On The Desecration of Beloved Characters and A Triggered Response to "Velma"

 

The definition of “adaptation” according to the authority of my word processor suggests a work which is recast in a new form, an inevitability especially with those classical characters which have long been a source of entertainment for patrons of the arts. The current adaptation of characters from the past is found in just about every genre of art, somewhere, but seems most prominent in film and TV, where it takes place with the categories of horror movies, creature features, slasher films, action, fantasy, drama, and all subgenres in between. While some reboots or adaptations reach far into the past for their source material, some are incredibly recent with remarkably little space or time between installments. The Marvel Universe or Batman movies are a couple notable examples. Some are sequels, but others are adaptations which differ significantly from a previous entry in the franchise, released perhaps even just a few years earlier. Thus, we see characters going through process of change, and this acceptable to a wide audience given certain factors. It is apparent through online discussions and revenue some general observations might be in order.

 

One of the big ones relates to the age and established attributes of a beloved character. There seems to be a relationship between how long the character has been around and the level of patience fans have for abrupt changes of the subject’s characteristics. Rather than writing a HUGE list of individual aspects which go into this matter, the length of time a character has been around implies a certain level of fandom and adoration. It goes without saying the characters who suck don’t really stand the test of time. I don’t think Jar Jar Binks is going to have a show in fifty years.

Infamy is another one. A character doesn’t necessarily need to be likable or to be memorable to appeal to audiences. Yet, it seems a despised character is a little more prone to adaptation without groaning from a section of the audience. Think Nurse Ratchet from “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.” Not exactly a beloved character, though brilliantly performed by the late Louis Fletcher (a role she took the Academy Award home for Best Actress in 1976). This character stayed in the public consciousness, so much so Netflix released their own show “Ratchet” in 2020 based on the character. With all the love-to-haters out there with Nurse Ratchet, it might be considered unacceptable to cast the role much differently from what the original portrayed. So, we see infamy may too keep a character in the public eye so even they too might get a Netflix adaptation fifty years later. Can we expect a Netflix “Binks” after all? Please no.

On the other hand, infamy and the staying power of character might be best shown in the horror genre. Halloween is finally releasing its supposedly last installment and even Leatherface might not be completely done waving his chainsaw around. In this instance, there might be a little bit more freedom with this genre for many of these story lines have enough plot holes and twists to provide plenty enough room for another person to take up the mantle.

Characters known only for a short time or which transition from one genre to another have more capability to be changed free of controversy. When I was a youth I read “Rising Sun” by Michael Crichton and was quite excited for the movie to come out. After watching it the casting confused me, particularly the character of Peter J. Smith who was portrayed in the film by Wesley Snipes. It didn’t seem like an obvious fit for me from reading the book, but the character was new, not involved in sequels or follow ups, so the shift was unexpected by not terrible by any means. However, if the book or a subsequent series of novels existed for a long period of time, and the portrayal was counter to what I was expecting it could’ve be more off-putting. Whatever the case, we can’t ignore the conceptions or ideas impressed upon a person from any story, book, television show, movie, or any other source material imprints.

Finally, let us get to this “Velma” thing now. This is the real crux of the issue. When we go see a movie, yes, we go into it with expectations. These are formed by trailers, buzz about the movie, and in some cases by what we know of the characters prior. Even so there are some characters I couldn’t give two craps about. Take this updated live-action “Little Mermaid” movie coming out. People are up in arms about the casting or such, and I get it, but I can’t really criticize it. It’s not like I can’t conceive they have presupposed notions of the character based in literature and previous re-tellings, but I don’t have any connection with the tale of the “Little Mermaid.” (Or would that be tail? groan) I was never a fan, so I don’t have the slightest connection to the fable or film and don’t give a hoot.

I’m not a fan of “Snow White” either but I know the source material around it, where there are things about the character which have been ignored completely by the makers of the upcoming film. I do find this example a bit annoying, simply because of its literary specificity. In these instances it makes you wonder if the makers care about the story or characters they are seeking to portray at all? If caring about a fictional character is a real thing.

HBO Max has come out with the splendid idea for “Velma” and I for one am rooting for it to be a ratings disaster. Considering all the things I have laid out here, let me say, I always would tell people half-jokingly I was a Scooby-Doo fan before it was popular (which is impossible since the Hanna-Barbera classic predates me by 10 or 11 years, premiering in 1969). It’s considered a staple of classic animation and television, picking up fans among both children and adults along the way to becoming a historical institution in television history. It spawned two live action movies, several animated movies, and had hosts of guest stars who were all to happy to voice and lend their likenesses to be drawn with Scooby and the gang.

Now in 2022, for some reason the characters are getting an overhaul, to which I say, “Is nothing sacred anymore?” I mean, sure, “Little Mermaid,” whatever, but “Scooby-Doo”? Now they’ve gone to far. Are you out of your mind? I am no fortune teller or delusional enough to post this hoping to keep those meddling kids from screwing up my favorite cartoon, what is done is done, but I think this is going to tank for a couple reasons. First, let us look at the target audience. Supposedly, last I heard, this Velma series was going to be for a mature audience and deal with murders, gore and all that kind of thing. Alright, out the gate not the worst premise. It isn’t enough to destroy the show, writers could perhaps do a lot with it, but the characters have been altered to resemble nothing like the original gang, and there isn’t even a dog! It is advertised to be a prequel of sorts. It will take some creativity to explain the shifts in the characters from the prequel stage to the original show, much of which wouldn’t fit if they are assumed to be in the same “universe” as “prequel” would suggest.

