June 14, 2002, 7:34 p.m. CST
No one I know wants to see it!
June 14, 2002, 7:41 p.m. CST
by Not The Messiah
Or something like that. Ouch Mori! Is Harry gonna bother reviewing this or will he just go off on another profanity filled verbal assault on it? Just saw the trailer for this today before Spider-Man and the whole cinema was like "What the fuck?".Heh, go figure.
June 14, 2002, 7:46 p.m. CST
Sure, it's not that great... but it was silly and fun and I was entertained by it. Everyone is right on about Lillard, he made Shaggy the best fucking character in the entire movie and he rose way above my extremely low expectations! I was one of the many people who ranted about him being cast in the role of Shaggy but I am happy to admit that I was totally wrong. Matt Lillard made this movie for me!
June 14, 2002, 7:48 p.m. CST
its nice to see such a well calculated review of this movie on the site. i think its gonna suck but now when i tell people weather i liked it or not i think i'll try to give them real reasons rather than the ususal, "they should kill the director" stuff.
June 14, 2002, 8:03 p.m. CST
But if you look back at all in the last couple of months.. he is barely here. He posts few reviews, sets up few of the incomming news, and is generally just an absentee landlord. Moriarity is pulling this site now with a bit of back up from Father Geek. Keep up the good work Moriarity.. with out you this site is toast.
June 14, 2002, 8:04 p.m. CST
I almost died. Funny stuff.
June 14, 2002, 8:13 p.m. CST
Excellent review of an otherwise forgettable movie. Your postings are always a pleasure to read, because they are unbiased, un-ranting and well written. I sometimes grow tired of Harry's ranting and raving, so it's refreshing to read your columns. No offense Harry, love the site, love your work, but sometimes toning it down a notch might be warranted.
June 14, 2002, 8:22 p.m. CST
Just say it sucked and move on.
June 14, 2002, 8:34 p.m. CST
...IT'S NOT ANY WORSE THAN THE SHOW! Seriously, Scooby Doo was my life when I was 5 or so, and I've always had a resulting soft spot for it, but take a good, non-nostalgic LOOK at that show! GOD, I literally can't watch it with the sound on anymore. I give it slack, since it meant EVERYTHING to me in my youth, and it played no small part in getting me interested in Sci Fi/Horror films to the extent I am, but...um...bad is bad.
June 14, 2002, 8:39 p.m. CST
Linda...Cardinelli. Yum. Could care less about SMG, since I've never been sexually attracted to coat racks, but...Wow. Jinkies, indeed. And I don't really get the venom against Prinze. Yeah, he sucks, but I can think of a lot worse actors out there...I just don't get the extent of the VENOM. Why him? I mean, there were a few minutes where, as much as I hate to admit it, he sounded just like Fred. That doesn't make him GOOD, but all the hate dumped on him seems to me like blaming the end of the world on vanilla ice cream. Like the man says, he's too bland to get worked up about.
June 14, 2002, 8:46 p.m. CST
Sorry to be off topic but i just saw a feed of "Ebert @ Roeper @ the Movies" on satelite and they reviewed it.Roeper said Tom Cruise and Samantha Morton were fantastic.Ebert said this was one of Steven Speilberg's very best movies.They gave it "Two Thumbs Way Up".I can't wait to see this!
June 14, 2002, 8:50 p.m. CST
At the end of Scooby-Doo it was always somebody in a rubber mask and he says I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids, they took that away in this movie. They could of had a funny mystery movie but they turned it into a stupid Sci-fi movie with ghosts and goblins, and to the people that wrote Scooby-Doo, don't try to pull off that the idea of the goblins and ghosts being real is your idea, it is a rip off of the straight-to-video movie, Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island.
June 14, 2002, 9:01 p.m. CST
Also, Daphne's outfit. If you want to make all the outfits exactly like the cartoon, don't make one different because it looks sexy, it looks stupid. Either change all the outfits for originality, or keep all of them the same. Just because you don't like Daphne's outfit doesn't mean you had to change it to fit your means.
June 14, 2002, 9:09 p.m. CST
I took my daughter to the 1st showing today (SOLD OUT), and had very low expectations. She loved it and I was surprised. It was ok, hell it's a movie about a talking dog - How great could it be. I hated Scrappy in the cartoon Scooby Doo's, but enjoyed him in the movie. Could have used more pot jokes and some implied dyke jokes
June 14, 2002, 9:19 p.m. CST
I took my daughter to the new Scooby Doo movie today. It was okay, but could have used more dyke jokes. *** Y'know what, man, those sentences just don't go together.
June 14, 2002, 9:19 p.m. CST
...Scooby Dumm, Scooby's inbred southern uncle (or was it cousin?) was.
June 14, 2002, 9:21 p.m. CST
...you beat me to that post by seconds. You creep me out sometimes, m'man.
June 14, 2002, 9:34 p.m. CST
by Forest the Gimp
Ha ha, you're right on the money, Custer. Those Star Wars idiots just lap up anything with Lucas's name on it. I bet they'd try to say the Mystery Machine was an earlier version of the Mellenium Falcon and that Daphne was Fred's sister. Sad but true...
June 14, 2002, 9:35 p.m. CST
People go to movies to escape. The question today, though, is what to? Today's filmmakers are so busy feeding us back our own focus-group and consultant filtered bullshit, that they have ceased to understand one fundamental truth: that we don't go to the movies to experience the things that we live with in our everday lives and in every other part of the culture. We go to find our escape from the ordinary thoughts we have day by day. We want to hope, to transcend, to find new worlds that we couldn't have imagined by ourselves. That is where George Lucas, with his poor writing skills can trump these Hollywood hacks: he brings his imagination to the game, and at least gives the audience something legitimate to escape to. YODA, The Coruscant Chase, the final battle, the fights between Jango Fett and Obi-Wan; breathtaking work, even if the movie around it hasn't the best dialogue. But just looking at the ads for Scooby, it seems they are trying to bank (way too obviously) on the one thing that most people says works in their film. It all smacks of desperation, and nothing is more pathetic than a desperate storyteller. Look at the Matrix previews and you'll see somebody who isn't afraid to underplay things, to tease. Look at Scooby Doo, and you'll see people who can't help but be afraid that nothing they do will save their jobs.
June 14, 2002, 9:40 p.m. CST
I thought the version of Scooby and gang featured in "Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back" was far funnier than this version so why did they bother?
June 14, 2002, 10:10 p.m. CST
Matt Lillard isn't a bad actor, he just happens to choose some of the worst roles in cinematic history. For anyone who doubts this, go check out "SLC Punk". I was stunned to see what Lillard was able to do given a well written character in a movie that cares more about telling a good story than getting hordes of 13 year olds into the theatre. Unfortunately that happens to be the only good movie he's made. I can only assume that at some point in the past Freddie Prinze somehow forced him to swear some sort of ritual blood oath binding them together for all eternity. It may have been part of the same dark pact that keeps the studios greenlighting their films no matter how many millions they loose. Here's hoping that Matt finds some way of escaping his lamentable plight, and starts making movies that are worthy of his talent.
June 14, 2002, 10:23 p.m. CST
by Sgt. Blueberry
Lobanhaki: You're ABSOLUTELY right. Blako: That's an unfair statement. Listen, EVERY movie is a major collaborative effort between talents. George Lucas is just as involved in the production of his movie as any other admirable director would be.
June 14, 2002, 10:38 p.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
Let's hope Scooby-Poop (such a "funny" pun that they used it in every trailer and TV ad, yet supposedly cut it from the film itself) is the Rocky & Bullwinkle of 2002.
June 14, 2002, 10:42 p.m. CST
I'd completely forgotten about Scooby Dum. Yes, that was a truly stupid character. But Scrappy was much more annoying.
June 14, 2002, 11:41 p.m. CST
by Escherichia coli
June 14, 2002, 11:45 p.m. CST
Big Momma's House, Home Alone 3, Never Been Kissed. All turned quite healthy profits. Scooby will be no different.
June 14, 2002, 11:56 p.m. CST
by Escherichia coli
Young filmgoer:[speaking about Scooby_Doo] It's a pity Warner Bros. didn't kill him when he had the chance. Moriarty: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many movies that deserve life receive death and many that deserve death do not receive it. Can you give that to them young filmgoer? Young Filmgoer: Perhaps not. Moriarty: Then do not be so quick to serve out justice to that which you do not fully understand. I have a feeling Scooby-Doo may play some part in all this yet. And by that, I mean the massive amount of horror released by this movie, more than even Sauron could do if he gets control of the One Ring! All of Middle Earth will be destroyed! Young Filmgoer: NOOOOOOOO!!!!! AGHHHHHH!!!!! I think I remeber hearing this in that movie. By the way, if anyone wants to read Lillard attack Knowles, just check my other comment under the other Scooby-Doo review, near the bottom of the talkback called Lillard vs. Knowles, Round 1. Lillard just bashes poor Harry. I think many of you might find it interesting. And thank you imdb, for making this much easier to write. Escherichia coli has spoken. You may go about your business.
June 15, 2002, midnight CST
honestly you cant say that changing the title to star wars would be the end of it, you could also change the plot so they dont actually do ANYTHING for 99% of the movie, kill off the vilian while completely underusing him, throw in some formulaic romance between daphne (whos parents beat her for no reason other than to fuck with the story) and fred, and change around the script untill you have a story that is bastardized into having something for everyone with only the origional material being the sacrifice. There you go, slap a spider-man title on it and bam, the zombies will go to it in droves, and if their momies ground them or they cant score and get pent up sexual frustration, they can go to movie boards and slam everything else that doesnt satisfy their selfish perception that all movies that come out must service THEM. Oh yeah, they can also change it to organic scoobie snack dispensers.
June 15, 2002, 12:01 a.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 12:04 a.m. CST
by Escherichia coli
Oops. Change Bilbo to Warner Bros. im my above post to make more sense, although it doesn't really as it does. Oh sue me, Eshcherichia coli made a boo-boo, and also has spoken, blah, blah.
June 15, 2002, 12:06 a.m. CST
That no one thinks for themselves. I think Scooby Doo was really good. My little brother loved it and I liked it too. Just because someone says a movie sucks and you think they're "cool" and don't wanna be the odd one out it's still ok to say what you really think. People are never satisfied no matter what you do. Listen, unless you have the money and/or power to back up what you say or do you'll always have to resort to cheap message boards to bitch and moan and all agree in unison once the leader has spoken. I for one would like to hear a REAL reason why the movie was such "DOO" and not some petty personal vendetta against the cast or scooby doo.
