Subject: As a direct adaptation of a previous Disney film, the analogy is fair.
Author:
Posted on: 2023-04-13 23:29:36 UTC
But Nesh has a point about Mushu not being in the original ballad. But then again, even the original Disney film took incredible liberties with the ballad (notably, that Mulan's parents in the ballad were fine with her going off to fight, actually).
Anyway both the new Velma and the new Mulan are terrible remakes.
and apparently it's utterly reviled by watchers. Have any PPCers watched it, and if you have, what are your opinions?
It's a Scooby-Doo "spinoff" with no Scooby? Sweet Shade of Eranikus, that's like Mulan 2020 getting rid of Mushu.
This is apparently one of those shows that tries to be funny and genre savvy, but utterly fails in both. It doesn't seem to respect the source material, either, which… hrrng. And I totally agree with the main character being a self-insert Sue.
It would be more like doing a Mulan spin-off without Mulan—that is to say, the title character.
I don't think Mushu is present in the legend of Hua Mulan that inspired the film, so leaving him out is perhaps more like leaving out Scrappy-Doo. {; P
~Neshomeh hasn't seen Mulan (2020) and has no opinion on it.
The Tinker Bell movies are a Peter Pan spin-off without Peter Pan, and they manage to be really good movies ;P
Mushu and Scooby are both talking animals who are comedy relief that were cut in order to make the new installment more "adult".
If you want a good review of Mulan (2020), I'd recommend Cynical Review's take.. It explains the many, many, problems with the film. And if you need a reason to hate the film, it thanks CCP departments responsible for the Uighur genocide.
-Ls
But Nesh has a point about Mushu not being in the original ballad. But then again, even the original Disney film took incredible liberties with the ballad (notably, that Mulan's parents in the ballad were fine with her going off to fight, actually).
Anyway both the new Velma and the new Mulan are terrible remakes.
And yeah, Mulan 2020 is just bad on a lot of fronts. The real life problems, the fact that it failed as an adaptation of the original film, the fact that it's just a bad film… I could probably rattle off a lot of problems with it, like Mulan just being magic instead of having to earn her victories, or the bizarre battle tactics used, or the witch committing an easily avoidable heroic sacrifice (why did she turn into one bird to take the arrow when she could turn into a whole swarm of them?) to the film trying to present "authentic" Chinese culture, which was dissected by that one viral video…
Anyways, back on topic before I somehow find time to rant about, say, that… one Shyamalan film which is also a terrible adaptation. Ahem! Yeah, from what the videos say, Velma tries to be witty and funny and self-aware, but it fails. The characters are extremely unlikeable, the main character most of all (according to TV Tropes, some fans find this version of Velma worse than Scrappy). It can't even be bothered to respect its source material, which just convinces me that Canon Love, or at least respect, is required for both good adaptations and good fanfiction.
The difference IMO is that one franchise is defined by the animal sidekick so much as to be named after him, and the other isn't.
Like, the level of disrespect of saying "let's do a spin-off of that show about the talking dog and his friends, but without the talking dog" is higher than saying "let's do a spin-off of that movie about the girl soldier and her friends, but without the talking dragon." But, I admit, not quite as high as trying to do "the one with the girl soldier" without the girl soldier, because sexism is a thing and dog-ism is not. {= P
... Though, come to think of it, I could actually be interested in, say, a series of shorts about Mushu acting as a guardian spirit to Mulan's female descendants through history. Could be a fun way to explore Chinese culture over time provided it was, y'know, good.
Anyway! Sergio makes a good point about Scooby-Doo working because of the teamwork and chemistry between all its characters. Cutting any of them is going to cause problems in a way that cutting side-characters from other franchises wouldn't. I actually spent some time in the shower trying to think of a more comparable Disney film and couldn't, because most if not all Disney films are based on a central protagonist plus sidekicks rather than an ensemble with multiple protagonists who are equally important.
If there IS a Disney film that features a true ensemble and I'm just failing to think of it, let me know!
