Another reason why I won't see the "Scooby Doo" sequel

The big-screen adaptation of Scooby Doo was one of the worst ideas ever. I dread the sequel even more thanks to this tidbit from billboard.com

"American Idol" winner Ruben Studdard will appear as himself in next year's mystery-comedy "Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed." The cameo has already been shot. The crooner, who defeated rival Clay Aiken last month on the Fox talent contest, said he doesn't help Scooby and his gang solve the mystery. "I'm just in at the end of the movie. I'm having a party and singing in the end," he said.

In the movie, Freddie Prinze Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar, Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini confront an anonymous masked villain menacing the city of Coolsville with a machine that creates ghosts and monsters.

As previously reported, Studdard's debut J Records single, "Flying Without Wings" / "Superstar," will debut tomorrow (June 19) at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100.

 

In my case, the list of reasons why I won't see this movie is pretty extensive, and ultimately, boring. The more compelling list would be readons WHY I should see it. I imagine it would also be quite a quick read.

 

The only reason to see it is because you have kids that need a day out from the house (rain). Other than that I wouldn't go see this type of crap.

I'm dreading the new Rugrats movie. My kids of course want to see it, I'd rather have a root canal.

 

I laughed a lot during the first 15 mins. of the first Scooby Doo movie, but it went waaaaay downhill after that. They even found a way to make Rowan Atkinson NOT funny! That should be scientifically impossible!

 

And miss the chance to hear a new Aerosmith song?
Sorry about your luck. Maybe you can bribe a baby sitter into taking them.

 

I liked the first movie. But, if I didn't have children, I would never have watched it. I'm sure I'll have to watch the sequel

 

It's a sad state of affairs if movie studios are forking over millions of dollars to make movie remakes of old TV shows.

Think about it – it's quite absurd.

 

I saw the new Rugrats movie yesterday with my kids and I'd volunteer for root canal just to get my $20 back.

I actually had a bit of fun at the first Scooby Doo movie for some reason. Must have been in a great mood or something. Doubt I'll see the new one, the kids are old enough to go by themselves if they insist on seeing it.

Dan C

 

Poor Matthew Lillard -- from SLC Punk! to this kind of dreck. Oh well, I'm sure the money is good

 

Sadly, not any more absurd than the money spent on films based upon old comic books.

 

My girls didn't even like the first Scooby movie--someone rented it, and they were out playing about 15 minutes after it started. I don't even like Hanna-Barbera so it doesn't interest me.

 

I have now watched this movie about 5 times since it came on cable and my 5 year old had me TiVo it and I must admit, I had no desire to see it when it was in the theaters, but after seeing on cable I did find it very funny and I thought all of the actors did a very good job capturing the feel of the cartoon, even Scooby Doo

So now I would be willing to go to the theater to see the sequel...Even with Ruben singing the theme...

 

It's not absurd at all. The only reason film studios are "forking over the millions" to make such films is because the public forks over the millions to see them.

I hated the first "Scooby Doo" (or at least the twenty minutes i saw of it), but it made a ton of movie.

It's a business this Hollywood is. We don't go out of our way to make movies that lose money.

 

I didn't see the first one because my kids weren't interested. I'l pass on the second one as well.

 

I didn't even like the Cartoon. And Ruben can't sing...but that don't matter anyway.

 

Yup, And the ones that were not there for the original time era, can veiw the remakes and get a modernized blast from the past...For us, nothing can replace or equal the original...

 

You need more than one?

j/k


Ken

 

You too! I thought I was the only one who thought this.