I don't get the popularity of Scooby-Doo

[Big Disney Fan]

I don't get the popularity of Scooby-Doo, at least when compared to other Hanna-Barbera franchises. Virtually all other HB properties are in the shadows compared to this obnoxious Great Dane and his pals. And I don't know why that is. I mean, you'd think they would give at least one of the other properties (preferably The Flintstones) more prime time, if you know what I mean. What gives here?

[Mason_Ireton]

I never really thought Scooby was so popular, they took Scooby and the other shows (Top Cat, Johnny Quest, Yogi Bear) in their own channel, Boomerang, which plays all the old Hannah Barbera series, from Tom/Jerry to Scooby to Flintstone to Inch High Priv. Eye to Underdog. They have all seasons available for Flintstone and Scooby Doo (S1/S2 are together) and Season 3 is avaliable too. I think Scooby started to fade by 2000 then when the feature films were annouced he became too popular again *chuckles* I remember seing Scooby merchindise in KB Toys, Target and such, kinda drove me nuts.

[Just Myself]

You know what I really don't get? Brushs. They serve no purpose! I don't understand what the hubbub is about anyway. If I wanted a brush, I'd take four combs in my hand and *bam!* I have a brush.

Cheers,
JM

[Prudence]

I don't understand Scooby Doo's popularity, myself. The episodic plotlines of the series are all the same.

[Big Disney Fan]

And you'd think, as I said before, that they would have at least one other HB property on CN, preferably The Flintstones. I mean, look at all the shows and such that one garnered. And if they have to, they can always create a NEW TV show with the Stone Age characters, kinda like What's New, Scooby-Doo? Maybe even have one of those crossover movies, where the Mystery, Inc. gang stumble across a time machine and get sent back in time to the Stone Age and meet the Flintstones... except they kinda did that already, only instead of the Scooby-Doo characters, they used the Jetsons.

But anyway, given the amount of shows The Flintstones has now, it would only seem like a natural to have that one at least on Cartoon Network, along with the only two truly classic shows, Scooby-Doo and Tom and Jerry.

[slave2moonlight]

Scooby Doo is treated so well by HB because it is their most popular property. It's their most popular property because A LOT of people like it.

Why they like it is going to be something that someone who doesn't like it may never get, as with anything else. In comparison to other HB properties, well, first off, a lot of them were poor copies of Scooby, so that knocks them out. With the other popular stuff, like the Flintstones, Scooby has more youth appeal, which is where the money is at with cartoons. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think Flintstones was more like the "Simpsons" of its time, shown in primetime and everything. It was basically an animated Honeymooners, with the only kid appeal being in the fact that it is set in the stone-age and has some physical humor. But, with the Scooby gang you have mysteries and monsters, stuff that kids love! Despite the words like groovy and their clothing and van, Scooby feels less dated. Both Flintstones and Scooby have been updated from time to time, but I think it's easier to update Scooby, frankly, since the time period itself is not that important to the setting. You can update the Flintstones technology all you want, but they still have to live in the stone-age, so it still looks like the same old show (except one time they were kids, ha). Plus, an added boost for Scooby is that it has generations of fans that are (still somewhat young) adults now; people in their early 30's who remember when Scooby was the best and most recognizable cartoons on Saturday mornings until the Real Ghostbusters came along.

Incidentally, Scooby had a lot of great gimmicks too, to hang onto audiences. This kinda goes back to what I said about The Flintstones and how they're a bit harder to change up formats with. The first Scooby series can get a little dull pretty fast because it's so formulaic, but then they mixed it up by adding new characters from Scooby's family, and then a whole show with guest stars each day, celebrity guest stars in a cartoon no less. Then they had the series with Vincent Price, the slapstick series of just Shaggy, Scooby, and Scrappy, Pup named Scooby Doo, and now, "What's New." Flintstones tried most of this stuff, but only the Flintstone Kids really worked. A shame that Pebbles and Bamm Bamm weren't more popular on their own, because Pebbles as a teen was sooooo hot!