June 15, 2002, 12:13 a.m. CST
Give it a rest! So you don't like Star Wars...we get it. Move on.
June 15, 2002, 12:19 a.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 12:21 a.m. CST
I've been anxiously checking this site all day because I've been curious to see what Harry's going to hack out about this movie - but am pleased to find such a coherent, well-explained review. Nicely written as always, Moriarty. I don't envy Harry having to write this review - because if he writes a positive one (HA), he'll get accused of being on the movie payroll and if he writes a vitriolic flood of hate and how it raped his childhood, people will just write it off. Curious to see what happens. You couldn't pay me to see this movie, personally. Blech. I don't think they could have cast a more wooden actor as Fred - and the attempted cutesiness of casting SMG as Daphne - UGH. I'm one of those not going - but I didn't care for the cartoon either, sacriligious as that may be.
June 15, 2002, 12:40 a.m. CST
Is he Oscar calliber? No but I've been saying for years that if he'd just get a new agent and stop working with card-board boy (Prinze Jr.) he'd be a performer worth watching. He's capable of much more then he does... whether his being trapped in cinematic crap is his own fault or not... I don't know. But I've been waiting for him to claw his way out... and I'm still waiting.
June 15, 2002, 12:44 a.m. CST
He is probably the best actor in some of the worst films made lately. He was hilarious as the totally tweaking "hacker" Cereal Killer in that pretentious little crapfest called "Hackers." I wish someone in that festering hole known as Hollywood would wake up and give him a chance in a bigger role.
June 15, 2002, 12:57 a.m. CST
Hollywood Reporter raves about Minority Report, calling the film "one of (Spielberg's) most compelling and entertaining films ever". Kick ass. Can't wait. Now you people can go back to your more important Scooby-Doo discussions.
June 15, 2002, 1:34 a.m. CST
It was the role he was born to play.
June 15, 2002, 2:30 a.m. CST
First thing--- HELLO!!! This message board is about Scooby Doo! I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think it looks great in my opinion. But you two are just pathetic. You're suggesting that both Harry and Moriarity and anyone else that liked AOTC is being paid by Lucasfilm? HUH? Are you guys stupid, 13 years old, or crazy? Probably all 3 by my guess... Maybe they *NEWSFLASH!* actually a lot more than you did? OMIGOD! People can have different opinions on things! What a concept! I LOVED AOTC and Spiderman for that matter, and neither company paid me to, and I'm not telling you to agree with me... If you didn't like it fine! Move on! Get some lives! But do me a favor, drop the conspiracy theories please. They're just as dumb as the Scooby Doo movie looks.
June 15, 2002, 2:30 a.m. CST
The only thing Scooby has going for it is that it has the "Chamber of Secrets" teaser preceding it. I'm suprised they screened it in time for reviews. It's getting panned left and right, the whole thing will collapse in on itself, by itself. The failure of the movie can't be placed squarely on anyone since the whole thing is awful. Still, we should all tip our hats to Lillard, he is the only good thing anyone has to say about this movie. Go rent SLC Punk and send some money his way.
June 15, 2002, 2:35 a.m. CST
I meant to say maybe Harry and Moriarty actually "liked AOTC" alot more than you (Blaco and Custer) did. But anyone with half a brain could've figured that out. I was just frustrated by the lack of intelligence so often perpetrated on this site by those like you.(Blaco and Custer) Oh yeah, Custer, what's up with that name? That guy was a racist pig who slaughtered indians. Guess I know where your politics stand. No wonder you don't like Star Wars.
June 15, 2002, 2:38 a.m. CST
General Custer, isn't the real reason why you didn't like AOTC that the scene where Anakin kills the Tusken Raiders reminded you too much of what happened on Little Big Horn when you killed all those native americans? LOL. You don't have to be so offended General Custer sir, it's not like Anakin was scalped afterwards... Like you were.
June 15, 2002, 2:38 a.m. CST
Why are all of you small minded fucks so bent on hating Star Wars now? Are you this fucking pathetic that you can't enjoy something for what it is? Quit your fucking whining and accept that, while it's different from the OT, the PT IS good. James
June 15, 2002, 3:08 a.m. CST
lately is it seems everyone forgets that movies are for fun. I went to scooby expecting shit, and where did this idea come from. Well this site. This site has been influncing my expectations of movies now for about a year and really I'm tired of it. I can't seem to have fun at the movies anymore. Everyone here posts reviews about movies from how they changed their lives to how they ruined their lives. Folks their just movies. Hollywood doesn't care what we say what we want, all they care about is money. So who cares about them. I took my godson to this movie he laughed he loved it. I laughed more then I thouht I would and was happily shocked that I enjoyed and for an hour and half I was somewhere else then my life. Movies are just that. The rest is bullshit. Starwars, Spiderman, Scooby Doo, liked them all. I don't know I'm just rambling.
June 15, 2002, 3:09 a.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 3:18 a.m. CST
Some of the reviews have been pretty favorable. I had no interest until the trailers started heavy play. Lillard as Shaggy: I couldn't believe how much he seemed to nail the character (I didn't think he had it in him). I'm intrigued by that alone, just to see someone be able to inhabit such a ridiculous character with absolute conviction. That's dedication. Let's face it - even back in the day, the cartoon was always about the friendship between Scooby and Shaggy. It's too bad that the writers and director didn't get that, and make the film revolve around those two characters with the rest of Mystery, Inc. in the periphery. As other people have mentioned - how many Fred, Daphne and Velma jokes are there to be had? They've already been done. I think by far the worst miscasting in the picture was Sarah Michelle as Daphne. She doesn't have comedic timing (just watch Buffy) and she doesn't have the type of sex appeal that Daphne had (animated or not). They should've cast a curvy actress in the part, and played her as a bimbo trying to sound intelligent. At least to give the audience something to look at when she was onscreen. I'm not all for gratuitous female roles, but Daphne WAS the cheesecake of Scooby Doo - so I think that it would've been playing fun at itself and the fans (many of you - and you know who you are - who probably still fantasize about Daphne to this day). Freddie is pretty close to Fred in the cardboard department, but they could've cast anyone in that role. Lillard and Scooby should've been the stars of the film.
June 15, 2002, 3:43 a.m. CST
My undying loyalty to Lilard as an actor stems from this movie. I agree he is capable of much bigger and better things.
June 15, 2002, 6:02 a.m. CST
These morons who insist on bashing Attack of the Clones in every single unrelated talkback are getting as bad the morons who insist on comparing every film to Lord of the Rings and declaring them to be shit. I'm pretty much with Moriarty on the merits of the original cartoon, so I find it difficult to be too upset that they've made a bad film. I can't say that they've screwed up, since I never saw the inherent potential in the first place. Bad cartoon becomes a bad film; no tragedy. And I really don't understand everybody's grudge against Prinze. Harry started up a hatefest, and a bunch of sheep fell in line. The fact is, he's an awful lot like you people: he's a big nerd. He just happens to be a good-looking nerd who's made it in show business. How many of you wouldn't trade places with the guy? Okay, then, shuttup.
June 15, 2002, 7:15 a.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 7:33 a.m. CST
Man all I can say is that there must be an incredible amount of the funny stuff from SD on that freakin' cutting room floor.For such a short movie I couldn't wait for it to end.I read a review in the N.Y. Daily News and it said that all the "insider" jokes ruin the movie.REALLY!?!?!?Obviously the reviewer and I didn't see the same movie.They should have left the Scrappy-Doo material to just the one scene and not how it actually played out.'Cause "UGH" is all I can say.Maybe if there was more "insider" jokes I would have been more entertained!Oh by the way where the F**K did "You better get your smack on smack off!"and "Your name means Scooby-Poop"(Was it me or did you think Velma was supossed to be high when she says this in the shot from the commercial?)go?It's lines like that plus some lesbo stuff between Daphne and Velma that I waited the whole freakin' movie for!THANX! TSM :-]
June 15, 2002, 9:41 a.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 9:46 a.m. CST
One thing that - in my mind - discounts film critics (in regards to AoTC at least), and thus rottontomatoes in general, is the fact that TPM ultimately maintained a better "score" than AoTC did on the rottentomatoes website. Now, regardless of whether the public thought that AoTC was a brilliant film, or a stinking, vile, festering pile of Scooby Poop, it's still ten times the movie that TPM was. Even the most vehement of the AoTC bashers (the ones who have actually *seen* the film at least!) will agree to that. Out of the many reviews, friend reactions, and talkbalks that I've been privvy to, whether good or bad; 98% of them confirmed that AoTC was worlds above TPM. Conclusion: Rottentomatoes = not a valid source for comparisons. Secondly, why this General Custer person insists on continuing his tirade regarding a month old movie that he has yet to even watch, is beyond me. It's amusing, yet very sad at the same time. To the General: Do you not realize that 90% of the people who planned on seeing AoTC have already done the deed, and have, as a result, already formed their own opinions? What do you hope to accomplish? You constantly point out the bad reviews and ignore the good - as if bad reviews are magically always right, and good reviews are always unquestionably wrong - in some strange effort to convince the world that AoTC is evil and will eat your children. Tired cliche' time: Get a fucking life!
June 15, 2002, 10:53 a.m. CST
Only because Ebert hated it. That means that it will at least be enjoyable on a "goofy, dumb, funny movie" kind of level. Ebert blows goats. He does NOT know how to enjoy anything that doesn't take itself seriously. The only question I have is should I smoke up before going in. Sometimes movies like this are better seen whilst under the influence. And sometimes they can be a bad, bad experience that way. Let me know people.
June 15, 2002, 11:31 a.m. CST
by Darth Lechon
In the words of Tina Fey and Jimmy Fallon:-------------------------------------------------------OH NO YOU DININT! SNAP!
June 15, 2002, 11:42 a.m. CST
I watched the show when I was a kid and was amused by it but I wasn't dying to see this. Yep, Mike Myers already squeezed all the juice out of the Scooby Doo joke lemon. It's tired and predictable. You are correct about Scrappy; he is the Jar Jar binks of cartoons. I always hated that little fecker! That's all the deterent I need. I'll give my cash to George again instead!
