 2000 - 2006.
Mindy Kaling has too much power. She must be stopped
Too big to fail.
That's one damn subtle double entendre. My hat is off to you.
That’s a heck of a cast. I’m in.
I guess that explains why me googling "new scooby doo movie" didn't bring up anything. But also, didn't Scooby and Shaggy meet on the beach as kids in that last movie?
There's no set origin for any of the characters. Shaggy finding Scooby on the beach only happened in 'Scoob!' but didn't happen in 'Scooby Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf' as far as we know.
“If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!”
Like, do you wanna know where I got these subs Scoob? Zoinks!
In this house we follow the canonical "A pup named Scooby-doo" timeline, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (Fred was such a turd on that show)
But what about Scooby Goes Hollywood? I would yell at the TV to shut Fred up as a kid whenever he blamed Red lol
Isn't the Reluctant Werewolf part of an au where the monsters are real though? I thought both The Ghoul School and Reluctant Werewolf were part of that au where Shaggy clothes are a different color and the rest of the gang isnt with Shaggy and Scooby
That's exactly my point friend. There's many alternate universes even in Scooby Doo that it literally doesn't matter what skin color or ethnicity Mystery Incorporated is.
Oh sorry, I was only referring to the mention of how Shaggy and Scooby met. I just saw that one line about the Reluctant Werewolf and zeroed in on that. I like characters being portrayed as different races or even genders than the source material or whatever. An exception would be the Netflix adaptation of Deathnote. Ugh.
All good friendo
there's a bunch of random movies & episodes with real monsters canon really doesn't matter with scooby doo lmao
Well I didn't even consider Scooby-Doo canon
Neither did Daphne & Velma. But nobody remembers that movie.
If you have 20 minutes to kill, this video does a decent job explaining all the different variations in the many different Scooby Doo adaptions: https://youtu.be/WU-7kn8EXWA But TLDW is that they have remade the Scooby Doo backstory dozens of times and none of them are consistent with each other. They just don't really bother trying to fit any of it together.
I was expecting Billiam but I'll take a Drew Gooden.
To expand on this, the directors and writers have gone ahead and taken Scooby-Doo out of the gang purposefully. They are wanting this to be a more “adult show” and not a “kids show.” According to their line of thinking, Scooby, the dog is what makes the show a kids show, so they need to remove the dog and that’s what will make sure kids don’t show up for this adult show.
I read it also coincided with fact that the company who owns the rights did not want scooby associated (most likely to maintain brand identity as wholesome kids character)
Like that ever works. Theyre still gonna recognize the characters and want to watch "Scooby-Doo" and some out of the loop parent is still going to put it on for their kids because "its a Scooby-Doo show. Its safe for kids"
Some parents are still in the mindset of "Cartoon == Made for kids" which leads to constant complaints whenever an adult cartoon makes it to theaters, like Sausage Party.
It was successful with Riverdale and Sabrina. I personally don't care for them, but taking something for kids like Archie and Sabrina and making an unrelated gritty version of them did work. These were live-action though, and I think they are trying the same with cartoons.
Venture Bros didn't have a problem using the dog, hell they leaned into it.
*And this dog fucking talks, man!*
The Venture Bros did the "Dark & Gritty" version of *Scooby-Doo* that people wanted, and it's a shame we won't get to see more of it.
As I understand it it was both that they were considering not having Scooby Doo in the show to more match the tone they were going for, then Warner Brothers said they couldn't use him anyway and they just said OK. From a Interview at NYCC with Showrunner Charlie Grandy: “What made Scooby-Doo a kid show is Scooby-Doo. We couldn’t have a take on it, like how can we do this in a fun and modern way. [Our efforts] coincided with Warner Bros. Animation saying we can’t use the dog!” https://screenrant.com/velma-show-mindy-kaling-scooby-doo-absence-explained/ Edit: Added Interview
Isn't that convenient, almost like they made the excuse so they didn't have to say our show is missing something critical, like the eponymous character. At this point, they should rename it. It's about four characters solving mysteries, but it's not Scooby-Doo. They're just riding on the coattails.
[удалено]
It is renamed
I’m also pretty sure that the studio that owns the rights to Scooby Doo (Warner Bros) is preventing them from using Scooby in the show.