It being for adults, we are talking about an older audience who is probably is better acquainted and more accustomed to the classic “Scooby-Doo” formula. Velma with her Mary Jane shoes, Shaggy with his unhinging jaw evolved for the sole purpose of consuming three-foot tall sandwiches, Fred with a sailor necktie or whatever it is, and Daphne, with . . . well, another scarf I suppose. I don’t think any sexual tension between Fred and Daphne was canon, but would take research and my browsing history is bizarre enough. Oh, and of course the dog with the speech impediment. Other than the names (”Shaggy” will supposedly be referred to by his canonical name Norville Rogers), there is almost nothing similar about “Velma” to the “Scooby Doo” crew which was supposedly was its inspiration. I suppose we can argue it is a spoof, but it doesn’t seem to be what is being implied or where it is going.

It seems then the producers and every one involved in this early Saturday morning blasphemy is guilty of hijacking people’s beloved childhood institutions for the sake of pushing some P.C. dog—— well, “Scooby feces”. It be almost insulting if I was forced to watch it, which I am not, and won’t do so. I believe plenty of others will join in suit. I’m sure they will come up with some uniquely clever answer for these arguments made by applying the labels of being generally racist, often homophobic, prone to gaslighting, always patriarchal, incessantly privileged, functionally ableist, triggered, toxic conversationalists. Perhaps others also which they’ll insist on to attack and at the same time destroy the meaning or impact of their labels as they flip through their Rolodex of pop buzz words.

(Image more effective if you make the sound effects.)

It doesn’t take too much rational discipline to be able to understand the argument. The preconceived notions of a character through literature or the past are often supposed by people when they look at your movie or film and decide, according to their prerogative, if it is worth their money and time. Nobody can deny the characters in “Velma” differ significantly from what we grew up with, what we know, or what we imagine when we hear “Scooby-Doo” and its oh so catchy theme song. Even the “Mystery Machine,” not a character at all, if they were to replace it with a Dodge Dakota would just be depressing. To make the leap from acknowledging this to racism is quite the stretch, but done on a regular basis anyway. Not a rational argument, but experiential, it looks as if people would rather watch something which doesn’t violently conflict with their memories. Granted, some of us do guard our nostalgic recollections with a bit of, admittedly, jealous passion, but it doesn’t mean a buzz word applies.

Not hating on Dodge, I had a Dodge Dakota back in the day but never used it for my mystery solving adventures.

 A spoof would be acceptable. Using different characters to portray similar traits but with glaring differences, is something usually held quite acceptable. Even if you had Velma be Veronica and Shaggy voiced by, well, Shaggy, that sounds like something I might at least give a go. There have been some shows which have borrowed from the “Scooby-Doo” formula with some level of success. “The Venture Brothers” is said to give off some Scooby-vibes, and the gang is included in one episode, and “Mike Tyson Mysteries” was heavily influenced by the show. For this reason I think “Ghostbusters: Answer The Call” was acceptable. It may have been a different story piggybacking on the old, but it is still trying to make its own way. Lastly on this point, the benefit of the spoof is you can introduce a whole new cast of characters in likenesses of the originals and keep from kicking someone in the nostalgias, and might, pick up a few extra views because of it. A perfect spoof would draw viewers to the old and the new.

I have been putting off telling of all the “woke” stuff packed into “Velma,” but it takes the beloved characters a lot of us grew up with and twists them to fit some agenda instead of just providing pure entertainment. In this case, “Velma” might have another strike against it with the show being only a newly packaged heap of the regurgitated message we are constantly bombarded with anyway. If there is any cleverness behind this show, I wager it is only going to be episodic and the whole of the show is going to offer every bit as much entertainment as CNN's morning lineup.

It has been announced “Velma” is now queer in the new prequel, of course implying she must be queer throughout the show up until this point. It seems as if this is a bit of desperation to throw in this plot point. When we look at the original “Scooby-Doo”, other than then cutting a groovy rug on a rare occasion, there isn’t a lot of romance implied. Just a group of young sleuths driving around solving mysteries. What person can’t look back into their youth and relate to that? Despite this, the makers of “Velma” want to create something which was never intended or never even there to begin with. It’s like there is a desperation to make this cartoon sexual in some way. Hollywood is running with this formula now, where they apparently have a check list of all the social engineering tiers they need to visit in any production, and if it isn’t there, you better believe they will make it so. Not with just current projects, but also the one’s already finished. Now they are reaching into the past saying if it wasn’t there to begin with, we are going to “reimagine” it so.

Disney Princesses Reimagined as Cement Mixers

The interesting thing is, with some of these productions, especially as of late, the tokens of the messages they are trying to portray, aren’t pulling in the views even among those to whom these talking points would be most directed. Velma identifying as “queer”, you’d think would draw in viewers who can relate to it. Maybe I will eat my words, I don’t know, but recently these groups haven’t been turning out en masse for these reimaginings. Maybe to a degree Hollywood is getting just as transparent to these groups as it is for others. I wouldn’t be surprised, because pandering is best done in intermediate doses. If you are going to pander to a group, or push an agenda, overwhelming might not be the best course, though if your being pandered to, being overwhelming is exhilarating at first. Right before it gets boring. Especially in the scope of entertainment.

People like movies they can interject themselves into, or identify with the characters. So it is quite understandable LGBT representation would be found in movies to attract the movie goers who can place themselves in that role on a subconscious level. Yet, the longer a character has been around, the more the character takes on a personal construct of their own in the mind of the movie goer. They are unable to interject themselves into the character because the character has been fully formed in their mind. It is not malleable to the viewer, nor does the viewer suppose it is completely open to interpretation for any other.