HOME / assessment: Taking stock of people and ideas in the news.

Scooby-DooHey, dog! How do you do the voodoo that you do so well?

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.

Illustration by Charlie PowellHere's the easiest way to comprehend the longevity of Scooby-Doo: Casey Kasem has been doing the voice of Shaggy (Norville Rogers, if you insist on his given name) for longer than he hosted his weekly Top 40 radio show. He started voicing Shaggy in 1969, the year before American Top 40 debuted, and he's still got the part, on television in the WB's Saturday-morning cartoon, What's New Scooby-Doo?, and in the direct-to-video movies the franchise keeps churning out.

Though it's hard to believe—and for animation purists, practically impossible to stomach—Scooby-Doo is the most enduringly popular cartoon in TV history. Starting with the original Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!, the show, in various permutations, was produced for 17 years (and, with its latest incarnation, it's in production again), making it the longest-running network cartoon ever. Because of syndication, it's never been off the air since it debuted, and it probably never will be. Now it's expanding its empire: Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed opens today in theaters nationwide, the second of what promise to be many live-action Scooby movies. In 2002, the live-action Scooby-Doo raked in $54.2 million on its opening weekend, on its way to a $153-million box office.

Acknowledging Scooby's durability is easier than explaining it. Scooby-Doo wormed its way into the culture through years of drip-drip accretion. It's the Cal Ripken of cartoons: Not the best, though certainly not the worst, it just shows up day after day after day, and you end up loving it for it.

For years, not even the show's creators at Hanna-Barbera—the first TV animation studio and the inventors of "limited animation," (that is, animation cheap enough for TV-size budgets)—realized the appeal of Scooby-Doo. Instead, The Flintstones, or even The Jetsons, was thought to be the studio's flagship property. The 1989 50th anniversary TV special for Hanna-Barbera was dubbed "A Yabba Dabba Do Celebration."

But Bedrock might as well be the, uh, Stone Age for today's young audiences, while the gang at Scooby-Doo maintains its hypnotic appeal. The eponymous dog star's Q rating tops Bugs Bunny's among kids. The franchise's direct-to-video titles consistently hit the best-seller lists. (And yes, in a nod to changing times, Scooby, Shaggy, and Fred do DVD commentary.) Kid-oriented Scooby-licensed video games have been popular since the mid-'90s. In 2000, Scooby-Doo won a mock presidential election held by the Cartoon Network, which still airs an hour-and-a-half of Scooby shows each weekday as part of its "Scooby Universe" package. Unlike the evening "Adult Swim" fare, the Cartoon Network's daytime audience is dominated by tykes. One key to understanding Scooby is to realize it has never performed the double-ironic back flip that would make it an adult phenomenon. It has always appealed first to little kids.

One early hint of the show's hold on children came in February 1971, when the BBC pulled Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! from the air, and 70 Scottish children staged a protest outside the Beeb's Scotland headquarters. An employee recently told the Scottish Daily Record that the protest remains the biggest at that BBC location's history. But beyond making comparisons to the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, or citing the general appeal of talking dogs, or noting that Daphne is as sexualized as a kiddie cartoon character gets, it's difficult to say exactly why the show has had such a long-standing appeal. It's not as if the show's animator, Iwao Takamoto—his other creations include the Great Gazoo of The Flintstones and Grape Ape—is an unheralded genius, a mystery-genre Tex Avery or Walt Disney. "I never got it," complained Mitchell Kriegman, the creator of Nickelodeon's Clarissa Explains It All, to the Boston Globe a few years back. "It's got kind of a slacker appeal, a no-resistance story line." Animators and children's TV creators around the world must see Scooby and ask themselves: Why can't my crappy show become iconic?