[Lazario]

I love those old episodes of Scooby Doo, Where Are You? Yeah, if you look at it closely enough, you'll see stupid things about them. But they're basically entertainment for children. I was a kid, I loved the style of those those cartoons. And so when I watch them today... I really love what I loved about them then. The atmosphere is like nostalgia, it washes over and makes the whole thing gel.

It's just cool if that's your thing. If it's your thing, you'll think it looks and feels cool. Like a little, family-friendly spookshow.

[Anthony]

Being a Scooby fan myself, I always thought that the popularity with the masses was always towards the merchandise rather than the shows themselves. They have Scooby everything! The shows themselves have seemed to be overshadowed by the public's yearn for a Scooby keychain, plush toy, blankets, etc.

But just to set the record straight, I'm a fan of Scooby because of his shows (not so much when Scrappy-Doo or Scooby-Dum entered the picture).

[slave2moonlight]

I was a Scooby fan before the relatives came in, but as a kid, I did really like them, especially Scooby Dum. I think I was more fascinated with their character designs (in relation/comparison to Scooby's) than anything.

Anyway, I forgot in my previous post, but What's New Scooby Doo isn't the current Scooby show anymore. It's that Shaggy and Scooby Mysteries show on CW. Man, I can't even watch that. I just don't like the new character designs for Shaggy and Scooby!

[Lazario]

I did notice when I was watching it the other day that the human characters are ridiculous. I don't like any of them. Fred's the most obnoxious. The one always going- "look, gang, a lightbulb just went out in that building four blocks away from here... Let's investigate!" Velma is stubborn and self-righteous. Shaggy is stubborn too, but also nagging and whiny. Daphne is overly aggressive and short tempered.

Scooby is the only cool one.

I'd venture to say what people like most about the show is the style, artwork / animation, the light comedy tone, the cool music, and the spooky Halloween-every-day kind of feel that every episode has. It's actually a lot of fun if you like Halloween themed stuff.

[slave2moonlight]

Velma was incredibly self-righteous, and she's worse in "What's New," when that annoying Natalie from "Facts of Life" took over her voice. However, in regards to those personality descriptions, that's more personality traits than a lot of HB's Scooby Doo copycat shows had.

[Lazario]

True.

I guess they're mostly an unlikable bunch because together, they're just so self-centered. And kind of elitist. They're always judging people, and they're overly suspicious of everyone. They basically walk onto other people's property (they're constant nomads / Tourists- ever notice that one could call them joyriders by what we see of their lifestyles) and have the nerve to always insist that something is wrong with someone. Like being invited to a dinner or party and being so full of themselves as to take a bite of everything just to sample it and put it back unfinished / push themselves into everyone's conversations and stand there with their hands on their hips, tapping their feet, waiting to hear something that interests them. I wouldn't put it past them, in that situation, to say- "when are you going to say something that I want to hear? Huh?"

Basically, the "snoopy kids" description that's become the cliche of all the movies or shows that spoof them, is dead-on accurate.

[2099net]

You know, I've been ignoring this thread for a couple of days, because frankly, I'm stunned. My first thought was "this is a joke post, right?" but alas it appears not. Then I thought "it must be about the Mystery Inc-less Scooby, Shaggy and Scrappy episodes" but no, its not. Its about "Where Are You... Scooby-Doo?" and more of the classic episodes, as well as "What's New Scooby-Doo?" and the new DTV movies.

I started to cry inside when I realised this. My faith in the human race has been shaken. I have begun to question everything. The world now seems a little darker to me.

Scooby-Doo is the perfect cartoon adventure series. I don't really see how anyone can deny this. The amount of Scooby-clones be they from Hanna-Barbera itself or their competitors seem to support this. I really cannot think of a better set-up for any series ever. Some of this is intentional, some it surely by accident - as most great creations tend to be. But the whys don't matter. All that matters is it works.

