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

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more