June 15, 2002, 11:47 a.m. CST
this movie looks funny. i can't believe i actually said that, but i did. i mean, cmon, ive been hearing about this movie for months with nothing but contempt. Not just because of this site, but myself. A Scooby Doo movie with FPJ, ugh. Thinking things like "fuck them for roping SMG into this shit" and "haha, scooby poop", heh. BUT this morning i was watching this HBO First Look thing about it and it ACTUALLY SEEMED FUNNY. I mean, the overall idea is stupid, of course, but there WERE SOME VERY FUNNY BITS. And to the person who said SMG has no comedic timing, thats a crock. Some of her lines and faces from what i've seen are downright hilarious. She owns her ditziness. In closing, i won't see th
i won't see this movie, but if its on TV sometime, ill defnitely watch it and enjoy.
June 15, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST
by Bad Guy
Oh my God! I just said the same damn thing to my girlfriend, not two days ago. "That kid from "NYPD Blue" would've made a better Fred." Eerie. Actually, a whole lot of other people would've made a better Fred. Not even talking about F.P. Jr's acting. The guy's just not physically right for the part. Animated Fred was this tall, blonde, jock type. Probably played high school football. Prinze, Jr. looks more like he would've ran track in high school. And that blonde hair?? Yeah, that looks natural. Right up there with Halle Berry's Storm wig in "X-Men". Frankly, except for Lillard and his scary channelling of Shaggy, the whole movie just looks like it's going to eat a great big bowl of suck. Unlike, General Custer who has decided to boycott AOTC because he's got a problem with Lucas or the SW prequels, I probably won't be seeing Scooby-Doo because it just doesn't interest me. (Hey Custer, life's too short dude. Channel that energy towards a worthy cause.) It's a kid's film based on a very mediocre cartoon, let the kid's enjoy it. Peace, Biiiaaatches!
June 15, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST
Eat some goddamn food you concentration camp victim looking thing!!! Sarah, honey, they're called hips and tits and an ass, all women are supposed to have them. We need to get her to star in the Karen Carpentar story before she dies.
June 15, 2002, 12:15 p.m. CST
Roger Ebert does not deserve his nobel-prize anymore. Me being a huge Star Wars fan and loving all of the SW movies (that includes Phantom Menace), I was really pissed on his review of Attack of the Clones, simply because he seemed to be in a different dimension or something. Most of his review of Phantom Menace centered on the film as a groundbreaking, cinematic achievement in imagination. He said that for the original trilogy! There are a lot of similarities between the way George Lucas directs Attack of the Clones and Phantom Menace, which people might have thought were wooden in terms of the direction and acting. What's crazy is that Ebert seems to take it more seriously in Attack of the Clones and forgetting thinking about any beauty of what makes the Star Wars universe so unique. I happen to believe that Attack of the Clones is a hell of a lot better in imagination that Phantom Menace. If people say Attack of the Clones was a hell of a lot better or just a slight improvement over Phantom Menace, then how is it that Attack of the Clones gets Ebert just saying the actors and chemistry aren't there, when people were saying that about Phantom Menace? What's funny is that my roommate (an even bigger SW fan than I am), told me he knew someone in junior college who knew these stories hardly anyone knew in the entertainment and critical world. My roommate said this guy knew of Roger Ebert's ORIGINAL review of Star Wars, not his later one (which isn't the special edition review) and said what Ebert said was completely different than his positive review of A New Hope. I believe Ebert's review was to have been negative and him saying, "well, at least the special effects were good." I'm telling you, Ebert is overrated. He's just like those unpassionate critics who first reviewed A New Hope, gave it negative reviews, then reinstated them to positive. Now he's supporting Phantom Menace and saying there's a reason why it's directed the way it is. Then he gives a very negative review of Attack of the Clones and for the first time, I was rooting for Roeper, who praised AOTC. I thought it was actually Roeper as Ebert and Ebert as Roeper. Does Ebert FINALLY notice something people have complained about the new trilogy yet forgets to acknowledge it in the Phantom Menace film. You know what? I'm believing he only loved Phantom Menace because of the hype of it being the first Star Wars movie to come out since Return of the Jedi. What Ebert doesn't seem to get is that George Lucas directs "Attack of the Clones" the same darn way as "Phantom Menace" and even "A New Hope!" And for those of you who loved Spiderman, look at what he said for that film. He was talking about Spiderman not being able to swing that fast along buildings dude to certain weight issues. Is Ebert thinking of comic book films or a true story? Obviously he doesn't know the difference. "Spiderman" had to swing with his nets in that fast sense that Ebert was talking about. It's a damn comic book movie! Realism is not to be of concern but rather getting a film to show how you really get a comic book to the big screen. Sounds like Ebert's been watching too many independent films. Anyway, I'll never forget that Ebert reviewed "Cop and a Half." He gives that a better review than Attack of the Clones. Sad.
June 15, 2002, 12:40 p.m. CST
Seriously, what world are you living in? AOTC may be sinking at the box office but George will STILL make shitloads of money on the merchandise and there's nothing you can do to stop him. Now, personally I thought AOTC was a total borefest and I actually prefer TPM, but still, these are only movies -and they're aimed at kids. Kids love them! They don't care if the "magic" of the original trilogy is lost or if the acting's bad or if the script makes no sense - they just love the whole spectacle of it - it's cheap, easy entertainment that doesn't require you to think or engage with emotionally. Custer, you're clinging onto childhood memories and living in the past. The new Star Wars movies have been made for a different generation - they're not yours anymore. You've got to let go.
June 15, 2002, 12:47 p.m. CST
Personally.. I thought AOTC was a a fun movie, I enjoyed it very much (they could have cut out much of the love story for all I care though.. but even that is watchable). Why do so many of you have a need to hate AOTC.. there are even a few of you who haven't even seen it and hate it anyhow. I don't care if you disliked the movie.. fine.. but what is your sick need to bash it in every Talkback.. it is borderline obsessive-compulsive behaviour.. you should all just learn to relax a bit.
June 15, 2002, 12:57 p.m. CST
I was hoping to see the PG-13 scenes in this after hearing them on the net (Velma and Daphne kiss, Shaggy getting stoned like some Cheech and Chong movie, Velma acting gay, etc.) But however it had to be toned down due to "kiddy approval" or "family entertainment" family entertainment my ass! This movie deserves the treatment of "Josie and the Pussycats" PG-13 RATING!!! Because Josie was good as a PG-13 making fun of blondes, the popstar deal, and the media. I hope they get a new director instead of this Raja guy and somebody please FIRE FREDDIE PRINZE JR!!! The kid sucks in every movie he's in. He's got that same fucking personality that never changes, it's just dull and borish.
June 15, 2002, 12:58 p.m. CST
He won a Pulitzer.
June 15, 2002, 1:43 p.m. CST
GRAMMAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But seriously,did they get rid of the Talk Back for AOTC or what?This space is for Scooby-Doo is it not?Stay on topic,stay on topic(thank you ep.IV ANH)!Also I think you guys are refering to the actor who played SCREECH aka Dustin Diamond to play Shaggy not Mark Paul Gosselar[to play Fred](don't know if I spelled his last name correctly)who played Zack Morris,I think you got your wires crossed, but then again almost anyone would be better than that a-hole Freddie Prinze Jr.UGH!But let me put my 2 cents into this AOTC vs. TPM vs. episodes IV-VI.TPM both sucked and blew,AOTC rocked except for Hayden"Obi-Wan is holdin' me back"Christensen!Even though I still believe Lucas forgot that he is supposed to direct actors(HEY Lucas do you remeber what/who they are?)not SFX.AOTC edit(ver. 1.0)out 95% of H.C.'s performance and you are good to go in my book!THANX!Peace out!:-]
June 15, 2002, 2:22 p.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 2:37 p.m. CST
by The Paladin
I really like the way you wrote your review. It shows that you really put in some thought to this. Not just bashing it, but explaining its shortcomings. Also you are right about FPJ: we all know he is a terrible actor, but Harry does go overboard with his criticism.
June 15, 2002, 3:25 p.m. CST
That's the smartest thing you've said on this TB. I never thought of the comparison between Sep 11 and the attack on the Death Star before. The more you think about it, the creepier it gets. It's as if Ben Laden was inspired by Lucas to send a few aircraft to penetrate the US defences. Which means......Lucas bombed the WTC!!! Get out the arrest warrants, we've been bombing the wrong place! It's not Afghanistan we should have been targetting. It's Skywalker Ranch!
June 15, 2002, 4:16 p.m. CST
the error in your judgement that you think a SW fan cant bash scoobie for bad effects, bad story and bad acting because you feel your opinion of AOTC is absolute undisputible fact, which it isnt, its just an opinion. I dont understand how you all can praise spider-man so much when it butchered the source it came from to make it audience friendly. If thats not selling out, i dont know what is. But hey, i havent seen anyting i loved since Fight Club, hollywood is just boring lately, and yes this includes LOTR, spider-man, AOTC, and all the other yawn inducing films out there. They all suck in their own ways, too bad i didnt know, i could of just stared at my watch at home. And for the record, i did laugh at scooby-doo. Its actually the first movie to make me laugh since the contest of gross out films trying to one up each other last couple years. The movie is no worse than the show, at all.
June 15, 2002, 4:21 p.m. CST
What's next? Will Osama Bin Laden watch LOTR and send two small terrorists with a mini-nuclear bomb into the US where they'll make their way to the White House and blow it up? Just kidding. But seriously, I think we're getting off topic here. This is supposed to be a SCOOBY-DOO talkback, remember? Personally, I'm looking forward to it, even if the only good thing in it is Shaggy. He was my favorite character in the cartoon anyway...
June 15, 2002, 6:09 p.m. CST
TPM was not a sequel but the beginning of a new series. FACT : Legs or no legs, AOTC will still easily clear $300 million domestic by Labor Day and will therefore be the highest-grossing SEQUEL of all time. FACT.
June 15, 2002, 7:01 p.m. CST
by Neil MacAuley
This is Moriarty at his best; fair but tough, clear and polished, giving you strong insight before anyone else, without spoilers. Good job Mori! I mean that, good review. A question about the CG, though. I was watching Final Fantasy on cable yesterday -- a-MAZ-ing CGI, ridiculous detail. Blows you away the amount of detail and photo-realism on display. It may not work as a feature film story, but the animation is amazing. And this is HUMAN BEINGS. Now, if they can do that, and that benchmark is set (and other films like Shrek and Monsters, Inc. are out there and seen by every kid in the universe) why are they putting out an animated Scooby that looks WORSE than Rocky and Bullwinkle from 3-4 years ago?! I mean, this thing had to have a $75-90 million budget, right? At least. And they can't get even one shot in the trailer that makes Scooby look photo-realistic? Horrible. This is what would have spread word of mouth for the teens and adult audiences: some amazing CG. But they don't even have that going for them. And the real joke is that they think the little kids won't know the difference. Who are they kidding? They've seen Harry Potter and Shrek and every one of those movies; they know Scooby looks like, well, dog shit. Way to go, WB, another bomb! (I only say that because they used to make some damn good movies and they've SO gone down hill. Maybe pushing out Daly and Semel had something to do with it, ya think? Lorenzo ain't such a genius as some of you geeks think.) Harumph.