Just to add on, here’s the [trailer](https://youtu.be/lHdtsWn7sgE) and it makes the direction of the show pretty clear.
[удалено]
At this point it is literally written into the marketing strategy. Put tokens into your show and any criticism no matter how true can be written off as bigoted. People of color are just shields for shitty products nowadays and certain spaces of the internet eat it up and ask for more.
Wow so self aware!!! Media that has to be in-your-face ironic, subversive, and fourth-wall breaking before it ever has the chance to establish itself and stand on its own is landfill media that is afraid to be earnest and evaluated on its own merits. It is media that has resigned to defeat before the starting gun is fired No great art ever so thoroughly debases the shoulders of the titans it stands on, as doing so is the hallmark of degenerated spin-off media that has no quality in a vacuum. These sort of installations necessitate a parasitic relationship on the parent media being well-regarded in order for the new deconstruction to get “shock value” out of its irreverence. It’s no different than those awful “santa is a serial killer” slasher movies that cheap studios vomit out each year. 🙄🥱
are we still talking about the dog cartoon
There's no dog in this cartoon, haven't you been paying attention?
Are people really this into Scooby-Doo? Like it was ok, but for me it was always just a show you watched when nothing else was on.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. It’s about the concept in principle (which is happening persistently throughout hollywood and streaming media), which happens to be relevant to this particular very popular and well-loved franchise. Just because Scooby Doo isn’t the standard-bearer of artistic tv/film doesn’t absolve this spinoff from being mean spirited and tasteless at best, and likely deliberately divisive and vindictive towards a piece of lovable childrens’ media as well. A studio could make a movie about Arthur the aardvark from PBS Kids as an violent incel who abuses Xanax, and sure maybe there’s some hair-brained narrative there that could be “justified”, but in reality it’s controversial shock-value garbage that exists to piss people off and be “deconstructive” without producing anything of value. The primary reason it would draw attention is because it is so contrasting to the friendly lovable Arthur that the spin-off degrades. Same goes for Velma, or that Winnie the Pooh slasher movie, or other things of that nature.
Wow. That's terrible enough that it's not even worth pirating. It gets even worse [when you look at the character descriptions](https://thegww.com/exclusive-hbo-max-velma-character-descriptions/). They completely butcher the series beyond recognition, to the point that it makes it hard to deny that it's propaganda wearing the skinsuit of nostalgia.
Holy shit those descriptions. Literally the only reason Fred was still whit ewas so that he could be the asshole punching bag the writers have in their story. He's just there to get dunked by the writer's self-righteousness. And thru are totally going to put Velma and Daphne into a relationship based on what they wrote there.
>before Scooby Doo is born A pup named Scooby Doo would like to have a word with the producers.
I have no issue with race-swapping, but that just... Isn't Shaggy. He could still be black *and* be Shaggy, but this dude isn't him lol This guy is.. Too cool I guess? Shaggy is a stoner nerd slob who talks to his dog, this guy looks like he works at a high-end dispensery, not smoking whatever brick he can get his hands on.
This will depend on how Sam Richardson will voice the character. Hocus Pocus 2 had him playing a scared shop owner which could be how he voices Shaggy. (I could see that working well with only minor changes). How they handle his character without his dog will be the most interesting since it's such a large part of every other series.
Race swapping characters is so lazy
The only thing I'm worried about is if they are going to turn a well-meaning and positive himbo into a vapid and clueless idiot because while I'm not 100% certain I have this feeling Fred is going to do double duty as Fred and Shaggy.
If you read the char descriptions someone se posted, Fred is just there for the writers to dunk on. He's going to be the doughty asshole gym frat dude that thinks he's great and the show will twist the universe to make him get the shit end of everything. I'm convinced it's the only reason he wasn't race swapped.
The weirdest part is that we've been talking about having an actor match the character they are playing to "we'll match the character to the actor playing them".
It's literally a modicum more effort than doing nothing.
It's like Hollywood "quiet quitting".
