MovieChat Forums > Scooby-Doo (2002) Discussion > WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

WHY WAS THIS FILM SO BADLY BASHED?

posted 14 years ago by b-claudio
40 replies | jump to latest

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...

[–] chivers677 11 years ago

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

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 11 years ago

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

[–] edge_and_christian_16382 11 years ago

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

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

'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.'

[–] snapshot182 11 years ago

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.

[–] werecow2003 9 years ago

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.

[–] momgoestothemovies 11 years ago

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.

[–] helderuto 10 years ago

because it made Scrappy Doo the villain! ludicrious!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SisterSuzy101 9 years ago

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.

[–] Thenewnexus 8 years ago

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

[–] coolyhooly2001 8 years ago

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