June 15, 2002, 7:15 p.m. CST
I hate, hate, hate what time-warner's cartoon network is doing to new hanna-barbera cartoons. Cartoon Network studios gobbled up the HB studio and that stinks. Oh and the PC Justice League SUCKS.
June 15, 2002, 7:42 p.m. CST
Moriarty had some very valid points, however I would like to add my two cents. First off, I want to point out that I saw the movie in a crowded theater full of kids and they laughed their little heads off from beginning to end so I think it does work for the target audicence at least it did in the theater I saw it in. As for the movie itself, well it was better then I thought it would be but nowhere near as good I was hoping since I am lifelong Scooby lover. The Good: Sara Michelle Geller and Linda Cardellini effortlessly became their characters and Matthew Lillard much to my surprise and delight was able to tone down the schtick and actually play a character and he plays Shaggy wonderfully. My problem with him the past is that he always seems to let his overbearing personality override the materal and the result is that he makes a complete jackass of himself on the screen. Here he shows he can actually act, I hope to see him do more of it in the future. And this brings me to Scooby Doo I loved him!! This is where I really part company with Moriarty, I don't think it was an ugly design at all it was the chartoon literally come to laugh. They IMHO captured the "essence" if you will of what made the character so lovable in the cartoon. The Bad: The plot was flimsy, it was essentially an episode of the original cartoon exapnded to feature-lengh. There is no real introduction to the gang as they are first seen of trapping a "ghost" this illicted laughs from the audience I was with but could easily leave those unfamiliar with the Scooby-Doo universe scratching their heads which as Moriarty and Roger Ebert correctly point out turns the movie into one big in-joke that leaves the uniniated out in the cold. Now as far Freddie Prinze Jr. goes, I don't get all the venom either, he's just sort of there. He's not that bad but at the same time he's not all that good either. He's a blank slate. The same unfortunately can be said of Rowan Atkinson as the wealthy amusement park owner who hires the gang. Atkinson is a gifted performer as anyone familiar with him as Mr. Bean can attest and he had me laughing my ass off in "Rat Race." But he's not giving anything to do here, so his talent is wasted. So all in all I thought the movie was decent, I enjoyed it well enough as I was watching it but it's not anything I feel the need to ever see again.
June 15, 2002, 8:26 p.m. CST
June 15, 2002, 8:41 p.m. CST
by Ernst Blofeld
Ah the general can't even think of an original idea. http://shorterlink.com/?RUNQZC Mr custer - I certainly admire your persistence - but please take your cause elsewhere. Set up your own website, I can think of some perfect domain names for you... Ah well, I hope you enjoy the Crocodile Hunter.
June 15, 2002, 9:53 p.m. CST
by Forest the Gimp
How can AOTC just "cover its costs" if it makes $500-$600 million at the BO? I mean, it probably cost $130-150 million didn't it? So, in my book, even though it's not doing as well as TPM, it's still going to make some clean profit.
June 15, 2002, 11:06 p.m. CST
Amusing farce, my dear boy, but you've made a fatal error in judgement if you were hoping to continue this "campaign". For the slow witted: Our friend centered a post around the scene in which Anakin "masturbates" whilst screaming out his mother's name. His "acceptance" of this scene as something that was an actual occurance in the movie makes custer either: 1) A fraud, as stated above. OR 2) A wielder of an intellect so powerful and vast, that it would rival that of the world's most brilliant dog piss. Yes, Lucas really did include a scene of Darth Vader flogging the dolphin, right there for all of the kiddies to see. For custer's sake, I truly hope that scenerio 1 is the more accurate. A tip: If you're going to profess your deep hatred for a film you've never seen, and you justify that hatred by proclaiming that you know "everything there is to know" about said film, at least *really* know everything there is to know about it.
June 16, 2002, 12:09 a.m. CST
by Forest the Gimp
Don't be an idiot if you can help it, Custer. That "masturbation" scene was a shot of Anakin tossing and turning in his bed whilst groaning and saying, "Mom...Mom" Yes, it may be open to the masturbating interpretation if you have a sick mind, but it's actually supposed to be Anakin having nightmares - not weird sexual fantasies. BTW, I've seen this movie 3 times and each time the audience laughed at that scene......Custer, I'm still dubious about your box office figures - $600 million is a lot of money by any standards, and if AOTC can make that much, then well and good!
June 16, 2002, 12:13 a.m. CST
I don't have to check again, I already read your drivel once. I never claimed that you brought the scene up, only that you commented on it to the point of believing that it actually exists in the film as described. You keep spouting that you know all that there is to know about AoTC, but you have no clue as to what the scene in question really involves? Puh-leeze. I say again, you are either A) A fraud OR B) A complete dumbass. Neither choice seems particulary attractive, but please pick one and run with it; preferably away from here.d
June 16, 2002, 12:40 a.m. CST
by Bad Guy
Yeah, I know this is a Scooby Doo talkback, but he persists. General Custer, how many sequels in long running franchises make the kind of money that AOTC is making. "Star Trek"? "James Bond"? "Jason"? "Halloween"? "Rocky"? Hell, Episodes V & VI didn't make more money than "A New Hope". Also, how many film franchises bring out die-hard fans who spend hours, sometimes weeks, in lines waiting to buy tix? It's the fifth film in a series that started in '77. It'll probably make $300 million, domestically. Yeah, "Rush Hour 2" , "Mummy 2" and "American Pie 2" all made more money than their predecessors. So what? AOTC is whiping the floor with all of them. What a world we live in where a movie can make the kind of money that AOTC is making and some people can call it a failure. Most FIRST movies in a series don't bring in that kind of dough, let alone their sequels. Yeah, so some people that didn't like TPM are avoiding AOTC. Not "boycotting", just not interested. I believe that would happen with any sequel. Their loss. My guess is, that a lot of those folks will finally see the movie on video or dvd, enjoy it, and rush out and see Episode III in theatres upon it's release. Now, I'm assuming that you enjoyed the original trilogy and hated TPM, which is why you're on such a crusade to boycott further sequels. So, three times out of four, Lucas did right, in your eyes. He fucks up once, according to you, and you totally give up on him?? Not very forgiving, are you? I hope you cut the people in your personal life a little more slack than that.
June 16, 2002, 1:09 a.m. CST
Even IF, as you say, Lucasfilm is understating their costs, your figure of $250 million plus your figure of $50 million for advertising = $300 million. Given these (I point again, YOUR figures), how does a worldwide gross of $600 million just cover their costs? I believe you'll find (and you can use a calculator if you need the help) that this would be DOUBLE their costs. You're welcome.
June 16, 2002, 1:12 a.m. CST
wow. the complete idiocy of people. wow. that's all I can say. (the way this post got off topic can show you how non-excited we all are about this flick)
June 16, 2002, 2:49 a.m. CST
what happened to that "whip-tash" guy on all the LotR talkbacks? He was more annoying than Custer.
June 16, 2002, 3:14 a.m. CST
I actually liked him better then custer, his frequent "brow beatings" of Lucas were hilarious, must of put a fair bit of time to come up with those long posts and scenarios.
June 16, 2002, 3:22 a.m. CST
HOW THE HELL THIS MOVIE MADE 18.3 million on Friday?? The hell is that?? This crap will probably do over 50 million for the damn weekend. The HELL IS THAT? I mean who wanted to see this movie? I saw The Bourne Identity tonight and when this movie got out I saw like 100 kids and their parents walk out of the theatre. What friggin kids actually still watch that show?? Jesus! This is a bad sign. OH yeah and as for AOTC. SW is dying folks. The Prequels will never be as recognized as the original and TRUE Star Wars films. AOTC is just a tired attempt to extend the series a little further. Star Wars ended in 83 folks. Deal with it!
June 16, 2002, 3:39 a.m. CST
Sorry for getting off-topic, but I'm kind of bothered that people laughed during that scene of Anakin tossing and turning (I didn't watch it in the theaters, so I wouldn't know. I saw the film on a friends laptop -- not a reccommended approach to a fireworks spectacle). It kind of continues a disturbing trend regarding movie-going experiences I've had lately. Most movies have always been bad, but in this age of technologically-enhanced cynicsm, obnoxious moviegoers have come out of the woodwork. When I saw The Phantom Menace, a quarter of the audience booed Jar-Jar upon his first appearance since he had already accrued an infamous reputation on the internet. I watched 'Unbreakable' in theaters as well, and chuckles emerged from the crowd when Spencer Treat Clark pulled a gun on Bruce Willis, those in the know already anticipating the (admittedly) awkward dialogue that was to follow an otherwise very UNfunny image, the scene lowered in stature due to the underlined disapproval of it from a few kids in the back row. I can just imagine a horde of nerds cheering as soon as Yoda shows up during the Anakin/Dooku/Obi-Wan fight. The whole ordeal is quite frustrating; these people can serve as an unecessary distraction in an otherwise-enjoyable moviegoing experience. It almost seems as if they feel their preemptive tut-tutting of scenes or characters that don't work will make them appear clever to the rest of the crowd, even though it gets on the nerves of everyone I've talked to. I don't care about Ain't It Cool News, Coming Attractions; I obviously visit this site fairly regularly. However, I have no ambitions of using spoilers obtained on the internet to ruin other people's days. If people begin laughing at a boy with a gun in his hands, how are you supposed to feel about what's put in front of you? Why bother forming your own opinions when the scene's been summarized? Maybe it's just me. Does anybody else notice this when they go see a movie? How do you all feel about it? I'm sorry, I know I took something that was already off-topic and ran away with it, but I'd like a little feedback as to how other people feel about it.************************P.S.: While the effects look kind of shoddy, I don't think anything's wrong with the design of Scooby. I actually would've figured that he'd be one of the better parts of the film. I saw a behind-the-scenes of sorts on E! and there's one scene in particular which I'm assuming is the split-up that takes place at the beginning of the movie: Fred, Daphne, and Velma are declaring their resignations from Mystery, Inc. "I quit!" Fred exclaims. "I'm quitting, too!" replies either Velma or Daphne. A confused Scooby sheepishly asks, "Do I quit?" I dunno. Seemed kinda humorous to me. Still not gonna check it out, though.