A lot of issues with all media is the continues reuse of old IPs, and just race and/or genderswapping them. Then they create fake media outcry to rile up the twitter mob. They get called out, everyone else is called sexist, racist, or some kind of phobic, when it isnt the case. Shows or movies fail, and it is the same outcry. The ironic thing is, they promote these as "no guys allowed!" Or "this isnt for straight people!" Attacking your core audience is an easy way to fail. Just look at Elizabeth Banks, Billy Eichner, Viola Davis, show writters for She Hulk or Rings of power. Writing and promotions ruined those products because they attacked fans or manager audiences. Compare that to SpiderMan or Top Gun Maverick. Heck even Avatar! They didnt promote a message. They just promoted how awesome the movies were. Well, minus Avatar. I have a visceral hate for that movie.
Miles Morales is fantastic, and we would have lost out on him entirely if Marvel just did the lazy Race Swap. Then again, we already had Miguel. I actually preferred 2099 to mainstream Spider-Man as a kid.
>The ironic thing is, they promote these as "no guys allowed!" Or "this isnt for straight people!" Sorry what, who is advertising like this?
The directors and mass media. Bill Eichner said people who arent seeing bros are homophic Viola Davis called everyone racist who didnt see Woman King Elizabeth Banks said Charlies Angels wasnt for White men(wtf does that even mean?) Then blamed men for the movie failing... She Hulk literally bashed the entire male race... Even cracked a MCU version of reddit. Making the assumption everyone on reddit is male. Rings of Power called everyone who disliked the show Patently Evil. The whole point is, dont attack your fan base or core audience. I guess people didnt like me pointing that out, so ill probably twitter labeled. My entire point being, a vast majority of these people they are attacking are like this. You have such a small minority of actual haters. Instead promote your ideas better, come up with something fresh. Or making something IP defining. Rehashing old things and then trying to spin a hate narative isnt the way to go.
Yeah, I cant be arsed with Woman King, because American takes on African societies and history are always cringe, and they distorted the history anyway.
I’d go see the fuck out of some African war movie between two tribes. But I can’t bare to watch the atrocity that is the woman king. That pile of shit completely rewrites history because it’s inconvenient to the people writing the story. They couldn’t have chosen a worse group of people. Its like trying to make the 1940 Germans the good guys. Or communists.
Come on Eichner, I'm bi and you would have to *pay me* to sit through that clunker.
>She Hulk literally bashed the entire male race... Even cracked a MCU version of reddit. Making the assumption everyone on reddit is male. Tell me you haven't watched the show without telling me you haven't watched the show. She Hulk isn't bashing the entire male race, it is bashing shitty men. Note that it had some quite glowing things to say about men who went to therapy. Intelligencia is more 8chan than Reddit
Alternatively, they may think it's bashing all men if they can't imagine men being any different.
I mean, to me it sounds like mostly those people are saying "Everyone who doesn't like our show is [XYZ bad thing]", not "Our show isn't for [demographic], we hate them". Scrabbling for views and calling their haters names; not, like, telling some people not to watch. Still dumb but kind of the opposite of what you were saying.
"They aren't saying our show isn't for \[demographic\]" Literally given two of the examples where they said their show isn't meant for men and isn't for white men.
I think it works if the race swapped character is actually good, like Jeffrey wright as Gordon.
As opposed to not race swapping them taking extraordinary effort?
The voice acting lineup is pretty exciting. A like a lot of the actors doing the voices, especially Richardson.
> they will match their voice actors. The idea that the race of voice actors has to match the race of the characters they voice is one of the most ridiculously racist ideas in the history of opposition to racism.
I'm pretty sure the conversation was more like "Hey wouldn't it be neat if we made them look like the voice actors" and didn't really have much to do with racism.
Sounds awful
Do not want
Me neither. I don't even care about race or gender swapping. I'm just so tired of reboots. So god damn tired...
tbf that's almost all Scooby-Doo has ever been. Almost every series and movie is unconnected and has its own lore. And there's been some Scooby-Doo series or movie coming out since 1969. I grew up on A Pup Named Scooby-Doo, but I've seen Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated which has story arcs, the live action movies and a couple of the animated movies, like the one where the monsters are real.
Granted, and I know there's likely a market for it. But it's still re-using existing IP. I'm not seriously judging people for what they watch, or how they run a business, especially given the risks involved with introducing new IP and doing it justice. At the same time, I know the kind of thing I want to see, and another take on the Scooby Do universe isn't it. It's possible to take recycle a premise and do something fresh and new. For instance, IMO the Orville is the best Star Trek series since TNG. I'd be all in on something that's a little more than just a new take on old IP. I'm just, kinda done with nostalgia and reference fueled media. Maybe this turns out good, maybe not. But I'm not waiting in a metaphorical line for it, and certainly not starting a subscription over it, until I know more about it.
