Scooby-Doo : WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Believe me, if they made a sequel and then a prequel, it did NOT flop.

The first movie made about $275,650,703 (at the cost of about $84 million) and the second $181,185,387 (at the cost of about $67 million). So they both performed excellent and were among the most high grossing films worldwide of 2002 and 2004.

People and critics just bashed these films to pieces for some reasons unknown to me, so they come up on new things to critic upon.

Somehow everyone got lost and didn't understand that these films were supposed to be live-action versions of the Scooby Doo cartoon. If you've seen the cartoon for 40 years you'll realize these movies are exactly like the cartoons, which is fun, colorful and silly. So I don't know why would people and critics expect Scooby Doo to be Citizen Kane or The Shawshank Redemption...

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

This is my guilty pleasure movie. I really, really loved this movie for some reason. However, I can completely understand why it was bashed.

~*~*~
Seth Cohen: I'm allergic, and there's so much pollen in here right now. It's ridiculous.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

I loved this movie, with its cute-funny creatures, hot babes, and live-action-cartoon style of comedy.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

"Somehow everyone got lost and didn't understand that these films were supposed to be live-action versions of the Scooby Doo cartoon. If you've seen the cartoon for 40 years you'll realize these movies are exactly like the cartoons,"

Indeed. Well, aside from Fred and Daphne being borderline retarded egomaniacs, Shaggy and Scooby having farting contests, the dumb pop culture references, Pamela Anderson, various gross out gags, annoying characters, and lame storyline. Now that I think about it, this movie is more like She's All That than the original show.

"Oh no, she's pulling me into Avatar! The visuals will be stunning but the story will be bullsh!t!"

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

The original cartoon didn't really have enough material to make a stretched out movie, so more drama needed to be added in.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

I agree, but the movie still kept the basic formula of the cartoon and spiced it up a bit to make a decent full-length live action movie. Even though it's based on a cartoon, the movie IS an action/horror comedy aimed for young adults and teens. And I don't know why people don't get it and trashed it to death. I think the movie hit right on the bullseye, it was PERFECT.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

oh please this movie was a total piece of sh!t
just because a movie turns a profit doesn't equal a good movie.
heck look at Phantom Menace. That made heaps but was bloody awful.

ScoobyDoo was a complete a utter rape of the cartoon. They added all this unnecessary sexual themes, with lame fart jokes, butchering of Scrappy character, and topped it with a script that must've been written by a retarded 5 year-old.
I loved the cartoons, and this was NOTHING like the cartoon.
The only decent part was Shaggy. Other then that this movie was a mess.

I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass....and I'm all out of bubble gum

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

I agree with a lot of what you say. To me, the only good things about this film were:

A) Matthew Lillard as Shaggy. He nailed it, both in his mannerisms and in his voice.

B) The voice actor for Scooby-Doo. He did an excellent job.

C) Making Scrappy the villain. Scrappy was a terrible, annoying character along the lines of Jar-Jar Binks, so to make one of the most despised fiction characters ever into a villain is actually a good move. In fact, a lot of Scooby-Doo fans liked that decision, even though many--perhaps most--of them hated the film.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?


Making Scrappy the villain. Scrappy was a terrible, annoying character along the lines of Jar-Jar Binks, so to make one of the most despised fiction characters ever into a villain is actually a good move. In fact, a lot of Scooby-Doo fans liked that decision,


No true Scooby fan liked this piece of crap move

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

You seem to have a really bad taste in movies so im not sure your opinion counts

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

I love this movie personally. Sure it's no masterpiece, but it's still excellent fun.

It seems to me that a lot of people are really snobby when it comes to movies (especially here on IMDb, where everybody seems to regard themselves as professional film critics); they're either really good, or really bad. There is no middle.

This is just mindless fun for kids and adults alike, and should be viewed as such. Nothing more, nothing less.

As a kid, I loved this flick mainly because of Shaggy and Scooby, but also because of all the action. As an adult, I still love this and can appreciate its kid-friendly horror themes, as an avid horror fanatic myself. Scream is probably my favorite horror movie of all time (well, Scream 2 actually is), so you can imagine how excited I got when I realized that the guy who portrays Shaggy is also the one who portrayed one of modern horror cinema's greatest villains.

Call this a "guilty pleasure" of mine. I will call you anhedonic.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

No, I feel like the movie actually gave the show a lot of justice. There is one thing everyone seems to forget:

The cartoon... Scooby-Doo... is boring and has never been entertaining except for a maximum of 2-5 episodes.

Every episode has the same formula.

It uses terrible gags.

It reuses walk-cycles non-stop.

All of the characters are one-dimensional.


Seriously, name one episode of Scooby-Doo that was actually entertaining (pre-1995)? This movie is more of a meta-joke where it admits the show was bad.

Why do you think the movie opens up with them breaking apart? The movie admits right off the bat that the show is a cycle that never really did anything with it. So it goes with the premise: what if it grew up a little?

Granted, this is not a perfect movie, but it is not an awful movie. The fact that any entertainment can be found in it compared to the original is a good thing. Also, Shaggy was spot-on.