June 16, 2002, 4:34 a.m. CST
I rewatched it a few weeks ago, and I have to admit that although the script and casting are.....misguided, shall we say ? The film actually looks...well....great. It was hard to say at first, but every time I see that mechanical spider, the whole industrial age, Jules Verne design...it blows me away a little more. Even the trailers for WWW accented its high points. What little I've seen of Scooby Doo is not misguided, it's ill advised and painful. There's a big difference.
June 16, 2002, 5:20 a.m. CST
...on the producer's part to delete the "subversive" scenes. No one is going to see this film in a theater just because they're in there, but people will rent/buy the dvd because you can bet they will be there. They stigmatiazed it and the world eats that shit up. Also, one of the marijuana jokes they cut: They discuss Scooby and Shaggy selling a five dollar pot, but it's like for gardening. This should'nt be cut because it's subversive, rather because it's stupid as shit.
June 16, 2002, 6:01 a.m. CST
So where do I fit in the mix? I don't get why these two groups are fighting about it, because the bottom line is CGI is allowing directors to make up for their lack of creativity. On one hand, you have Lucas, who is driven by CGI (he cares more about digital effects than the characters); on the other hand, you have Jackson who used special effects when they weren't necessary in his film (did we REALLY need to see the Balrog? The extended shots going down into the orcs lair? The eagle that rescues Gandalf? The monster in the mines? The aquatic monster outside of the mines?). Personally, I think LOTR could've been a lot better without the use of CGI except for the backgrounds and the hobbits (the hobbits were done very well). All of the visuals were handed to Jackson from the books, and he used the least-imaginative way to present them to the audience. What's wrong with letting the audience use their imaginations a little? What happened to suspense in action films? It's pretty much gone, in favor of CGI - showing us everything. I don't like CGI, because I think it's degraded the quality of films. It's allowed a lot of directors to be lazy, because they go crazy with it. Why show it in a traditional way, when you can just do CGI and hand it off to someone else? CGI is not a part of the movie until all the REAL actors are done shooting against a blue screen and acting against nothing. People like to say : check your brain at the door. I believe in the concept of popcorn films (which are often guilty pleasures and cheezy shit), but LOTR and Star Wars are NOT popcorn films (if SW was supposed to be popcorn, then Lucas should've never let ESB be released, because that put SW on an epic level). Even the grandaddy of summer blockbusters, Jaws, made the audience afraid because it suggested what was going to happen, instead of showing it. The most memorable sequence in that film is of the girl being attacked while swimming at night, and it's ALL done with camera work and music! And to this day, that scene is brilliant on a Hitchcock level, and still creeps people out. It's classic filmmaking. Lucas is just a lost cause. ATOC was a mess and has nothing to do with the Original Trilogy except poorly-played nostalgia. Who wants to see that @#$%ing whiny brat turn into Vader? I don't. I was watching the movie trying to understand the big "romance", and why the hell Amidala ever liked the guy in the first place. And for someone who is supposed to be a Queen and then a Senator, Amidala doesn't seem too bright. In fact, almost no one in AOTC seems to be able to rub two brain-cells together. Stupid writing, and thus, stupid people. There are only two characters in the New Trilogy that are worth watching, and they are played by Ewan McGreggor and Ian McDairmid. Everyone else seems uncomfortable or having nothing to do. It's kinda sad that there's not more imagination in movies. I want to be a part of the movie, not just watching it.
June 16, 2002, 8:08 a.m. CST
by ThomasMagnum PI
Look, let's get this straight once and for all: this guy didn't even SEE Clones, all right? So right off the bat anyone with half a brain should NOT get dragged into a debate with him over AOTC. It's pointless. He's wrong on EVERYTHING simply because he can't back up his arguments in any manner. His "educated opinion" isn't educated. It isn't based on actual criticism. It's based on two things. (1) a dubious-at-best Rotten Tomatoes scaling system and (2) on hearing story points or descriptions from other people. His mind is so beyond Pluto he even now thinks there's a masturbation scene in Clones. And he's certainly delusional when he says "MY boycott plan" (as if he's some world conquering genius mastermind) affected the box office take on the movie when (as someone pointed out above) if you treat the new trilogy as the start of a "new" franchise -- which is actually fair in this case given the 20 year gap -- AOTC is then one of the most SUCCESSFUL sequels ever made. Hell, it's global take of 600 million or so will STILL make it one of the most successful sequels ever. PERIOD. What kind of fucking moron doesn't believe that box revenues of over half a BILLION dollars is a figure ANY Hollywood studio would kill for? Especially on the FIFTH film in a franchise? Trust me, IF Spider-Man ever reaches film number 5 the Sony execs will be doing jigs of joy if it makes the king of money AOTC has. So we're talking about a guy who can't even add up numbers correctly. And as if all of that wasn't enough, his latest infantile argument on production costs and profitabilty for AOTC is solely based on "something he read about regarding the real figures for TPM in Harry's book" -- which again, is NOT even a substatiated fact. His only other proof? His "personal belief" that Lucasfilm is lying about the numbers. Boy, there's an accurate barometer, eh? Because after all, it only makes sense that besides being delusional, Custer should also be psychic and able to tell the truth about things that the rest of can't see. And finally he's declared that Episode 3 will be garbage when filming hasn't even started yet. In short: this guy is THE (and I say "the" in capital letters) prime example why formerly fun sites like AICN have now become depressing. Because where we once celebrated getting a chance to see a totally rocking and cool flick like ATOC, now we have people like Custer who'll shred it simply for the sake of shredding it. And it's not just Clones. His kind will come on here and piss over anything simply for the sake of pissing. They come to the boards and get their rocks off by stirring up trouble simply because they know their opinions WILL cause trouble and repeated posts arguing back with him. And before you open your mouth and reply back to that accusation, Custer, I'll go right back to THE core point that towers above all no matter how you slice it: you're continually harping on a movie that you DIDN'T even have the critical courage to go and see for YOURSELF in order to form an EDUCATED opinion on it. People like you are what make talkbacks a drag. In short: you and your self-inflated opinions of yourself and your crock of a boycott are full of shit simply because they have no educated or qualitative merit to them. NONE. Now THAT'S a fact you can take to the bank.
June 16, 2002, 11:23 a.m. CST
Well, I've seen both. Opening day, accompanied by my son both days. May 16, we were both more or less convinced that we'd seen THE film of the summer. AOTC was awesome looking, maybe the best looking movie I'd seen. (I'm not flaming or ranting, but LOTR just didn't light my fire. I could never get in to Tolkien's books, I guess they're an acquired taste.)Spider-Man opened here in the UK this last weekend, and though we loved Clones, we found that we loved Spider-Man just a little bit more. That's all...neither Steve (son) nor myself suddenly hate Lucas or Clones, we just found something that we felt was a little more dazzling and entertaining. We'll still be there in line for the opening of Ep 3...but we'll be there opening day of Spidey 2 as well. Neither of us feel as though we've sold out by preferring one to the other...all we did was add another blockbuster to the list of movies to look forward to seeing down the line. I suggest to all movie fans that they adopt this approach. You'll lower your stress levels AND find that going to the movies can be fun again. Back to Scooby Doo...I can't see either him or me standing in the rain waiting for this one. It's okay as a cartoon, I liked "Zombie Island" but I figure some things are better left as cartoons. I'm dreading the day they decide to make a live action "Simpsons" movie.
June 16, 2002, 12:13 p.m. CST
Somebody shoot me now,it's like 2-3 people have taken over this entire talk-back thread.Can't people pull their heads out of Lucas's ass long enough to admit that TPM sucked both long and hard?And can't the people on the other side of the keyboard admit that AOTC was a vast improvment over EP.1?Sure there were some lackluster acting throughout the flick but still it was a great ride in the last 25 mins.I wouldn't be so lame as to say I felt I was analy raped by Lucas with the disaster that was TPM but I don't think any movie he made would have satisfied the unwashed hordes of fan-boys.I grew up with the originals and I love them to death,but Lucas's B.S. story about having to wait for technology having to catch up with his vision is just a poor excuse for his writing/directing a boring piece of crap.I went into AOTC expecting another piece of shit but for the most part Lucas came through in the clutch.Give credit where credit is due folks!P.S. Ebert&Roper say S-D sucked and for once I agree with 'em!P.P.S. Hey jerk-offs,I think Lucas actually was showing that Anakin just slipped Padme the old meat lightsaber in the scene just after he(Anakin)had his nightmare,by showing Padme looking all disheveled in her nightie when she interupted Anakin while he was meditating outside.Think about it!Think hard!Peace Out!:-]
June 16, 2002, 1:08 p.m. CST
approximately $56 million. Hopefully, the movie will suffer a severe drop off, in the forthcoming weeks.
June 16, 2002, 2:13 p.m. CST
Scooby Doo was pretty bad too. I liked the part where smoke was coming out of the van, but they were just grilling inside. Har har har.
June 16, 2002, 2:20 p.m. CST
Preach it, brother.
June 16, 2002, 3:05 p.m. CST
That is the most insanely idiotic thing ive ever heard. At no point during your response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul. -From Billy Madison Oh, and in case you didnt notice, you are arguing over about a teen boy masturbating, and old rich man who has lost his creative edge, and a computer generated dog. Dont you think its time to move out of your parents homes and make an honest attempt at an actual life?
June 16, 2002, 3:45 p.m. CST
Question how many people will see scooby-poo more than once ? Answer not many. I took a bunch of kids to see this poor movie only the very youngest liked it. And none of them wanted to see it again. Unlike the Mummy, Spy Kids, Men in Black ect., those got repeat visits .
June 16, 2002, 3:46 p.m. CST
The film was a lot of fun, much better than I thought it would be. The Scooby Doo / Shaggy burping and fart contest had the theater laughing like crazy. The theater was packed with both adults and kids. We had a blast watching this film. There's something special being with a group of kids all laughing at Scooby Doo. It was lot's of fun. Scrappy was in it, but I liked how they treated him in this film. I won't ruin it for you. You'll have to see him in action. It was justice for all of us who grew up hating the little turd for ruining the cartoon. If you go in to see this wanting more than a live action cartoon, you'll be disapointed, but I grew up with the toon and love Scooby Doo, even though it's the worst cartoon ever! It's just manic fun and they were able to pull that off with the movie.