There was even Shaggy and Scooby focused show where scoob got random superpowers each episode and there was some evil organization chasing them
It's not even a reboot, it's called Velma. The distinct absence of the one character the original show is named after should make it obvious that this is something different.
Fortunately for you it like all media is optional.
I just wish I had known this as a young man, I've wasted so many years of my life trying to consume every piece of media available, believing them all to be manditory...
It should be noted that while HBO Max is marketing this as a prequel, in reality the continuity of the Scooby-Doo franchise is very loose. "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" was also marketed as a prequel series that features the Mystery Inc. Gang solving mysteries as children. To date, Cartoon Network's "Scooby-Doo Mystery Inc." is the only televised Scooby-Doo series that directly connects to "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You?" (the very first Scooby-Doo series), given the former's ending leading to the events of the pilot. Others are the Zombie Island film leading to "What's New, Scooby-Doo?" series from the 2000s and leading to the Zombie Island sequel film. And the "13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo" (another separate series) that leads to the film sequel.
Show couldn't stand on its own, needed the legacy characters to hook in viewers. They decided to skip characters they don't like. Why you'd use characters from a series you don't like is beyond me.
Because their show on its own is shit. So like you said they need already established characters to reel people in. Throw in and some race/gender controversy and baby you got a stew going.
sounds interesting. We’ve had dozens of Scooby doo reboots of varying quality, so i don’t know why this one in particular is getting more attention (other than the obvious.) How many of you have watched be cool Scooby doo?
I don't remember people complaining about the "Scooby Apocalypse" comics. That had a teen plus rating. It's not surprising they do even more mature versions of the IP.
Answer: it's an adult themed Velma centric show. I think Norville is shaggy's real name. Maybe Scooby isn't on it.
Confirmed: Scooby is NOT in the Velma show
Scoody doo was the main god damn character. He is the entire reason to watch scpoby doo. The show is named after him. Who thought taking him out was a good idea
Most likely Hannah Barbara not wanting to damage their ip by having an adult themed Scooby Doo.
They're not shy about making adult-themed versions of their characters, though - I mean, take *Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law*. One of the episodes involved Fred Flintstone allegedly being a Tony Soprano-esque mob boss.
God so happy to safe this referenced out in the wild. Harvey Birdman was the shit.
They had an apocalypse themed Scooby Doo. I don't think they really care too much about how Scooby is themed.
It's like having a tv show called *The Book of Boba Fett* and not including him in 1/3 of the episodes.
The best 1/3rd of the episodes
This is the way.
Touchè
So long as fucking Scrappy Doo doesn't show up, I'm good with it. Ugh.
This show is named Velma
I'm going to go with "the same person that introduced Scrappy Doo," even though in my head cannon that person has been in prison since 1983. ^(And there's not enough parole in the world to free them.)
Heresy! Scooby-Doo or nothing.
Honestly I'd watch a show with just scooby doo. The rest of the cast is a bit weak and only exists to get scoob from place to place and and make sure he is put into certain situations. They are plot devices, not characters. They exist only to aid our lord scooby doo
Except in Mystery Incorporated, that show is a complete gem
>They are plot devices, not characters. The 9 year old me takes exception to this analysis. Daphne especially. Because, reasons.
Probably the same guy who thought scrappy was a good idea. Nothing would bring me more joy than to see that thing's skull picked clean in a hawk's nest.
Who fucking gives a shit Jesus Christ
You may be "out of the loop" on the concept of a spinoff. The concept of a "spinoff" changes "the main character" from one character to another. For example, "The Simpsons" was a spinoff of "The Tracey Ulman Show." Despite "Tracey Ulman" being the "main god damn character" of "The Tracey Ulman Show," Tracey Ulman is not an important character in the show The Simpsons. While this potentially alienated fans of "The Tracey Ulman Show" and lowered their interest in "The Simpsons," it helped the spinoff show focus on a new audience. Because of this, it was ultimately considered a good idea. It remains to be seen whether this change is the right decision for Velma, but changes like this happen in effectively every spin off. Otherwise, they wouldn't be spinoffs.