~Neshomeh
The comment sections of any review video will have at least a few people saying so, and I think I understand why:
The problem with Scrappy wasn't in the character himself (or at least not exclusively), but in how execs throught they could make the entire series revolve around him. What fans really hated was that they put Fred, Daphne and Velma on the bus, and shifted Shaggy and Scooby to a supporting role when the show worked because of the gang's teamwork and chemistry together. Srappy ended up being the scapegoat for the fans' hate, the symbol of the decay of the series when he was mostly roadkill due to the series derailing from the very premise that made it popular.
It still pretty much shines compared to Velma: the series centered on Scrappy Doo was simply a misstep, Velma got everything wrong and revels in it.
I refuse to watch the new Strawberry Shortcake shows for this reason. Not only do the aesthetics fail to captivate (but I'm not an aestheticist, honest), the 2009 series has been criticized elsewhere for unfortunate implications about gender roles. Namely, characters who are tomboys in the 2003 series are either cut out (Ginger Snap, Peppermint Fizz) or rewritten as traditionally feminine (Raspberry Torte). The Berry in the Big City show is just ugly.
P.S: Now the last thing we need is an adult remake of this IP.
And enough bad that I don't intend to kill brain cells by watching it myself.
(For something so bad it's fun to complain about, try the Willow series. This is what happens when every single character is a Mary Sue! {= D )
~Neshomeh
https://youtu.be/1IcyXFNmVwY
I'll just refer you to Cynical Reviews' review of it to understand why.
-Ls
PS: I think the Discord had a whole thread on why it was so bad a while back.
Don't touch it. Don't talk about it. Don't look at it.
Hopefully make them lose money for continuing to make flaming garbage instead of something good.
~Neshomeh
That... that is, perhaps, the worst reimagining of a series that I've heard of so far. There wasn't a single clip in the review in which I could recognize any the characters - it felt like a very sloppily done highschool AU badfic, with Velma being very clearly a self-insert of her VA (and executive producer of this mess).
The gang from most of the original series is one I would be honored to spend time with. The Velma versions? Kill them with fire. Or, better, a .50 cal from a mile away, since gore seems to be one of this version's fixations and i don't want to get anywhere close to them.
I vote declaring this Velma a Canon Sue.
With the main character being one that you know would never say that as Velma has always been perhaps the nicest one in the gang (they're all nice, but she's definitely the most nice one), you know you have a Sue on your hands.
So... SHe's basically Mindy's self-insert, the way she goers about is definitely Suvian since she never faces repercussiosn and we're supposed to side with her despite the fact she's clearly a mean B-word, she's from an official work and we can clearly say she's not Velma in any shape or form.
I dare say she's a Self-Insert Replacement Canon Sue. I'm starting to think that the fact there's some talk about this trainwreck beign derailed on purpose might have a point, 'cause this one scored a bingo already and if it is also a troll it would truly be a first.
Specifically, I'd like to think it's deliberately based on what people claim to be afraid of when they whine about [insert franchise] being "too woke." Tokenism for the sake of tokenism, doing things just to spite the viewers, sh***ing on the original, blah blah blah.
That way, when people complain about media that isn't actually doing that, one can say, "No, you're thinking of Velma. This is far from Velma."
Example 1: "Okay, it's fine if you think the scene in Captain Marvel with the motorcycle guy was over the top, but it was cathartic for a lot of people who've endured sexism in real life. It wasn't done just to put men down—that would be Fred in Velma."
Example 2: "No, Tolkien probably didn't picture dark-skinned Elves when he wrote them, but letting non-white people see themselves as Elves in a big-budget production is good and doesn't change anything about who the Elves are and what they represent in Middle-earth. It's not like Mindy Kaling making Shaggy Norville Black just to give a really bad take on racial stereotypes."
That said, my confidence that there's any such noble intent behind Velma is exceedingly low. I think it's more likely that it's a show Mindy Kaling wanted to make, but couldn't get backing for without the face of an already-popular franchise. (I don't remember where I came across that theory; apologies for lack of credit.) Or it's just the most cynical in a long line of cynical cash-grabs in recent years.
~Neshomeh
Here. The site doesn't have an about page, so I don't know what kind of site it is.