June 16, 2002, 4:28 p.m. CST
So Mori gives a less than stellar review to a movie that made a respectable amount of money on its opening weekend, and thus he should be eating crow? Does this make sense to anyone else? AoTC made a shitload of money. Does that mean all of the people who voiced their dislike for it (those who actually watched it at least, i.e. not general cumster) are useless morons? I truly wonder why so many of you dill holes continue to come to this site, considering that its purpose is to share the opinions of *other* people with its audience. If you obviously refuse to accept anyone else's opinion but your own, why in the good lord's name do you bother to subject yourself to them? The collective IQ of most of the talkbakers in here would have a hard time cracking double digits. Amazing, really.
June 16, 2002, 4:31 p.m. CST
But I see General Custer is still up to his old tricks. Sad strange little man.
June 16, 2002, 5:18 p.m. CST
Even General Custer can tell you that the amount of money a film takes is not a refelection on how good it is. And anyway, after the first five posts, this seems to have become a Star Wars talkback, so nobody really cares about Scooby Doo. Its just not of interest.
June 16, 2002, 6:43 p.m. CST
Alright, let me just say one thing "Windtalkers" should be at #1 this week at the box-office not some stupid kiddie shit like this. I'd only see this movie when it comes to the $1 theater because let's just face it they took out the PG-13 scenes and Shaggy not smoking pot, or Velma and Daphne not kissing just plain...SUCKS ASS!
June 16, 2002, 7:37 p.m. CST
To every of you talkbackers, you best listen up because i'm only saying this once. Scooby Doo had lukewarm test reviews and the critics are giving it a big thrashing as it is, and it scored a 4.9 at imdb as of this message. I will say it to yous so you will fucking understand.... a good box office opening does not necessarily mean the movie was good. THERE ARE TONS OF SCOOBY DOO FANS OUT THERE THAT WANTED TO SEE THE LIVE ACTION MOVIE. And not for anything, but 94 percent of the audience was kids for crying out loud. Who the fuck are any of yous to say this movie is automatically not a piece of shit just because it had a strong opening. And don't any of yous give me that "oh, it had good word of mouth shite". That would be false because this movie just opened Friday. And again, the buzz was not great. I will tell you again why the Scooby Doo movie made so much its first weekend: Anticipation. Simple as that. Scooby Doo fans came in large masses and took their kids and it is a kids movie so put two and two together and don't ever say it's a good movie just because it grossed 50 something million bucks its opening bow. I can name movies that had good openings and died the next week into obscurity and ridicule that gave good business but was recognized to be shite. Wild Wild West, Godzilla, Batman and Robin. Just who the fuck are any of you people to say box office take equals box office quality. This movie can still be a piece of shit even if it made the third highest opening of the year. Come on.
June 16, 2002, 7:39 p.m. CST
June 16, 2002, 7:46 p.m. CST
Scooby Doo is SHIT, but it still take lots of money.
June 16, 2002, 7:54 p.m. CST
by Zap Kapow
Do all conversations round here have to drift into sex or Star Wars? Ok, then imagine Jar Jar and Velma bumping uglies... if that doesn't put ya off, nothing will!
June 16, 2002, 8:48 p.m. CST
...22!But if you add 2+2 you get 4.But seriously this is so far removed from S-D it's not even remotely funny anymore.Seriously!There are like 3 people totally running this fu*kin' string and everyone else's comments are goin' out the freaking window.This TB was about Scooby-Doo for about all of two minutes.You can type until you are blue in the face but you just can't change some people's mind.It's as simple as that.They just can't see the forest thru the trees.No movie is perfect, though LOTR comes pretty darn close.Some would say thisclose.From what I heard/read all the "good stuff" in SD didn't go over well with the test audiences and was dropped.Hopefully it will be put back into the DVD release.If it is even I(who was very dissapointed)will give it a second chance.Lucas had his chance with the TPM DVD edition, but as I'm known to say "You can plate a load of shit with 24k gold but underneath it's still SHIT!"By the by what's up with Lucas and the fart stuff in the EP.1 DVD?Was he shooting for the lowest common denominator or what?Obviously they were in the belch-off/fart-off scene in Scooby Doo.Really!THANK U!GOOD NITE!:-)
June 16, 2002, 9:09 p.m. CST
I never claimed to be a film expert, but i do know film well film just fine to know if a movie is previewed shit, tests shit, but makes a motherload od cash there's a reason it makes money. It's not because of quality it has to do with the fact that this film is based on a pop culture fad from the 70s and is obviously targeted towards kids which makes up a vast majority of moviegoers. This isn't exactly fucking rocket science here.
June 16, 2002, 9:17 p.m. CST
Read this and laughed my ass of. ***** "Matthew Declares War: Early reports online and elsewhere have given Scooby a bad rap, but Lillard's not taking it sitting down. He has launched a Jihad on one of the film's toughest critics, Ain't It Cool News' Harry Knowles. "This guy is a plague," says Lillard. "He started trashing the movie because, obviously, we didn't grease his palm enough. This guy's a hump. He's a mook, and I wish he'd just get out. I wish he'd get personal with me. I don't hate the guy--I don't know the guy, but what he does to films and what he represents is despicable. I have no idea why the Hollywood institution likes this guy. For some reason, they think he's responsible for Blair Witch. He's not."
June 16, 2002, 9:26 p.m. CST
...CAN'T SOMEONE BOUNCE CUSTER AND GIMPLAD??!?! The posting stipulation says, and I quote: "Blatant abuse, personal attacks, OFF-TOPIC BS, cross-posting, blatant advertising, and hate speech are all fodder for deletion." And y'know, the capitalization of OFF TOPIC BS wasn't even mine! Guys, guys, guys, how bad does it have to get before the powers that be actually FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES??!?! Jeez, I understand that talkbacks can evolve to contain more than one strict subject, but it's painfully obvious that these two (or more) twats are simply skating across the whole article listing, dropping their geek bombs on ANYTHING that gets in their way. WOULD YOU ASSHOLES PLEASE ZIP IT??!?!
June 16, 2002, 9:29 p.m. CST
This is a message to that nutbar General Custer, the original one, not the #69. Custer, let's get one thing straight - AOTC is not for you. Because if your looking for good acting, good script and a good story, then you should go see a movie for adults.AOTC is for KIDS. AOTC is about ESCAPISM. Its about seeing an imaginary world in a galaxy far far away. Its not supposed to be logical or to have a plot that "makes sense". This movie is aimed at kids and you have to become a kid again to enjoy it. So sure, by ADULT standards, Natalie Portman's performance is wooden (in fact I thought that they might as well have used a cardboard cut-out). And by ADULT standards the love story is silly and the actors have no chemistry. And yes, there's way too much CGi ,and there are many bits that are taken from other movies. BUT to focus on these problems is to miss the point completely. I mean there's no way you could get an ensemble cast like they had in 1977. Harrison Ford, James Earl jones, Mark Hamill - they can't be replaced and Lucas is right not to try. AOTC is a DIFFERENT movie. It s a roller-coaster ride with great effects and if you could just switch off your ADULT brain then you'd enjoy it for the mindless entertaining fun that it is. Be a kid again, custer. You'll thank me for it.
June 16, 2002, 9:30 p.m. CST
Read this and laughed my ass of. ***** "Matthew Declares War: Early reports online and elsewhere have given Scooby a bad rap, but Lillard's not taking it sitting down. He has launched a Jihad on one of the film's toughest critics, Ain't It Cool News' Harry Knowles. "This guy is a plague," says Lillard. "He started trashing the movie because, obviously, we didn't grease his palm enough. This guy's a hump. He's a mook, and I wish he'd just get out. I wish he'd get personal with me. I don't hate the guy--I don't know the guy, but what he does to films and what he represents is despicable. I have no idea why the Hollywood institution likes this guy. For some reason, they think he's responsible for Blair Witch. He's not."
June 16, 2002, 9:59 p.m. CST
NOPE!Looks like it's just CUSTER and GIMPLAD!Looks like this stuff====>>(yes the text in that garishly colored column to the right)IS a COMPLETE and TOTAL load.If this thread doesn't qualify I don't know what does folks!Hey you two give it a fuckin' rest,even a train comes to a stop!!!P.S. NEWS FLASH part deux:Irvin Kershner just signed to direct S-D 2:Scrappy Strikes Back!!!! THINK HARD! :-)
June 16, 2002, 10:09 p.m. CST
Right, like Harry alone caused this thing to have a 27% at rottentomatos.com. Yessiree, Harry's got us all brainwashed. Like how he had these glowing reviews of AOTC and Blade 2 that *no one* disagreed with.
June 16, 2002, 10:28 p.m. CST
what the hell are you doing on this talkback?
June 16, 2002, 10:49 p.m. CST
Were gonna continue to see shitty rehashes of childhood classics as long as people keep paying for it. They can sell shit in a box. I can't decide whether to envy or pity them. Hopefully there will be a huge friggin dropoff next weekend. Maybe like 40-60 percent would be good. Hopefully more like 80.
June 16, 2002, 11 p.m. CST
by Tons of Fun
but I liked it. Not all of it, but I was entertained. Oh god...I think the world is ready to end.
June 16, 2002, 11:20 p.m. CST
All that bitching. All that whining. All the assinine trying to sabotage the flick. AND IT FUCKING OPENED WITH $56 MILLION DOLLARS!! Scooby-Doo tooka all that shit Harry and others talked about the flick pre-opening, walked into your parents house, wnet down in the basement, interupted you while you were playing Everquest, and shoved $56 million dollars right up your ass. I knew it would. Why? Because a) It's summer and b) It's a kid's flick, with appeal to nostalgic Gen X'ers. a+b=56 million grrr. l-o-fuckin-l.