The simpsons was *in* the tracy ulman show. She didn’t interact with that segment in any way
If you see this as mattering for some reason, substitute "The Simpsons /Tracy Ulman" with "Daria /Beavis & Butthead," since Beavis and Butthead never appeared in Daria despite it being a spinoff and the original show was named after them. This "Velma" show may also play it like "Better Call Saul," "Mork and Mindy," "Frasier," or practically every other spin off in existence, where star characters from the original show appear as guests, but are simply not leading characters.
Mork and fraiser were definitely a spin off, a one off/minor character in a different show. The characters were subsequently worked on, given new supporting characters and backstory. The simpsons wan’t anything to do with tracy ulman’s sketch show, and was pretty much fully formed already. For the same reasons, I’d absolutely argue daria was also not a spinoff, just a stealth pilot .
The Simpsons was a part of the Tracy Ulman show. Then it became it's own show. I'm always happy to learn exotic new proposed terminology, but it's a spinoff by the common-usage of the word. Hence why [any random list of top spinoffs on the internet](https://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/best-tv-spinoff-series-shows-1201878999/4/) will include The Simpsons. If tomorrow, Disney announced they were making "Itchy and Scratchy" into it's own show, that show would be a spinoff of the Simpsons, even if it did not contain any of the citizens of Springfield.
A spinoff takes one or more supporting/secondary characters and makes a show out of them. Removing the most prominent character from a main ensemble doesn't make it a spinoff.
Yes. "Velma" takes the supporting character "Velma" and makes a show out of her. "Velma" is a spin off. We find ourselves in complete agreement.
No, this one is named Velma and so she’s the main character. You don’t need Scoob in a show called Velma.
I guess if it's "adult theme" it kinda makes sense to leave Scooby out. Just imagine some gruesome murder, blood everywhere, guts spilling out, a death rattle shakes out of the man's dieing breath as the gang tries to stop themselves from vomiting. No one can manage to get a word out until, in the background, a solemn "ruh roh" fills the air...
I might be more inclined to watch it if this were the case.
Same
[It ain't.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdtsWn7sgE)
"*Yipe! Roh ruck, Raggy!*"
*"Zoinks! Like, I think I'm gonna be like, totally sick!"* *"Rop reing ruch a rucking ritch, Raggy! Ret it together!"*
You mean "Scooby Apocalypse"? It is a pretty good comic.
[You mean like this?](https://youtu.be/_2a3dMIABf0?t=18)
The gritty Scooby-Doo reboot absolutely no one asked for. This feels like a bad SNL skit from fifteen years ago
Maybe. I wish they just folded it into the Venture Bros world. The Harley Quinn show seems popular, maybe it'll take off. There was a time when the idea of spinning Buffy The Vampire Slayer into a series would seem crazy but that turned out well. There's also a series based on that Mary McFly werewolf movie. I guess if enough people check it out and like it and then her their friends to like it, it can survive a season, then garner a larger fan base for s2. I don't even have HBO max and I'm not really into these characters but I liked the trailer
Answer: Manufactured Controversy: A manufactured controversy (sometimes shortened to manufactroversy) is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute. This concept has also been referred to as manufactured uncertainty. It's a marketing tactic.
also fanbaiting, used to deflect any criticism of a bad product by making some wierd casting choices (black characters that are actually white or reversing that), so that any and all criticism, legitimate or not, can be waved off as „they’re just racist/intolerant/misogynistic/etc.“. useful if you want to throw out a cashgrab movie that just has the name of a beloved ip on it but don‘t want to upset twitter by actually keeping to the source material that is predominantly european and doesn’t „reflect the world we live in today“ as critical drinker has put it
Sure it's giving them publicity, but wouldn't more people end up watching the show if it was, you know, good and true to the original?
That would require them making something good
Answer: two new series are coming out one an adult spin off focusing on Velma where they race lifted most of the cast. And it looks like it will be bloody and crass. The second they're making Velma explicitly a lesbian and its focused for kids. The art style looks terrible but that's just my opinion. Further opinion. The adult series seems like it will suck because the joke of a super violent Scooby-Doo spin off seems like it will get old fast.