Now, The Smurfs is an example of messing up big-time. The Smurfs does the whole New York setting thing and doesn't even focus on what made The Smurfs.

Scooby-Doo actually has a mystery, it actually has a plot, and it actually has entertainment in it. It isn't perfect, it isn't even a great movie, but it isn't awful.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

"The original cartoon didn't really have enough material to make a stretched out movie,"

Scooby Doo On Zombie Island didn't have a problem with this while staying true to the characters. Neither did Witches Ghost.

"Oh no, she's pulling me into Avatar! The visuals will be stunning but the story will be bullsh!t!"

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Huh? They've made dozens of animated full-length films about Scooby Doo that stayed true to the original cartoon. This film just wanted to be very modernized and savvy but it failed in that respect because Scooby isn't savvy, it's a classic.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Because they made Scrappy Doo the villain. As much as people hated the character I'm one of the few that didn't hate him.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

This movie was purely made for entertainment. If anyone watched this film in hopes of it being deep, dark and edgy, you obviously have not seen the TV show. It was a wonderful adaption of the series I thought.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Wow! Someone who really appreciates the Scooby Doo movie for what it was and didn't expect it to be something else. I gotta say, there's not many people like that around! Nice to see people comment good things about the movie for a change.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

It was made to sell out to the lowest common denominator. The 00s did that a lot with revised television shows made into movies, like Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie's Angels and Land of the Lost. Hell, I'd even go and say Michael Bay's Transformers movies were along those lines, as is G.I Joe: Rise of Cobra, The Chipmunks movies and The Smurfs. They are all cut from the same cloth, so to speak.

Pearls before swine

With some noticeable exceptions - you know the scene I'm talking about - the script was too smart for the audience. There were many lines that were delightfully knowing and smart but that weren't telegraphed or mugged, and just soared over the heads of the popcorn brigade.

That said, even if you went in with just an expectation of seeing a live action version of the cartoon, I'm not sure why you'd be disappointed. There were plenty of competent slapstick scenes and Mild Peril. My kids love it on its most basic level as a simple piece of entertainment.

To be fair, not all of the budget made it on to the screen. Some of the sets look cheap, but then, consider the source. The canine CGI is impressively well integrated, but other effects jar.

Any failings aside though, the reveal of the villain is a moment of pure cinematic genius. I can only assume that the poor ratings come from hard core Scrappy sympathisers.

I have only one thing to say to these people: you're either with us, or with the Scrapster.

Re: Pearls before swine

I completely agree!

It's something hard to say about a Scooby-Doo production (and I'm a Scooby fan) but the script may have just been too smart for the audience. I loved how they integrated inside jokes and their tongue-in-cheek, but maybe their core demographic didn't get many of these things in the script and just focused on the entertainment. The majority of the audience for this movie were children, so many of the jokes were lost in them (since some scenes have some more grown up themes and at times some slight sexual innuendo and crude humor). But the parents, who obviously accompanied their kids, must have gotten it, and if they were fans of the cartoon and have a bit of humor, I think they could've completely enjoyed it. Teens, well, this movie was really made for them, since this movie was made to appeal to younger and more mature audiences alike, and well teens are in the middle of this spectrum, so I think this group could've enjoyed it more, what with the popular teen-oriented cast, sticking their tongues at pop culture, the dark themes and all the pot and sex jokes that could fly over little kids heads. I saw it when I was 14 and I completely loved it! I'm 22 and I still love it to death! One of the best movie adaptations of a cartoon in my book. I completely loved this movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it because I was a teen when I saw it the first time. The movie was complete genius and well crafted and executed, the only way you would hate it is if you were a Scrappy fan and, let's face it, who is?

The second movie was also great, but it was more kid and family oriented, so I enjoyed the first one more, as I think it was made to appeal more to people my age.

Re: Pearls before swine


the only way you would hate it is if you were a Scrappy fan and, let's face it, who is?



Poor You, your world is the size of your basement

Re: Pearls before swine


Any failings aside though, the reveal of the villain is a moment of pure cinematic genius.


You're a retarded Scrappy hater.

Re: Pearls before swine

Let's face it, Scrappy sucks. I'm glad they made him the villain.

Rant over. You can all return to your normal lives.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

I saw this when I was 7 or 8 when it came out in theaters, and I loved it. It was my favorite movie. I could quote it. Now, 10 years later, I still think it's a great movie. I think it's funny, and now watching it, I realize all the little adult-related mentions. My favorite is "My name's Mary Jane." "Like, that's my favorite name!" As a kid, I didn't think twice about it. I thought he was just trying to get her to like him. In reality, it's Shaggy. He's probably high all the time.


It's like being inside a dream or something.. There's truth, but no logic.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

People do understand them considering they are made for little kids. the reason they did so poorly was due to the fact they are stupid films made for simple people.

Just because a film made money does not make it good. It just means it had a lot of hype.

The fact is they are bad, bad films hence the reason it has a 4/10. Just because a few little kids think they are good films does not mean everyone else will.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?