June 16, 2002, 11:56 p.m. CST
Jesus, Custer, all that acidic bitching about AOTC and you haven't even SEEN it? How can you expect anyone to respect your opinion when you haven't seen the movie and are just regurgitating the (minority) negative opinions of others? What the hell kind of movie fan are you? You've lost ALL credibility. You have no right be on this board. I've seen Spiderman and AOTC twice and loved them both. As have the vast majority of people and reviewers who have seen them. Both have fresh ratings on rottentomatoes and nearly identical A ratings on cinemascore. I have never heard someone say in person they didn't like AOTC. Quite the contrary. So much fanboy whining. Lucas gives us less Jar-Jar, more action, more Obi-Wan, hundreds of fighting Jedi, new planets, new characters, kick ass Yoda, no midiclorians, an intiricate plot, Jango Fett - everything people say they wanted. But all a few of you can do it bitch. It's never enough. The funny thing is all of the criticism leveled at AOTC can easily be applied to Spiderman: Corny love story? Spiderman's is no better. In fact, on second viewing it is downright dull and trite and takes up a lot more screen time than AOTC's does. We've seen this all before and the lame things Peter says are no better than the lame things Anakin says. It just takes up more screen time. Stiff acting? Kirsten Dunst is flat as hell, and she's a decent actress. Her character is cookie cutter. She's cute but dull. And what about Peter's friend Harry? Beyond flat. Dull moments? Spidey has a lot more slow scenes and a lot less action. Plot? Spidey is by no means original. We've seen this all before. A second viewing reveals the weaknesses in the plot. The first half is well done and funny. Once he becomes Spiderman, it is a cut and paste job from Superman I and II and Batman. Enjoyable, but nothing new. Nothing original. Downright predictable and simple really. But entertaining. AOTC has an intricate, creative, detailed plot that ties in perfectly with 4 exisiting films. Plenty of twists and cool new additions to the mythology. I noticed many things on the second viewing I missed the first time. Special Effects? Spidey's were poor. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. AOTC is stunning, with amazing landscapes, 2 new planets, new ships, exploding with creativity and artistry. So many details it would be impossible to catch them on 10 viewings. Villans? You have to admit the Green Goblin was weak. Batman and Robin weak. Defoe ate up the scenery, but he withers compared to Christopher Lee and Ian McDiarmid. I could go on but I think I've made my point. And let me reiterate that I liked Spiderman. However, I will definitely see AOTC at least once more, whereas Spiderman won't hold up. AOTC has a much bigger and more epic story and a lot more to see. It will be timeless. Spiderman won't, it will date fast, if nothing else because of the stupid Macy Gray cameo. So Custer, see AOTC or shut the f**k up about it. If you don't like it, fine. But there's nothing more Lucas can do to please your type if you're that dead set against having a good time.
June 17, 2002, 12:05 a.m. CST
This wasn't as bad as McWeeney says it was. I went in and was actually pleasantly surprised. The kids and adults seemed to be having a good time as well. Is it better than AOTC...of ocurse not. But AOTC was waaaaay more disappointing and joyless.
June 17, 2002, 12:10 a.m. CST
by Neil MacAuley
The reason Lucas can make a film that would cost any big studio $200-250 million for under $125 million is BECAUSE HE OWNS THE VISUAL EFFECTS STUDIO. He owns ILM, therefore he gets all the talent at discount rates and he owns the entire production and so he negotiates his own deals with service providers and equipment companies, etc. I'm no expert in the economics of visual effects, but any idiot knows a) films with huge visual effects cost the most (duh), and b) Spielberg himself said that no one else could have made TPM for that budget because ILM would not have given them the breaks they do for the OWNER OF THEiR FREAKIN' COMPANY. I think Spielberg has maded a few films with ILM, he might know, dillweed. And my second point, again for idiots like you who haven't paid attention for the past two months, Custer: AOTC obviously had a lower marketing budget than TPM, and Spider-Man, by far. It was nowhere near as prevalent all over TV, radio, billboards and product tie-ins as TPM was. Lucas himself said many times in interviews that he wasn't marketing AOTC as strongly; in fact, he passed up several lucrative tie-in deals because he knew that the film could sell itself and he didn't want to over-saturate the public and create a backlash. As a fan who was part of the pre-TPM hype, I (and hopefully you, if you're awake) could easily notice that there was less hype for this installment. So there. Now, my final point: Empire Strikes Back AND Temple of Doom both made the least amount of money out of their respective trilogies. So there's something about the part II of a trilogy that just doesn't pack 'em in as much as one and three. You watch, Lucas is going to pull out all the stops for Ep. 3 and it's going to blow everyone away and it will make more than AOTC at the box-office. And you'll be in the picket line with the naysayers, getting Jolt cola cans hurled at your face. So suck it.
June 17, 2002, 12:37 a.m. CST
The supposed "masturbation" scene in AOTC consists of Anakin lying in bed, tossing and turning with a distressed look on his face muttering "no...no...mom...no!". It has already been established at this point that he has been having recurring nightmares about his mom. In the next scene he discusses his nightmare with Padme. Anyone who really thought he was supposed to be masturbating is an utter moron.
June 17, 2002, 12:51 a.m. CST
AOTC owned. Spider-man bidded but didnt follow through escrow. LOTR didnt even make it to the buyers market. Nuff said. As for the boycott doesnt really make sense when episode 3 is gonna be made regardless. But hey to each his own. Star Wars will never die, even if it only made the 7 bucks i paid for it, thats good enough for me. Star Wars will never die in me ;)
June 17, 2002, 1:08 a.m. CST
And you AOTC supporters really have to stop listening to Lucas' bullshit.
June 17, 2002, 1:49 a.m. CST
by Mike November
After watching the show - I can honestly say - it's not as bad as everyone here's trying to make it out to be. The flick was never meant to be an oscar winner - it was meant for kids. And judging from the laughs of both kids and the vast majority of the adults gathered (where I was) - it succeeded. Indeed, in many ways much better than Attack of the Clones, and for 1/3 the cost to make. After reading the reviews here I was expecting some horrid tripe - but was actually greeted to a far more smooth flick with a few lows that could be forgiven considering it is a PG flick and therefore - for an audience I am long since past. If anything they could have been "anticipated lows". Pam Andersons walk on being one of them - this failed mostly that she's last years news and none of the kids even caught the gag there. Obviously there were scenes on the cutting room floor. From what I've heard - we lost nothing from this since it's (once again I'm beating a dead horse) A KIDS FLICK. The idea of including tired gags about lesbians, drugs, and who's bagging who... may work for adults but to do so means you sacrafice the real audience - the kids - and I'm pretty sure Warner' s and Hanna Barberra aren't up to killing a cash cow just to make a few adults chuckle. So like I said, there wasn't anything lost there we should not have expected. Lillard - of course, stole the show. There is nothing to be said of his performance that hasn't already been said 100 times. Excellent job there. As for the CGI Scooby... Unlike many critics of CGI I felt the work on the new Doo paid off. It emoted, granted it could have been better - but it also could have been light years worse. Kids laughed, smiled, even occasionally teared up where I was at. So on a scale of kids - yeah, the money invested was spent well. Prinze was Prinze. I personally am not a fan of his - but he did not "suck" - as has been reported. Okay, I'm hardly ready to say anything overly positive - but his dialogue was mediocre and the character they gave him was 2 dimensional to begin with ... and the writers here could think of nothing to improve that. Actually... his script was almost worse than his previous acting attempts - so cut the man a little slack. His character was flat, and it was written that way... I'm still not sure if that was intentional. But in retrospect of Fred on the cartoon... he didn't suck. Fred's character sucked - and always has. They at least made a hemophagic attempt to make him interesting - as a meglomanaical moron. It didn't work. Big woo... he has less screen time than Shaggy's love interest practically ... who cares. Velmas part was done okay. In some ways - they actually gave depth to a character who's only contribution was being brainy and losing her glasses. No complaints and frankly - as a parent was glad they didn't go with the stale concept of her questionable sexuality. Daphnes part... I still don't know if this sucked - didn't suck - or just... was an excuse to have SMG get Buffy on someone. Didn't matter - the kids enjoyed it - and the men got time staring at her - which is what Daphne's character was really about anyway right? She wasn't there to be resuced... she and Fred's only purpose was to provide beefcake/cheesecake even in the cartoons. So let's get to my only solid bitch of the review vs the reality... Scrappy. Unlike everyone here - Scrappy was exactly like he was in the cartoons. ANYONE AS ALL HELL. SOMETHING WE'D LIKE TO SEE KILLED. In fact - the best bit was to discover he was the Arch villain. Unlike the reviews here - the Audience where I was at took him exactly as what he was PERFECT as the villian. And anyone who's a die hard Doo fan could appreciate, and applaud H B and Warners finally having the guts to use that annoying whelp of Satan as a way of giving him a permanent swan song. THANK GOD we now know two things - ONE - He's never going to annoy us again. And TWO it confirmed what we knew all along... he was a failed attempt to get kids to watch and was in reality the freakin cartoon equivalent of Heaven's Gate. So yeah... seeing him be the big bad was worth it. I saw it coming - I'm fairly sure many adults did ... But this script wasn't King Lear -- it was Scooby Doo. You either got on the bus and rode it - or you had sour grapes and whine like most of the reviews on this flick. So ... is it worth taking your rug rats to? (Like you have a choice?) Yeah, go - and go to just know it's dumb and you'll have fun. Is it worth a nights sleep over the script, direction, plot, etc... ??? No. Go... pay your bucks. It's worth the cost of admission. Enjoy yourself with it... it is possible. Should you plan on it being a mega-hit? No but it's better than most of it's genre of TV icon turned to film.
June 17, 2002, 2:16 a.m. CST
by Toby Wan
I took my two year old to see Scooby Doo. I took her to the drive in so I could watch Sum of all Fears on the other screen across the parking lot.(with a walkman) Well, My movie was delayed so I watched Scooby and you know what, I started enjoying it!! Don't ask me why. I don't know. Maybe it was because I had ZERO hope for it. I hate Freddie Prinze, Jr. I don't get the big deal with Sarah Michelle Gellar.(not that talented to me) Matthew Lillard lost my respect after his 43 Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. I didn't know who Linda Cardellini was. And Scooby looked faker than Spider-man swinging through the city. I had read Harry's rants. So I had no respect for this film going in...... I actually liked it. First off, Matthew Lillard is channeling Kasey Kasem. He freakin' nailed it. Plain and simple. There may be hope for Lillard yet. My wife asked me if "the original guy was doing the voice." Yeah, that good. Linda Cardellini does a decent Velma. Fred and Daphne, well, they were O.K. I, unlike Moriarty(whose opinion I usually agree with), LOVED the use of Scrappy in the film!!!!! I hate the little bastard!! He ruined the cartoon when he appeared in the 80's and he gets the right treatment in the film. Anyway, it's not going to win any awards ( other than Razzies), but it was fun and my little girl loved it. That was the reason they made it, right??
June 17, 2002, 2:54 a.m. CST
by Toby Wan
Jesus!!! I love Star Wars. (look at my ID). I thought Ep I sucked ass. And Ep II was a little better. But let it go, people. This is a talkback about Scooby Doo. There needs to be a special Talkback area for LOTR and SW FREAKS to duke it out. Quit bitching at each other in these areas. To quote the great Rodney King, " Can't we all just get along??"