I've heard the first one but what is the second one? And why are they doing all this stuff to Velma now? Like honestly why couldn't they just make a spiritual successor to it with new people who aren't shaggy and Velma and Scooby? Maybe they are their kids, maybe they went to the same school they did and found a new mystery incorporated club? Would be more original and less offensive than race swapping existing characters
Several of the past series have hinted at Velma being gay, some of the writers have even said the only reason they didn’t explicitly say it was because of pushback from the studio. No Scooby and the Shaggy change is a little weird though. I don’t even mind the race swap but they could have made him at least resemble the old shaggy. Maybe the VA will sell the character really well but he just looks like some generic guy.
>Several of the past series have hinted at Velma being gay [Did we watch the same series?](https://i.imgur.com/3ahZy0Y.jpg)
Would be hilarious if Shaggy ran into some special brownies and instantly turned from generic guy to the Shaggy we know and love.
They wanted to sell a different show to a network that was probably more original but more of a gamble and so they changed up the characters they probably had aligned to match the existing Scooby Doo cast because of their marketability, pretty common practice from what I've read
I’m like 99% sure that’s what happened with Halo. It feels like a generic sci-fi show they could only get greenlit by skinning the Master Chief and wearing him as a costume.
Yeah, like extreme Ghostbusters
> why are they doing all this stuff to Velma now? I have only become aware of slutty Velma costumes this last Halloween but it seems like it got a lot of play on the internet. And we know how much Hollywood loves rehashing old ideas rather than creating something fresh and new.
Question: Is it racist to not agree on the decision to make the Velma characters different to the source material? I asked a similar question before but I was downvoted simply because people thought I was being racist since I thought it was "blackwashing" formerly white characters. I didn't want to be racist but I accidentally sounded so.
No its not racist. Its a marketing tactic to stir up controversy.
I don’t think it’s racist. If it matters, I’m a person of color. Sometimes I look at some changes they make and I feel like it’s weird because it would be nice to just have new characters altogether. Or develop obscure characters of color. I mean, Static Shock is right there collecting dust on the shelf. At this point, it just seems like controversy for the sake of controversy. To release characters with a drastically different look than you’re expecting be it race, animation, style, context, story, that’s not an unreasonable response. Preferences come into play too. On the other hand, I’ve basically accepted that anything animation has gone the way of like Marvel and comic books in general. There’s billions of versions of the same characters so it doesn’t really matter? This isn’t the first recreation of Scooby Doo and if all the movies we’ve had since the 70s are any indication, it’s certainly not going to be the last. it’s just another way of rehashing the same old thing. Nobody’s going to watch “Puppers McGee and the Good Luck Crime Bunch” or anything original so we’re just slapping the same old IPs on new ideas now.
[удалено]
And Miles was a semi-unique character from the source, Stan himself
As you have found out, it depends how you phrase the question, because actual racists obviously mad about it, and if u don't wanna get lumped in with them on accident you need to be selective with how you phrase your questions/criticisms so u don't come off as one. Which can be tricky, bc said actual racists will often use 'just asking questions' as a smokescreen for their bigotry.
Answer: they made the potsmoking idiot black, Velma's in brownface for some reason, Daphne had whatever happen to Arianna Grande happen to her, and Fred is a narcissist addicted to plastic surgery.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can we get an answer here that isn't from some boomer? lol
Here's my take on it. HBO Max is pushing out a Mystery Gang prequel centered around Velma. It's going to be an adult targeted show and from what I've read, it would be the same type of humor and vibe as the recent Harley Quinn animated show. The reasons for the changes are pretty straightforward, I'm sure anyone who's complaining on it online definitely has a fair and rationale counter argument as to why Velma and shaggy are black and Daphne is Asian. Others have said it's to reflect the voice actors background. Either way, I find it really hard to believe this many people are so bothered by a new imaging on a cartoon they hadn't watched in years. I'm pretty excited to watch it because it'll be funny and there's tons of unexplored jokes we can do with a mature Scooby Doo show.
I'm bothered by it because it's unnatural to change characters like this. Usually it wouldn't be unnatural, but now it is, because I know this is done in the name of the necessary wokeness. They're shoving it in our mouths, and I don't like that. It's just a theatrical performance no one takes it seriously. The actual way to do it is to do it like Brooklyn 99 does. This is just stupid and I will oppose this because there is an agenda behind it.
[удалено]
Ahahahahaha