Admit it: Scooby Doo SUCKED!!

the Scooby show just has that retro-charm. Everyone knows the plotline, and that’s what makes it fun. It’s fun to know exactly what’s going to happen, but still hearing; ‘Floyd the BUTLER?!’ or ‘Uncle HARRY?!’

What’s not funny about a grown man jumping into a huge Great Dane’s arms while running from a ghost? What’s not funny about a huge Great Dane shouting ‘Roiks, relp me raggy!’ and shivering while covering his eyes with his paws? What is not funny about a movie sequence where a large dog and a skinny man called shaggy run from one of many types of ghosts, in such objects as barrels, minecarts and the like, while some cheesey sixties dance music plays?

You know you love the big mutt, you just want a debate :smiley:

I must say, though, I’ve always wondered about Freddy. He never tried anything with Daffy.

No, in the new film, Scooby Doo and the Witch’s Ghost (which yes by the way I did watch on Cartoon Network last month), Freddy gets the hot for this goth chick. Daphne is evidently jealous.

(Hijack- did anyone think the blatant witch bashing in said movie was a bit…um, over the top? They’re witches- no they’re Wiccan, that makes it okay! The earth/sea/nature goddess stuff at the end…yes, very corny.)

OK back to the debate. Yeah formulaic and reassuring. Why, on the news every night you could see the carnage over in Vietnam. And the killings at colleges like Kent State. In a world this terrible, the only salvation was Scooby Doo cartoons, where you always know whodonnit, and where Scooby will always “do it for a Scooby snack!” (Oh that sounds nasty.)

In a world like this, it was important- nay, VITAL, for Scooby Doo to exist.

So what I’m hearing here is that even Scooby apologists admit that the show sucks, but it the suckiness becomes tolerable 1) when you are stoned out of your gourd or 2) in comparison to the inhumanity of the Vietnam war.

What a rousing endorsement.

FWIW, the episode of Saturday Night Live that starts about now has a Scooby Doo parody with Rob Lowe as Shaggy. It’s about halfway into the episode, if anyone wants to see it, it’s actually pretty funny for today’s SNL.

OMG, I just got on here to mention that skit. Turns out Rob Lowe does a killer Shaggy and the show hit on a lot of the Scooby cliches I had forgotten about, like the way Shaggy would make a sandwich. I laughed my ass off for the entire skit, a rarity with SNL. And they avoided any “Shaggy’s a stoner” or “Velma’s a lesbian” jokes.
You know, maybe that cartoon wasn’t so bad after all.
And the girl on Weekend Update… pretty cute.

Damnit I missed that?! :frowning:

I’ll catch it the second time around, I guess…who was hosting so i’ll know when its on?

Come Alpha, let’s be fair. Lots of horrible things become good when you’re stoned. B movies. Fruit and vegetables. The ramblings of idiotic relatives…
And its not just good in comparison with the Vietnam war. It works with any war.

That’s all I have to say for now.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Moving to IHMO for obvious reasons (obvious to all of you who aren’t high and/or watching Scooby-Doo at this moment, that is). :wink:

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Lowe hosted it, and no telling when the next time it’ll air will be – this was the season premiere, and last night was already it’s second time around. Sorry, Zoggie.

SNenc praised the SNL Scooby Skit:

Shaggy made a sandwich in exactly the same manner that Dagwood Bumstead had already done for several decades.

Yes, the contents were the same, but Shaggy pioneered the method of shuffling all the elements like a deck of cards and turning it into a dozen-decker.

I beg to differ! A Popeye cartoon from the 1940s (set in a small Alaskan/Canadian town and featuring Dangerous Dan McBluto, who referred to Olive Oyl as his “Louise” throughout) showed Popeye shuffling sliced bread and sliced luncheon meat together to make a stack of 4 sandwiches.

Yeah POPEYE did it, but where’s the love? Where’s the appreciation of sandwich making, and eating? Only Shaggy had that.

Being that this thread seems to have run its course let me reiterate:

Scooby-Doo was bad not in a ‘good’ sort of way, like Gilligan’s Island or Hogan’s Heroes.

Scooby-Doo was bad in a bad sort of way, like The Chevy Chase Show or a Yugo.

And getting as serious as I think a thread like this should get, Hanna-Barbera do not deserve the admiration they get. They churned out cheap, boiler-plate cartoons because it was profitable. Not because they wanted to entertain kids.

Hails, please. No one makes cartoons because they wish to “entertain little kids.” :o Money is what makes the world go round and don’t you forget it. Hana Barbera wanted to make some cash through cartoons- they did. Is that immoral or something?

Damn, Rob Lowe really DOES do an excellent Shaggy! I also enjoyed the part of the sketch where Scooby recommends the “reath renalty.”

It’s one thing to say that something like 1950’s SciFi classic, “Forbidden Planet” should not be held to the standards of modern movie special effects.

To give Scooby Doo a break because it is vintage 60’s/70’s implies that technology didn’t exist. However compared to Max Fleischer, Warner Bros, etc. that predated it by 30-40 years, Scooby is simply garbage.

Scooby sucks because somebody figured we kids were too stupid to notice the cheap lazy animation.

Apparently – considering how many pro-Scooby posts there have been in this thread – they figured right.