June 17, 2002, 4:05 a.m. CST
I support SW in every way, there hasnt been a SW film yet i didnt like on some level. But do i like or give a shit about lucas? nope. Hes as big of a pediphile as micheal jackson. Doesnt stop me from liking the films though, i dont enter a theatre with pre-conceptions. Dont have a problem with others opinions either, i just have a problem with people who think their opinions are undisputable fact. Get off your high horse, any movie isnt really good or bad, its just what you get out of it. Personally i liked X-Men more than spider-man but that doesnt make spider-man a terrible movie, i just didnt like how they adapted the screenplay to fit a larger audience and make more money. Spider-man became sony's bitch, but i didnt really mind seeing spider sony bitch-man on the silver screen, i just wouldnt mind seeing spider-man from the comics on there one day though. Maybe the sequel will have spider-man. yeah, thats about as possible as peter jackson learning how to shoot an action sequence or lucas learning to get his actors to act. But hey, nothing is perfect. As for scooby-doo, it's not terrible. I wouldnt have watched it if i werent dragged into it but its not as bad as people make it out to be. There are a couple great performances in it, especially the already mentioned Lillard.
June 17, 2002, 8:01 a.m. CST
I dearly hope that the kids who really thought because they love Scooby Doo (the cartoon) would learn to be discriminating after seeing this piece of moronicity. Or maybe they really do have pap for brains. Now that is really scary. They're the generation inheriting our country in the future and so many of them are idiots, retarded little media-zombies who will suck on whatever brand new teat that's shoved in their faces.
June 17, 2002, 8:48 a.m. CST
SCOOBY DOO is a fine popcorn film. The audience I was part of seemed to enjoy it -- especially the kids, who are, after all, who it is meant for. If you're looking for art or deep meaning, don't look toward SCOOBY DOO for it. Consider the source material! It was a formulaic cartoon padded with wild chases and "meddling kids" cliches. The film is as entertaining as the cartoon ever was. Quit holding on to your nostalgia-tainted memories of childhood and see the property for what it is -- mindless fun -- and you'll enjoy it. Before this film, I despised FPJ and Matt Lillard. I have a newfound respect for Lillard now, and I can tolerate FPJ in this project. I could have done without the Scrappy Doo aspect, however.
June 17, 2002, 9:24 a.m. CST
The use of Scrappy in this movie was inspired. AOTC sucks, Spider-Man rocks live with it. Scooby-Doo succeeded on its level better than AOTC. And I had more fun at Scooby-Doo than AOTC. P.S Can you believe Moriarty's real name is McWeeney?
June 17, 2002, 9:49 a.m. CST
He maybe at #7 at the box-office, but he's still pulling strong. By Friday Scooby-Doo will be gone and MINORITY REPORT will take over and kick Scooby's CGI ass.
June 17, 2002, 1:13 p.m. CST
by Bang! Zoom!
Before you go throwing around the word "pedophile" to describe someone who is no such thing, at least have the brains to spell it correctly, you fucking dismal miscreant. God, I hate ignorance....
June 17, 2002, 1:41 p.m. CST
You just couldn't stay away, could you? You couldn't find anything better to do, you simply had to rush out and gorge yourself on the latest festering pile of dung from the Hollywood crap factory . This is why most movies made today are soulless ,unoriginal,overmarketed , geared to the lowest common denominator pieces of shit. Because apparently, if they bombard you with enough ads, you will not be able to stay away. Way to exercise that willpower. You've sent a powerful message to movie studios everywhere: THIS is what the public wants, get ready for more of the same. Hope you all enjoy James Gunn's script for Dawn of the Dead because you just put him on the A list folks. And anyone who went to see this film has no one to blame but themselves. All hail the new Mediocrity!
June 17, 2002, 1:50 p.m. CST
by Jack Burton
Everyone is bitching about Scooby Doo doing well. Do you have stock in a competing studio? If not, piss off. Nothing is going to stop Hollywood from making these kinds of movies. Of COURSE it's gonna drop off next week. Those that were going to see it did. It's a kids movie and parents took the kids. I saw Insomnia yesterday (damn good movie), and families were lining up at the theater by the van load for Scooby Doo. I heard it sucked on here long before the rest of the world knew it was coming. The idea of a live action Scooby sounds like a bad idea anyway, so I really never paid it any thought. Would you honestly rather have a thousand screaming kids running around during "Minority Report" then running around and screaming at "Scooby Doo"? It's summer. Scooby Doo is marketed like crazy, advertised on every channel, and has nostalgia appeal. Anyone that didn't think it would open like gangbusters is an idiot. And I like Matthew Lillard. He was good in Scream, and he was great in SLC Punk. And he looks like he completely nailed Shaggy which I gotta give him props for. For God's sake don't see it just to spite the damn thing. That's what God made Netflix for.
June 17, 2002, 2:23 p.m. CST
If you throw enough advertising money at a move it will generate people at the box office. Lets face it most people don't even bother with reviews , they see the ads on TV or in print and see the move based on that. It also explains why a perfect small movie with no support does not make it at the box office.
June 17, 2002, 2:55 p.m. CST
June 17, 2002, 3:19 p.m. CST
Because belaboring any other point related to Scooby-Doo, Star Wars, AICN, or fanboys would require PETA's intervention for all the dead horse beatings.
June 17, 2002, 3:21 p.m. CST
For some reason, a current salon.com article includes a link to a very funny 1999 piece entitled "Star what? 10 reasons not to see "The Phantom Menace." (The above observation was part of no. 6.) Since this Talkback has turned into a AOTC forum (shows the ability of the S-D movie to hold peoples' interest), figured I might as well throw this into the pot as well: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/05/14/star_what/index.html
June 17, 2002, 4 p.m. CST
Mr. Buggerin: While I agree that Custer's claims for the cost of the movie are way off, if they were true, then $600 million in world-wide box office would typically generate $330 million in revenue. That's because the average take for movie producers/distributors is 55%. The theater owners get to keep some of the money. Of course, that 55% is an average. Producers usually get higher percentages up front and lower ones after the first few weeks. Which is why producers love movies that make most of their money up front while theaters like films that are slow and steady (ala Titanic or The Sixth Sense or even LOTR). Supposedly Lucas blackmailed theaters into a 70% take for the first month. If true, then he's in even better shape than normal. My guess is that when the total world-wide take on AOTC is added up (TV, DVD, video, box office), Lucas will have personally cleared another quarter of a billion dollars AFTER taxes. Clearly, he doesn't have to listen to anybody else.
June 17, 2002, 4:04 p.m. CST
After this much box office, shouldn't Harry and the other FPJ "admirers" be all dead from cranial implosions? Just think of their reaction to the "sequel". Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaa Haaa!
June 17, 2002, 4:35 p.m. CST
June 17, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST
I don't get it. Did this movie make 56+ Opening Weekend because of the tikes OR their parents? Methinks it's Mr. and Mrs. Schmuck taking the younglings to this because THEY secretly want to relive their Saturday morning Chocolate-Frosted Sugar Bombs moments. Well, it's sad because it seems that anything that possibly can pander to the pre-teens WILL pander to said target audience ("target audience"?? 'Thafuck?!?!). "Pokemon" was truly a phenomenon that the parents had no part in. Except footing the bill. Hence the South Park spoof and whatnot. But "what-ev-er", as the valley girls say, the world is surely ending soon, because I actually almost pumped my fist in the air when I heard about Lillard verbally kicking Knowles' izazz. I am rooting against this movie as much as almost anyone, but either way, some people around these parts need to fucking topple from their Mount O'Lipid. If I've learned one thing from this site is that there is far too much misdirected energy on this planet. You spend three years hyping up for a prequel, and what do you get? Disappointment. You spend two years mercilessly bashing something that is obviously junk from the word "Go", and what do you get? "It ain't THAT bad." Shit, THE NEGATIVE FANBOY RANTING PROBABLY DROVE THE 'AVERAGE AMERICAN' RIGHT INTO SCOOBY'S QUIVERING PAWS. ZOINKS! P.S. Yes, the second half of my Subject is from S.I. Oh, no! Sports reference! Eek! Close the blast doors! CLOSE THE BLAST DOORS!!
June 17, 2002, 4:56 p.m. CST
Yeah, right. But who cares about him. What I really wanna know is...are you a fan of the band that you derive your I.D. from? Are you in the band?? Because either way, I saw them open up for The Hives and Mooney Suzuki and their singer is an absolute TOOL. You know what Spinal Tap say about clever and stupid, and that guy is clearly on the wrong side of the line. The band had potential, but Mr. Fuckface just undermined the whole experience. But hey, they made the subsequent bands THAT MUCH BETTER. Sorry, dude (I'm assuming), I'd heard a lot of good things about them, so it's more disappointment that malice. P.S. I'm bringing tightly-sealed bottled water to your parties.
June 17, 2002, 5 p.m. CST
Lillard IS great, I've never slagged Lillard. He was amazing in Dead Man's Curve and he even makes Iain Softley films enjoyable. Therefore he is by instant default what you young folk refer to as "WIKKI" Wow, what a random post. I'll probably watch the movie on TV sometime, but since I watched the show more than once I think I know how it ends. Bar keep! Another round for both myself and Mr Moriarty. If I'd have had to sit through that movie I know I'd need several stiff drinks.
June 17, 2002, 5:03 p.m. CST
Notice that I said "Freddy", not "Freddie". See, it's my Freddy Krueger Inspirational Collage I Have. Now there's a movie that they can make! "Freddy Vs. Freddie!" Could a filmmaker torment young girls anymore than that premise? Yeah, have Krueger running around in the "Scooby Two" sequel, wearing a hockey mask, and when Fred goes to pull it off....
June 17, 2002, 5:10 p.m. CST
June 23, 2002, 4:03 a.m. CST
by Stig is Dead
Maybe it was because my expectations were lowered by all the poor reviews, and the bashing it's gotten. It could be that I was just in the right mood.. I don't really know, but I liked it. I'll probably end up getting the DVD and watching it again. When my wife and I went to see it today, we went in fully expecting it to be horrible, but we went anyway. Lillard as Shaggy made the movie for us, I can't imagine how anyone could have done a better job. The kids (and parents) around seemed to be enjoying themselves, and I heard more than a few kids ranting about how much they liked it on the way out. I also think they made the right decision not to go the PG13 route and keep it family oriented. In the end it was a live action cartoon, and it hit all the right nostalgia buttons - the things about the cartoon that I loved. It wasn't high art or anything - nor was it intended to be, but in the end I just switched on the kid in me that used to love watching the cartoons and had a good time. Thanks everyone for blasting this movie. In a perverse sort of way, I think this ended up making this a pleasant surprise. Rob