And it seems to be a site dedicated solely to promoting LGBT content... I think. And I guess they like it because it ships Velma and Daphe?
-Ls
Velma Is Much Better Than Haters & Trolls Want You to Believe
Honestly, I don't think everyone criticizing Velma can be called a troll. Trolling requires that you try to antagonize someone else, and people are generally not criticizing Velma just to get a rise out of Mindy Kaling or HBO or anyone else. They're criticizing it because it's bad.
It's not just the faith that's bad in criticisms of HBO Max's Velma -- it's the rationality, logic, and basic media literacy.
I sure hope the writer of this article isn't implying that everyone who criticizes this show at all lacks all of those things.
When Velma premiered on HBO Max this past week, it became the streamer's most-watched animated series debut ever. However, it also became one of the worst-reviewed shows of the last few years.
Unfortunately, most of the hate being aimed at the show isn't just a huge overreaction to a fairly good show with a lot of potential, but it's also led by an angry mob of online trolls who haven't watched the show and wouldn't give it a fair shake if they did.
Okay, so several counterpoints:
Again, that's not what trolling is.
One doesn't have to consume a piece of media directly to understand why it's bad. And not watching doesn't automatically invalidate one's opinions.
Why are television shows entitled to a "fair shake"? I can have my own take, and can despise a piece of media for absolutely no reason.
At the time of writing, Velma has an absurd 6 percent audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 1.4 (out of 10) star rating on IMDb. Some viewers are calling it one of the worst shows they've ever seen. Those viewers are not telling the truth (and most of them have only seen the first two episodes, not the entire series).
Because the writer of this article knows the viewing history of every single person complaining? And if the first two episodes of your show are bad, it's not the fault of the viewership for not continuing onto the rest of the show. It's the fault of the people who made it for doing a bad job.
Editor's note: this review of HBO Max's animated series Velma contains spoilers.
It's not just the faith that's bad in these criticisms -- it's the rationality, logic, and the basic media literacy.
You already said that.
Velma is a good show.
This is then followed by a gif of Velma talking, with the words "I could kill them all" superimposed.
Because this is relevant somehow? Is this article trying to threaten those who disagree with it?
Most of the show's critics are bombing it because they claim it is "racist" (Velma makes jokes about white people buying drugs because they have too much money or are bored and calls Fred a privileged white guy) and "wokeness gone too far."
There's also a scene that makes a joke about Shaggy Norville abandoning Velma while she tries to "parent" a child, thus coming across as if it's about the stereotype of African-Americans being bad dads.
Aside from that, those critics are correct. The show is entirely too concerned with poking fun at people based on race.
These complaints hold so little water it's barely worth addressing. Velma isn't racist and it's not "diversity for diversity's sake."
Uh, it is pretty racist. It makes Fred into a rich white boy stereotype, and makes jokes about it. And if said complaints do in fact hold little water, why not address them anyway?
It's a fun update of classic characters that fills them out into more than just their source material. Here, these kids are characters who have a chance to grow and become their own thing.
No, it's a badly-done adult comedy that makes all its characters into terrible people in the name of humor.
Many of the critics themselves are being racist. The show was created by a white man named Charlie Grandy, but all of the hate is being levied at Mindy Kaling, the woman of color who executive produces and stars.
From what I've seen, Mindy also had a huge creative role, and I believe most of the criticism is because of that, and the fact that she stars. But you know what? Charlie's definitely responsible as well.
Some haters online have also begun calling the lead character "Black Velma" because they didn't watch the show before they judged and reviewed it and are racist enough to not know the difference between Black people and South Asian people.
It then cites all of one tweet, which doesn't indicate much beyond one person making that mistake. None of the reviews I've seen have made that mistake.
Many more are complaining that Shaggy, who goes by his birth name Norvillle in this series, is Black. They think because he grows up to be a stoner, he can't possibly be Black unless the show is itself being racist. Or maybe they just don't want their favorite white guy to be Black.
Or maybe they don't like that Norville is nothing like Shaggy, and isn't a very good person.