The show contrasts science against superstition. It's something that is probably too advanced for younger viewers to grasp. They do still have a fear of ghosts – even if they claim not to believe in them, it’s a real fear that humans have had for century after century. Every culture, no matter how isolated, has its own stories and tales about ghosts. So a younger view is totally enthralled by the action, and at the end of each episode, the ghost is revealed to be fake. Again, the younger viewer won't understand why "Wiggin's Funland" was so important to a property developer, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is ultimately there was no ghost.

As the viewer gets older, s/he begins to spot the formula. S/he will undoubtedly know the ghost will be fake. But then the next level of the show kicks in. The viewer can actually find entertainment not just in Scooby and Shaggy's slapstick shenanigans but also find enjoyment is trying to solve the "mystery" themselves.

Finally, the teenage/adult viewer understands the whole set-up is nothing but an excuse for nothing more and nothing less than familiar jokes, using familiar character archetypes (which I should add include the villains and supporting "suspects" just as much as the main characters) and ultimately familiar plots. Scooby-Doo becomes a safe retreat not only because of its non-threatening familiarity, but also its ablility to gently make fun of the fact – the latter is especially noticeable in "What's New Scooby-Doo?", where even the title could be taken as an ironic rhetorical question, to which if an answer was required, it would be "nothing".

But normally familiarity breeds contempt, yet somehow Scooby-Doo manages to use its familiarity to bask in a cosy armchair, with its feet-up in front of a roaring real fire, drinking chilled champagne and eating expensive chocolates while having its feet rubbed by a butler. How does it do this?

I would say because of the characters. It would be easy to say this was just serendipity, but I think not. Each was carefully chosen to not only to work solo, but in any pairing. More so, we all know these characters. We've all met them and interacted with them at school and we will continue to throughout our lives, no matter in which social grouping, be they forced or through acquaintance. The scruffy, lazy laid-back hippy, the handsome sports jock, the somewhat plain but practical female and finally the pretty but pampered girl. Yes, all are stereotypes, but all are much more "real" than Yogi Bear, He-Man, Batman or a Sir Cares-a-lot (or whatever silly name Care Bears have). Just like the Simpsons family are stereotypes, but also feel "real".

I would put the fact that the show was created in the late 60's down to luck though, because it was only at this point such characters could be created. Today, Shaggy would be seen as inappropriate as a "role model" character, and in the 50's society was much too rigid for Mystery Inc to fit in. The 60s and 70's vibe to these characters is another reason they are still popular today.

Scooby-Doo is unique. It is predictable. People prefer it when it is predictable and dislike it when its not. You can count the Scooby-Doo failures easily… real ghosts, removal of Velma and Fred (and later Daphne), silly short stories where Shaggy, Scooby and Scrappy join the US Army, or open a Pizza restaurant… All such changes have resulted in disaster.* We know what we want… and we want Scooby and the gang solving mysteries which can be scary for the young viewers and ironic for the older. And we want Velma to lose her glasses, say "Jinkies" when she finds a clue, have Fred come up with a impractical ghost trap and the villain to curse Mystery Inc at the end at his grand unmasking.

Scooby-Doo is the televisual equivalent of comfort food.

* Although, it must be said, I don't mind the Scrappy-Doo episodes until Fred and Velma were dumped and the ghosts started to become real.

[Big Disney Fan]

You'd think the Scooby-Doo characters were more difficult to maintain, to keep them from going out of date. I mean, with the Flintstones, at least you'd have no worries of keeping up to date, because you'd automatically know what time they are in (both literally and figuratively).

[2099net]

But the whole point of the Scooby-Doo characters is you don't have to do much to update them. Look at What's New...? and the recent DTV movies. Sure, the clothes have changed slightly - but are still recognisable to the originals.

Now look at any cartoons series from the 80's. Can you imagine the Planeteers from Captain Planet being shown in a cartoon today? Or even the kids from Gravedale high?

Mystery Inc. may be born in the late 60s, but their characters - designs and personality - are timeless and always will be.

[SpringHeelJack]

I myself loathe Scooby-Doo. It's poorly animated, terribly written, cookie-cutter to the extreme, and very trite. I have never see what people find so engrossing about that show.