Writingbolt's Creation

****

There’s a reason Scooby-Doo lasted as long as it did and can still be seen on certain channels today. [If someone is currently making one of the countless versions of that concept, I apologize for being unaware.] The original cartoon series (and it’s “closest relatives”**) had style. It was a decent concept, riddled with questionable moments and potentially flawed resolutions. Certain running gags went on WAY too long and were used too often while featuring music that is supposed to make you feel “hip.” The faults weigh in favor of ending the whole thing, yet Scooby and some variety of his pals seem to keep resurfacing, just to do the same stuff with slightly different looks and slightly different crooks.

**I think my favorite, in terms of humor/enjoyment, might be the childish “Pup” series, in which Freddy is perpetually calling out Red Herring and getting served some silly explanation for why he is wrong. It’s not the best-looking series, but it’s amusing. There have been numerous incarnations of these characters, some drawn remotely like the originals. But, only the original versions seem to retain a certain timeless charm. They are the source material from which every reboot is drawn.

Celebrities making appearances in the show, helping the “gang” solve mysteries, prompted others to follow suit. So many want to be turned into a member of this odd group of friends. [It’s like being drawn as a Simpsons character or using a cartoon “filter” on your “phone.”]

I write this piece, now, because I’ve had time to watch some of the old episodes, again, and think about certain elements: Velma’s gender/sexual status and how she was represented, Daphne being portrayed a wealthy (Russian?) redhead who probably funded every excursion the group took and how anyone can tolerate Fred, who is as much of a pin-up as Daphne and similar in intellect (which is probably why they’re a subtle couple while Shaggy and Velma remain obliviously lost yet more successful in the end). What always stands out in my memory is how obnoxious and paranoid Shaggy and Scooby can be and how repetitive the plots become. I still wonder what these “freaks” do when they are NOT solving cases; how do they actually live their lives? Or, is every day just another mad case to solve? Who needs to worry about money and food when you’re perpetually unmasking people, saving property (deeds) and retrieving treasure.

I can’t recall one episode in which I didn’t feel like the dumbest detective. The culprit(s) may have been obvious, but I never seemed to care enough or got distracted by Shaggy, Scooby and Scrappy (the little over-confident runt of a dog) until they stumble upon a solution. Solving a mystery with stupidity or clumsiness isn’t exactly satisfying. It’s fortunate but foolish. Seeing someone, like Velma, take the cases seriously just to get surprised by the discovery two (or three) clowns make…is painful. Intelligence is surpassed by stupid luck. Some of the explanations for how the crooks did what they did were so bewildering and bizarre that I just lost interest.

[Sure. A projector and strings, again. That’s how it was done. Right. And, movie makeup. Whatever. Maybe a modern take could excuse a hologram, instead of an old film projector…if that could be believed.]

Yet, as I watch the latest sampling, I can’t help but admire the artistic style of the show. In a particular winter episode, Daphne’s blue coat and hat are very stylish (while Velma just adds a matching scarf and hat to her usual outfit, which feels a tad cheap and sad). It’s how the characters and moody sets are “drawn” that earns the most approval. [Actually, it might be Daphne, alone, who gets the most merit, not for her intelligence, which is questionable, but her fashion sense, her variety of outfits.] I’d still work on facial features (so certain characters don’t look so eerily dotty-eyed). But, the thickness of lines, the richness of colors, the baggy clothes (without shading^^), shapely figures and elaborate “ghost” (though some do get classified as “monster”) costumes are all treats.

^^If you watch enough cartoons, you’ll see how some get upgraded with shading (if they last long enough). The Simpsons started out as a very simple fill-in-the-lines cartoon but has gradually gained dimension and, in its own way, quality. The original Simpsons did not have great contrast between characters and background. The original Scooby-Doo series had cut-out characters with no shading set on very shady, watercolor-ish backgrounds. It was a bit strange, seeing such a striking difference…but it worked like an optical illusion, helping viewers focus on the characters (if they didn’t opt to ponder the shady scenery and ignore the antics). Once you add shading to this group, they start to merge with the scenery; everything becomes realistic. A little bit of the original charm is lost, even if the new version is an improvement in some way.

Other cartoons (that followed) can’t compare; they’re poorly drawn, hastily written, and it shows. Some might have better material and less “stock footage,” but they have to step up to compare with the “fashion” of Scooby-Doo. There have been MANY cartoons that tried to give characters iconic looks, which then get turned into countless toys that pass through the hands of “I want” kids. Yet, it’s these stupid freelance detectives that have undeniable style in their simplicity. I admire them for that…not for how they handle the cases they somehow accept and solve.

I grew up with siblings reading The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mysteries (in their hardcover forms). And, I recall the live-action Hardy Boys TV series. The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew seemed to come from a similar time period and thus had similar (1960s-1970s) style. I wonder what those characters would have looked like if they received the same treatment as the Scooby-Doo gang. Could their animated adventures have been as colorful and more fun (without the paranoia and clumsiness)?

One other redeeming aspect about this particular cast of crime-solving characters is that they didn’t have to deal with MURDER. Not one case they solve involves an actual death (as far as I know). The villains (who must all have a creepy costume that often defies logic and ALWAYS scares the heroes) typically are after some source of wealth. The lack of grim details makes the plot more tolerable to watch, even if it becomes repetitive and bland like ABC gum. You don’t have to shield a kid’s eyes or explain much with awkward pauses (even if certain details–like those mysterious dog snacks–pose questions).

I imagine running into these characters when I finally get the nerve to try and solve a mystery of my own. I’d likely trip over and fuss with them about being so clumsy and foolish. And, if I’m lucky, I’d beat them to the solution just so I could stick it in their cheeky faces. But, if they got the credit, I’d go as far away from them as I could just so I wouldn’t have to look at them, again.

Damn it, Scooby-Doo gang. Stop distracting me with your overlooked style.