Skip to main content

A Cluttered Scooby Movie with Little Interest in its own IP


As bad as it is, Scoob! deserved a theatrical release. It’s the second major movie of the year to forego its’ cinematic run in a favour of a VOD release after Trolls World Tour back in April and as much as its’ a calculated decision by Warner Bros. (neither of these movies were going to be major hits at the box office), it still sets an uncomfortable precedent for the future of the theatre industry. Also, while the quality of the storytelling and characters of this film is no better than any number of the Scooby-Doo franchises’ direct-to-video efforts (much worse than most in fact), it is still cinematic in its energy and animation, which is rich and detailed in a way you can’t quite appreciate as much on the small screen. Weird as it is to say, I didn’t enjoy this film, but I would have rather been disappointed by it in the cinema.
Scoob! is the first attempt in any case to bring the Scooby-Doo franchise to the big screen again since the live-action Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed in 2004. And in an age where nostalgia-baiting dominates far too much of the film industry it’s surprising it took this long to produce a reboot of this particular iconic cartoon property. Perhaps because Scooby-Doo never quite went away, as I detailed in an overblown pair of essays back in October, Hollywood didn’t quite think it necessary. Until of course the opportunity presented itself to conjure into existence yet another attempt at a cinematic universe by using the characters of the classic Hanna-Barbera rotation of Saturday Morning cartoons of the 1960s and 70s.
This is the function of Scoob!, and much as the titular Great Dane literally is to his villain, it is the key to why the movie fails -all of its other shortcomings tied to the fact it’s more interested in opening a shared universe than being a Scooby-Doo movie. It starts out familiar enough with a Pup Named Scooby-Doo style impression of the Mystery gang as children, chronicling how they met (though without caring much for Fred, Daphne, and Velma) and how they got into mystery solving -with even a cute recreation of the original shows’ intro. But the characters are separated early into the plot proper as the film focuses instead on a superhero-style adventure where Shaggy and Scooby team up with Blue Falcon and Dynomutt to foil an evil scheme by Dick Dastardly -none of whom are characters near as ubiquitous as the central five meddling kids.
And yet these more obscure characters are better defined than most of the mystery gang. Will Forte’s trying his best as Shaggy but can never quite nail the distinct voice. However he’s much more recognizable as the classic character than Fred, Daphne, and Velma, all of whom are designed and voiced to a remarkably bland aesthetic that leaves little room for personality. They really should have just kept the current series cast of Grey DeLisle-Griffin, Matthew Lillard, and Kate Micucci (it’s not like Lillard and Micucci don’t have a certain level of name recognition after all). It’s especially jarring not to hear Frank Welker as Fred, who’s been the voice of the character since 1969; though in fairness, the movie made the right choice in keeping him as Scooby (who he’s also voiced since 2002), allowing the title character at least that crucial familiarity.
Scooby-Doo thrives on familiarity, one of the few media properties where the formula is essential. There must always be a mystery and there must always be a monster. In Scoob! there is no mystery, and the only monster is a climactic obstacle with no story connection, included as a barest minimum obligation. Rather the movie prefers to fill out its overzealous plotting with a trite parable of friendship for Shaggy and Scooby that’s been done to death and far better within this very franchise. At times it goes for broke in sentimentality, but the laziness with which it’s dropped and developed is almost impressive. The makers of this film do not care at all about this conflict, let alone the relationship itself. A far more compelling character arc for Shaggy and Scooby is suggested early on, one based around their relative uselessness in the group, but it proves ultimately borderline non-existent. And the film hopes you’ll not notice the thinness of it all in light of Mark Wahlberg dabbing as the Blue Falcon or Tracey Morgan rambling as Captain Caveman in a piece that could have been straight out of 30 Rock. Of all the star stunt-castings that also include Jason Isaacs, Simon Cowell, and Kiersey Clemons, the only one that consistently works is Ken Jeong’s sardonic take on Dynomutt.
Perhaps the biggest thing that annoys me about the movie though is that at one time it boasted a script written by Kelly Fremon Craig, the writer-director of the fantastic Edge of Seventeen and script doctor on Bumblebee. But at some point her treatment was completely rewritten by four other guys, leaving the film an unsurprising hodge-podge of competing tones and convoluted plot. I can only imagine how much better her version of this movie was.
Apart from some kids, who would derive just as much out of any other readily available Scooby-Doo show or movie, I don’t know who would enjoy Scoob! I’ll admit it’s got some good jokes among all the uninspired ones (it has fun being allowed to say “Dick” for example), and replicates some of the distinct energy of the classic cartoon if nothing else -as well as welcome sound effects. But it dwells too often in the realm of cartoon obscurity to the detriment of its capacity to resonate. At least we were aware of the tangential elements being set up in The Mummy.
I would love to see a theatrical Scooby-Doo movie, but this one is so disinterested in Scooby-Doo. None of its references, easter eggs, or details come from a place of real love for the material, but from the eye of market cynicism, even as pertaining to homages to the original voice actors. Fundamentally, it doesn’t understand why we loved Scooby-Doo. The live-action movies of the early 2000s weren’t good, but they were at least Scooby-Doo movies, knowing what that had to entail. That doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to grow and experiment with the brand, but the core tenets should remain intact. For that reason, maybe it is good this wasn’t technically Scooby-Doo’s big return to theatres.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing
Post a Comment
Read more

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv
Post a Comment
Read more

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day
1 comment
Read more