Jim Millan, the writer-director of Scooby-Doo in StageFright—Live on Stage (yes, there was a touring theatrical production of Scooby-Doo) tried to engage in some bigthink about the show's popularity during publicity interviews. "They like Scooby's enthusiasm for life," he theorized to the Baltimore Sun. "It represents a youthful, optimistic America, where you can solve a problem with good intentions." To the Toronto Star, Millan compared Scooby-Doo to 19th-century European commedia dell'arte, with its stock characters and costumes. "Scooby and Shaggy love to eat," Millan said. "But the delight is in seeing the permutations." To Nashville's Tennessean, Millan said of Scooby, "He symbolizes youth, in a way."

TV snobs surely see Scooby's ineffable charms as another brick in the wall of American decline, the latest example of how we're all slouching toward Toon Town. As if our children should all be watching The Sopranos. Maybe Scooby's appeal makes sense when you compare it to the rest of kids' TV. The most ham-handed of children's shows try to stuff a moral message down the audience's throat. But the moral code of Scooby-Doo permeates the entire enterprise without you ever noticing it. The Washington Post's Hank Stuever concisely elucidated the "Scooby worldview" when the first live-action movie came out: "Kids should meddle, dogs are sweet, life is groovy, and if something scares you, you should confront it." What needs to be explained about that?

If you liked this Assessment column, check out Backstabbers, Crazed Geniuses, and Animals We Hate, a collection of our all-time funniest, meanest, sweetest, and weirdest profiles.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Chris Suellentrop reviews games for Slate.
Illustration by Charlie Powell.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

I would have got away with my inscrutable longevity, if it hadn't been for you meddling cultural critics.

--wrongshore-3

(To reply, click here)


Suellentrop's suggestion that Scooby-Doo never performed the "double-ironic back flip" that would have made it a success with adults--as opposed to, say, Space Ghost, I guess--gets a 2.3 from this Russian judge.

It never performed it because, ahem, it had always already performed it, only it never did it successfully … from the moment it debuted with its himbo driver and its gravelly voiced stoner, Scooby-Doo was an ironic synthesis of the fractured world of turn of the seventies high school: Fred and Shaggy are Taxi's Jim Ignatowski before and after, dipoles of the youth response to a counterculture already marketed to them and not formed by them. Daphne and Velma are a structuralist's wet dream, with the traits of mid-American notions of the eternal feminine neatly distributed between them.

And the dog? The dog is a reminder to all of the animality that lurks inside even the most ratiocinative human enterprise, to wit, finding the duplicate ski lodge and pinning the whole thing on Ace Decade.

Now, it never worked for adults because there's no tension, no real story, and no hope of any sort of evolution … But that begs the question: why is there another live-action movie? — a question Suellentrop answers by implying the money was right. That's not what our twentysomething stars have to say about it. They loved these roles the first time around, even with the bad reviews and the creepy looking dog. Why? Because there simply was no line between parody and homage. They couldn't screw it up. It could be bad, but it couldn't be worse

Movies don't get made simply because the money is right, especially when the people making them have other offers. They get made because somewhere there is a passion to make them — a desire to work with these people again, to do this role again, to do a better job than in the first one, whatever...

The centerpiece of the Scooby universe, for the potential adult audience, is Shaggy, and in Matthew Lillard's performance we have reached one of the transcendent moments of the contemporary Hollywood system. So often people are asked to perform opposite cartoons, to pretend that something that doesn't yet exist is there, is present. Now we have Lillard being asked to perform within a cartoon, to pretend that something that has seemingly always existed is newly discovered. His Kasem imitation yokes together Shaggy's pothead lucidity and Top 40's encyclopedic pop boosterism; his body language is a stoner rosetta stone.

These people made this movie to watch him become Shaggy again. There is more of the divine in his performance than in the whole of Gibson's The Passion; the Scooby Snack is the transubstantiated wafer of the pop cultural eucharist.

--MatthewGarth

(To reply, click here)


(3/26)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Hallo, Berlin.55/091106_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on gay rights.17/091106_TC.jpg
About face.4/091106_TD.jpg