Talk:Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed

Needs
The article needs the following information/sections (with links to the Style guidelines for film articles)

Background/Production
It gives background information: Included here should be a history of the film's background and development, such as how many studios, actors, directors and writers were involved with the project at one point or another. Continuing onto the production of the film, facts such as filming dates, budget figures, any noteworthy titbits (such as delays, reshoots etc.) should be transformed into prose. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed. see WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines

Reception
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes ([5]) and Metacritic ([6]) collect professional film reviews and calculate a numerical score from them for each film. In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo ([7]) and Box Office Guru ([8]). see WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines

Sequel and Prequel
From the two sources cited one gives me an error message and the other doesn't even mention Scooby Doo at all. I hadn't even heard about them until now, any truth to them?

The 'Monsters' section is all messed up, typos and odd sentence structures galore. Lots42 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Production
This section needs a lot of work; the sentences are incomplete and jumbled, and mix tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.132.12 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scooby Doo2 movie.jpg
Image:Scooby Doo2 movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the sequel exist?
I checked the source... and there appears to be no mention of the sequel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.75.161 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request 4/16/14 /Home Media Release

 * The artical says the year this movie came out onto DVD, but it does not have the day and month it was released on DVD. Also, with it being 2004, the movie would have most likely been released onto VHS along with the DVD release. Since I don't know the date, I can't edit the artical. Could someone please do this for me? --24.147.1.197 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley


 * Never mind! I found the infomation about the home media release and I put it on the page. 24.147.1.197 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Reboot
It says the announced movie written by Randall Green is animated. This is a confusion with S.C.O.O.B., which is being written by a Matt someone and recently announced Dax Sheppard. The one with Green's name attached was actually live-action, but has apparently been discarded in favour of S.C.O.O.B. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Strangers in the night...
Might not be on the soundtrack...but its in the movie..scooby dooby do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4101:4167:40AE:1F73:64E6:AD1 (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What was the budget?
I noticed in the budget this page says $25 million and $80 million, with two different sources. Which is more accurate? Vogopolis (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

More sources suggest the budget to be $80 million, so this should be the stated figure. The $25m figure comes from one site with no source AlienChex (talk) 09:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't go with the majority, that's original research Indagate (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Article that could be a source about the movie
I found from the Quad City Times a review: http://web.archive.org/web/20040503211749/http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1026372&t=Art,+Movies,+Theatre&c=4,1026372 WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Post credits scene
Scooby-Doo plays the video game of the same name on Game Boy Advance SP, then shows the viewers a secret code. 2A02:C7E:4F1D:4000:5429:E538:1BDA:A099 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTEWORTHY. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 01:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

"I think Coolsville sucks" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_think_Coolsville_sucks&redirect=no I think Coolsville sucks] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)