Other critics are complaining that the series' humor relies on things like pop culture references, meta-humor, and edgy jokes about sex, drugs, and violence. If those things (which are all hallmarks of animation made for teens and adults) aren't your style, you can watch Bluey or A Pup Named Scooby-Doo.
Yes, but those things are done badly. And insulting people who disagree with you isn't a good argument.
Yes, each of the first two episodes features a couple groan-worthy jokes, but each episode had me laughing out loud at least five times as much. It's not offensively bad, or boringly bad, or even just plain bad at all.
...I suppose that's a possible result of viewing Velma, though I don't think most people would agree.
Some jokes don't land, including one about comedians and #MeToo that is meant to show that Velma has terrible opinions but instead comes across as more making fun of the movement than making fun of Velma.
But a lot more do land, like Norville hating drugs, but inadvertently becoming an icon to stoners who love his taste in snacks and music, Fred not being able to cut his own food,
Frankly, I found that just bizarre and stupid.
and Daphne's mom seeing Velma on TV sending a message to Daphne and thinking its for her.
That's the wrong "its".
Even if the writing was as bad as some critics are saying, the voice acting, animation, and direction make the show good enough to at least warrant a 6 or 7/10. The animation in the series is great, especially when we see Velma's hallucinations. It's vibrant, beautiful, and genuinely scary.
Yes, the animation isn't terrible, and the hallucinations are especially well-done. But when watching TV, I want a good story, and having good animation doesn't save a terrible show.
The voice acting is a special standout in the series. Kaling makes a delightfully unlikable Velma, following in the tradition of Beavis and Butthead, Peter Griffin, and Bojack Horseman. If she were a white man, white male fans would be lining up to worship her.
And the writer apparently is capable of reading the minds of white males. Somehow.
Constance Wu is a perfect popular-girl Daphne, and Sam Richardson's Norville voice has hints of becoming Shaggy in the future but is still his own cute character. Glenn Howerton especially stands out as the privileged and immature spoiled brat Fred.
It's a real shame that audiences are review-bombing the series, because queer fans would love the dynamic between Daphne and Velma. The two used to be best friends before Daphne got hot and became popular. Now they hate each other.
And this is totally a new dynamic that no other characters in media have had?
Underneath the hate and resentment, though, is a very real and heartwarming romance. While Daphne was dating Fred, and Velma has a crush on him, the two also have very relatable feelings for each other. They miss their best friend and wonder what could have been, plus they're both wildly fun disaster gays.
"Wildly fun" is not how I'd describe either of them.
This all leads to a kiss between the two characters -- something fans have been wanting for fifty years -- in just the second episode. And it's great!
They then go back to hating and mistreating each other, which is great.
If Velma can iron out a few kinks, and workshop a few of its worse jokes, it'll become a great lead in for Harley Quinn.
Time will vindicate Velma. It's already been renewed for a second season at HBO Max.
And who knows? Maybe the second season will be even worse! I wouldn't be surprised if they throw in negative references to the show's criticism.
In two years after the second season finale has aired and we're all excitedly looking forward to season three, we'll look back and laugh at this ridiculous overreaction, and hopefully, the people who piled on for racist and misogynistic reasons will feel embarrassed.
Is the writer insinuating that the (theoretical) third season will take two years to make? Or are they saying that this will take place in two years? Because that sentence is just poorly-constructed.
I think the biggest problem with this article is that it thinks its own opinion is fact and that anyone who disagrees is just a "troll" or hater, when they may (and do) have valid points and opinions.
-Ls
I heard Daphne is supposed to be East Asian in this show, which raises the question: why does she have red hair, considering the show follows realistic coloring and doesn't have "anime" hair colors?
Her biological mom smoked a lot when she was pregnant with Daphne. Seriously. That is an actual plot point.
-Ls
It's actually kind of a big deal.
That doesn't make the article good (just like one gay kiss doesn't make Velma good), but be aware of the context you might be wading into here.
~Neshomeh
Site looks sketchy to me, and what little I read seems to be comically missing the point on what actually makes Velma a bad show.