Exactly.

While we may argue debate the merits of the many incarnations of Scooby Doo, under no circumstances may we say that “Scooby Doo, Where Are You?” sucked. This show was and is an important artistic and educational work only masquerading as as quasi-horror-mystery Saturday morning fare. Indeed, just as most of the adults in the series were unable to see past the mask of the villain, so are the anti-Scooby crowd unable to see past a superficial reading of the show. The very strength of the show lies in the similar plots, less than stellar animation, and repeatably solvable mysteries.
Any in-depth study of the 1969-1970 Scooby Doo episodes must first place the series in its historical context, and also remember that the perspective of this historical context must be perceived through the mind of a child. Not a very young child, for whom the show was probably “too scary”, but in the mind of a child reaching out towards the mystery of the adult.

There is no need to go through a listing of what was happening historically in this country at this time. Obviously this was an especially difficult period to be a child. Right and wrong, good and evil, truth and fiction—these divisions were surfacing in America in ways never before seen in our history. Children could not help but be aware of these divisions and uncertainties.

Enter “Scooby Doo, Where Are You?”

Unlike most previous Saturday morning cartoons,the original Scooby Doo dealt with a world of norms seemingly gone to chaos. And the chaos was something any child could understand. The chaos was the monster. As we grow old we leave a world where everything is a new wonder to a world where there are rules, routines, and often rote lives. But there is a between time. It’s an age where we know there is no monster in the closet, but we still aren’t quite comfortable with the light going out a night.

“children remembered/ but only a few/ and down they forgot/ as up they grew”.
e.e. cummings

In 1969, we were confronting a world where norms were being shaken. And in the original Scooby Doo this was represented in the dichotomy of the mask. The confusion over appearance and reality that is the central theme of the show is evident in the main characters themselves. Freddy and Daphne are the beautiful ideals. They are the Brad Pitt and Brittany Spears of today. Shaggy and Velma were their opposites. They were normal in appearance. Viewers had crushes on Freddy and Daphne. They were who every kid wanted to be. Shaggy and Velma represented more the type of kids who watched the show, and more importantly represented who every child COULD BE!

Freddy drove the Mystery Machine. Freddy demanded the solving of every mystery. Freddy cooked up the Rube-Goldbergesque traps at the end of that ultimately failed to solve the mystery. Daphne (AKA Danger-prone Daphne)tended to more often than not get the gang into trouble with her ineptness. It is no surprise that Freddy and Daphne were always paired together, while Shaggy, Velma and Scooby Doo usually formed a team. For where Freddy’s outlandish traps would fail, the cowardly Shaggy and Scooby Doo always were the ones who finally caught the monster. Velma used her mind and deciphered the clues. Freddy and Daphne may have set up the parameters to find a solution, but it was always Shaggy, Velma, and Scooby Doo who actually solved the cases.

Now while Freddy and Daphne wore the masks of the hero, and Velma and Shaggy performed much of the actual heroism…what of Scooby Doo? (Scooby Doo, where are you?) I believe Scooby actually represents the viewer. Caught between the ideal (Freddy and Daphne)and the reality (Shaggy and Velma)Scooby not only co-exists between the two, he cements them. Just as we cannot and perhaps should not sacrifice our ideals, so must we always live with the realities.

The ghost/monster is almost always presented early on in complete supernatural imagery. Take, for instance, the episode where Scooby and his relatives must spend the night in a haunted castle to inherit a fortune. The two Phantom Shadows are transparent early on, but as the episode progresses, they become more and more real. Just before Mr. Creeps and Mr. Crawls are unmasked, the transparancy has disappeared. The reality replaces the fakery. But until perceived truth is debunked, that faux-truth must take on the appearance of actual truth. How deliciously wonderful that the fortune involved also turns out to have been wearing a mask–it is confederate money!

More important though, then the presentation of the dichotomy of the mask is what can be called the morality of the mask. In dealing with a world where the natural and supernatural are confused, where right and wrong as well as good and evil may be wearing the mask, the true question is what is our response? And I think here we begin to see why the message of the show resonates with kids and adults alike some 31 years later.

The adults present a world gone haywire. The Scooby gang, does not respond by placing blame on these adults. They do not rebel and retaliate against the world but instead make a challenge to it. “Scooby Dooby Doo, where are you? We’ve got some work for you now…we need some help from you now” The chaotic inexplicable world is a challenge. In other words, “We’ve got a mystery—dare to make sense of it!”

The main characters of Scooby Doo are always on the road, never resting. Because there is no home, they are forever riding forth in the mystery of life. There may be a mummy in the museum, a space ghost at the airport, or an evil ghost clown at the circus. No matter. The differences of ideal and reality not only co-exist, they thrive on each other. We, like Velma, may lose our glasses for a time. But eventually we find them. Or we find a spare set. And we go on. Scooby acts as the unifying center for the ideal and the potential, the chaos and the order, the masked and the unmasked.

“We had to help. Scooby Doo is our dog. And we love him very much.” So says Freddy when Scooby is saved from the witchdoctor/dognapper. It’s a world we want to love very much. We must go out and try to save it. Would you do it for a Scooby snack? Yes, because of the many many Scooby Snacks we will face the many many monsters.