People do understand them considering they are made for little kids. the reason they did so poorly was due to the fact they are stupid films made for simple people.

Just because a film made money does not make it good. It just means it had a lot of hype.

The fact is they are bad, bad films hence the reason it has a 4/10. Just because a few little kids think they are good films does not mean everyone else will.


Anyone who thought going into the theatre that Scooby-Doo was going to be the next cinematic masterpiece, is the one lacking the intelligence. Call it what it is... The movie was geared towards kids with a few cracks for the adults. It was a decent family movie. What the hell were you expecting? The Godfather?

I'm not saying this was a great film by any means, but I definitely agree with the original poster and don't agree with the 4/10 rating here on IMDB. I watch it with my kids now and they love it. It keeps all of us entertained and therefore fulfilled it's purpose. I'd give it a 6/10.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

omg i know i loved this movie. both of them! i really dont understand why people didnt like it. i loved this movie! it was so funny, the cast was excellently picked...augh it annoys me that this movie was so wrongly judged!

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

A live action Scooby Doo could have been MUCH better while still being entertaining and not too deep. This movie is pretty bad even for what it is.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

4.8 for this movie is a complete farce.

Does anybody here at least claim to have been a child before? Back in the day when substanceless drivel was entertaining? I certainly do, and movies like this are designed primarily for children but of course have innuendo and drug references to stop the parents accompanying them from nodding off to sleep.

This movie deserves at least a 6.0.

"Have you ever tried to grab a tongue?" ~ Karl Pilkington

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Part of the bashing for this film might've been that they made Scappy Doo the bad guy. I was disappointed by that when I first saw the movie. IMO if you don't like Scrappy don't put him in the movie at all. It's like if the person who directs and writes Ghostbusters 3 made Slimer into the main bad guy of that movie who tries killing the Ghostbusters with an AK-47 because he hates the character. It's wrong no matter how you look at it. Honestly I prefer the newer live action ones to the older ones.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Seinfeld

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

yeh i agree scrappy as the bad guy just didnt work
btw a 4.8 isnt that bad usually thats avg and thats what this film was

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

'WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?'

1. Scrappy as the big bad villain, even if people hate the character he did not deserve this heel turn. They should've just left him out altogether.

2. Miscasting: Sarah Michelle Gellar and Freddie Prinze Jr. NO, just no.

3. The story really sucks. The series has been around for over 30 years and THIS is all they could come up with?

4. Unfocused thematic material. Dosent know if it wants to be a kid film or pander to the adult audience with the subtle drug refrences.

5. Scooby looks like crap. Its not just the bad CGI either, he dosent even look like a great dane, nor does he look fully integrated into the scenes with the live action actors.

'When there's no more room in Hollywood, remakes shall walk the Earth.'

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

One of the worst parts of this movie is that this movie had a supernatural element. The cartoon went out of its way to convince you that there was something supernatural occurring when it was all explainable by fear creating the sense that something other-worldly was occurring. In actuality, all the mysteries were explained rationally.

This movie had none of that except the first scene. After that, a supernatural element is brought in for the main story line that is completely out of step for any Scooby Doo fan. If anything, the big payoff would have been how they could explain everything without just ending up with the "God did it" explanation: So ghosts exists and all the dumb stuff that occurs in the movie is possible and you just have to deal with it. Because the writers weren't clever enough to fool the audience, which they actually were clever enough to do in the show.

That's what makes this movie so bad. It doesn't try to be anything other than what it seems. It's just a crappy ghost story that makes no sense.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Yes! That is the problem in a nutshell; the movie completely misses the point of the original series. The original had an excellent skeptical message and there was an actual mystery to be solved. In this, the explanation is just "magic", a cop-out.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

6. In an attempt to create drama, the gang separated from each other in anger. This never made sense to me, especially when they did again in the second movie, because their partnership is what made it all worthwhile in the first place. Who would believe that rich girl Daphne was willing to hang out with Shaggy unless she really wanted to and that goes for all of the characters.

After a while it seemed as if the writers were at a loss on how to make this movie interesting. Have they watched the longer movies? What is interesting is how the gang interacts with each other, even with Shaggy's and Scooby's scardy cat acts right before they do some old vaudeville schtick.

I would rather watch all of the classic shows and the newer movies 20 times than ever see this movie series again despite the fact that I love Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardinelli.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

because it made Scrappy Doo the villain! ludicrious!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?


So they both performed excellent and were among the most high grossing films worldwide of 2002 and 2004.


No they weren't, not even in the top 10. In fact, Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed performed far below expectations which resulted in the third film being cancelled.

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Its not the worst cartoon adpation I have ever seen but its not that good either,I only liked Lillard as Shaggy and Sarah was ok as Daphne



Class is Pain 101. Your instructor is Casey Jones

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Well, in the series, DOES SCRAPPY-DOO, THE NEPHEW OF SCOOBY-DOO, EVER BECOME A VILLAIN???

Re: WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

Nostalgia, and the people who preach it. Plain and simple.

As for the film, there's really not enough of a reason for me to hate it.
Top