For some reason, dougie_monty resurrected a two-year-old thread about Scooby-Doo to complain about a parody on The Venture Brothers that depicted well-known serial killers as “The Groovy Gang,” who happen to dress similarly to the Scooby characters. Even though I (who don’t even watch the show) and many others have attempted to explain the parody, dougie_monty’s responses have become increasingly bizarre. I don’t know if it’s a joke or not, but I’m not really sure why he thinks Scooby-Doo- which has been parodied countless times over the years- deserves to be defended as strongly as many defend their political and religious opinions.
The main point of the matter- and the one on which dougie_monty appears to fail to comprehend- is the fact that the characters in question are not the actual Scooby-Doo characters, but rather well-known serial killers who happen to dress like the Scooby characters. The characters are drawn to resemble the actual serial killers more than they do the Scooby-Doo characters, and the dog is drawn as a labrador retriver (the type of dog that David Berkowitz believed told him to kill) rather than a great dane (the type of dog Scooby-Doo is).
The most insane comments, however, came up when someone pointed out that The Venture Brothers is owned by Time Warner, the same company that owns the rights to Scooby-Doo.
Why? When parody is involved, the parent company of the one being parodied often shows up in the parodies- sometimes because they’re an easy target, or sometimes because their contributions to popular culture- such as Time Warner’s- are so prevalent that not parodying them would be difficult. Should News Corporation go out of business because of the Simpsons’ constant cheap shots at the shoddy programming on the Fox network? Should Topps go out of business for depicting their own products as inedible, moldy, and worm-infested while doing the same to other products? Should Time Warner also go out of business for MAD magazine’s constant spoofs of Time Warner’s own movies, TV shows, and other businesses, including this parody of their now-defunct store which manages to be funny, cruel, and dead-on at the same time?
Ben Edlund and Jackson Publick are not the same people as Joe Ruby and Ken Spears. And, as I’ve already pointed out multiple times, nor did Edlund and Publick create dissolute alter-egos of the Scooby-Doo characters- they created alter-egos of already dissolute real people, those alter-egos just happening to resemble the Scooby-Doo gang.
Also, do you find all Scooby-Doo parodies offensive, or just this one? There have been varying degrees of Scooby-Doo parody, many of which feature the actual characters rather than new characters that resemble them, and in varying degrees of authorization. Are you offended by an unauthorized parody poking fun at the babyification of cartoon characters that depicts Scooby and his pals as walking fetuses (TV Funhouse)? Are you offended by an unauthorized parody that features Fred commenting “we’re dealing with one sick son-of-a-bitch,” with the line being given by Fred’s official voice, Frank Welker (Family Guy?) Are you offended by a Time Warner-owned parody mixing the actual characters (in action figure form) with a stereotypical slasher film, all of the characters voices being provided by the actors who portrayed them in the live-action movie (Robot Chicken)? Are you offended by the live-action movie itself- a fully authorized adaptation of the characters not parodying them, which nonetheless has a few gags poking fun at some of the common parodies and criticisms about the characters, including a few jokes about the idea of Shaggy being a pothead and a comment on Scrappy-Doo being annoying by depicting him as a literal devil who was trying to destroy the gang all along after kicking him out for said annoyance?
You’ve opened this can of Scooby Snacks, and the words coming out of your mouth are as hard to understand as Scooby’s. That’s a fact.
