Talk:Scooby-Doo in film

This article lacks a clear topic
We can't have an article which tries to focus on both every single live action Scooby Doo film, (both theatrical, direct-to-video and Tv-movies) and also add info about an animated film for no good reason. If we do that there is no actuall topic to the article, it's just a random mess. The new theatrical animated film isn't a "reboot" of any kind, it's just another Scooby-Doo film which has *one* thing in common with only the two first live action Scooby Doo films, that it's going to be released in thaters.

This article should either focus on

A) All live-action films only.

B) All theatrical films only.

I feel the focusing on live action films would be better since the new animated film isn't even sure to become a thing. It might take years to come out or get shelved completly.★Trekker (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the topic is clear, it is perhaps just poorly titled because the films collectively don't really constitute a series. Splitting out certain films on the basis of an arbitrary criteria would be a bad idea because there isn't much content to begin with. Perhaps it should be renamed to Scooby-Doo in film in line with say Batman in film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not "arbitrary" in the slightest, having an actual consistent topic is a must, right now the articles is a mess and if we rename it to "Scooby Doo in film" we would have to focus on all the animated TV and DVD movies to avoid bias, something Wikipedia never wants to do for some dumb reason in their "in film" articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I second this to be honest. Renaming the article can give the upcoming 2020 animated film some coverage as well as a mini-section (or main article link) for the direct-to-video animated films. Zucat (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would the direct to video animated films be treated as lesser?★Trekker (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, because there are too many of them at this point to squeeze them all into a single eynclopedic tone? It only makes sense to do so. Zucat (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So your answer is essentially "because it's hard and we can't/don't want to put in effort"? So we're just going to ignore the majority of entire form you want to name the article after and misslable the articles' title because you think something would be difficult? In that case limit the scope of the article to a focused managble subject instead! 'All live action films regardless of release form + one possible maybe future animated theatrical release, but but pretty much ignore all other films' is not an accepable way to have an article.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, please format your comments so that it makes for a readable conversation.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And by "Format your comments", do you mean not include a space in between them (as I just did) so that it looks cramped and unorganized? That aspect of this thread honestly doesn't even matter.
 * "Format your comments" mean make it look readable in the ling run at all. There's a reason pretty much everyone uses these : when discussing things. How is anyone supposed to be able to see who's replying to who if more people join the conversation and you still just post them randomly without any indication?★Trekker (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you propose we include individual coverages for the direct-to-video films, I'm not stopping you or anyone. I did not say my idea had to be done, it was merely a suggestion. Zucat (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an odd suggestion and doesn't help this article at all in my opinion.★Trekker (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you interested in improving this article or not? Because useless bickering such as this are not what talk pages were created for. If you are just going to continue to nitpick what and how other people on this site type, I am more obliged to end things here or take this subject up with someone else. Zucat (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, you could have bettered yourself and avoided this pain? Put the simplest slightest effort into actually acting like you cared about having a conversation and not just contradict me? When people advise me to better my editing I tend to take that to heart and try to improve, instead of sticking to my annoying and disruptive habbits like a child. And I've done a far better job than you so far at actually trying to improve this article. You have done less than nothing of value in this dicussion. It's clear your going to do nothing but run to an admin and try to have me blocked for "harrassing" you or something. Go ahead. Be hurtful and unhelpful and do nothing but make this article worse. Good bye and farewell hope I never have to come across you ever again. People like you make it impossible to accomplish even the smallest things on this site. Go ahead and ruin this article will you if you feel like it.★Trekker (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let's get back on topic of improving this article instead of personal attacks. As a suggestion, since this article was originally created to focus on the four (at the time) live action films, maybe it could be renamed "Scooby-Doo (live action film series)"? As was said above, including the 2020 movie, at least in my opinion, would cause a bit of an issue because then people would be wanting to add every single animated DTV, which is not the point of this article. Thoughts on this? Katniss   May the odds be ever in your favor ♥  15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that fully. And I'm sorry about my overreaction, that was not ok.★Trekker (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

What to do with this page now?
So how do we go about this?★Trekker (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This page once again has the problem that it seems to want to be about all the live action films regardless of their release form and only one of the animated films. This is not a way to have an article. The user who moved the page seems to ignore this and just go on with it.★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me? If this talk message was indirectly referring to my edit, I knew *exactly* what I was doing when I renamed the page and added the animated film content. The article no longer qualifies to be labeled as a single series anymore since the D&V film is separate from the first four. You really need to stop with this whole *live-action film series* stuff because it's no longer relevant. For example, The Alvin and the Chipmunks in film article used to be called Alvin and the Chipmunks filmseries), but it was changed to make room and accomodate for the Direct-to-video films, which are also major releases like the live action ones. This same principle applies to 2020's Scoob. The change was simply made for a wider clarification. Now please, don't be so protective of an article and try to have a little more faith in people's edits. It's best to work with other users than fight against them. Zucat (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you intend to use the cast and crew sections when you need to add 20+ DVD films?★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, your move was not supported by any consensus. I will move it back soon enough.★Trekker (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If this page shall actually be named "Scooby Doo! in film" there needs to be a discussion first where we agree that this is the way to go and also have a plan. Right now the page is a mess once again with only including the live action films and the one animated one. If we do decide to have it cover all film then we actually work to have it cover all films and make it work with the cast and crew sections without making them cluttered and wide beyond belief.
 * I say we have a draft named Draft:Scooby-Doo! in film which we can work on first without making the current article confusing and halfbaked for months. That way we can work slowly and figure out what works and doesn't on the page. I say we use the Spider-Man in film page and the List of Dragon Ball films as models for how to go about this. Those pages are wellmade and include everything from box office, critical reception and home media sales.★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

One of those articles in particular isn't even in the same category as this one (The Dragon Ball one). That article is merely a generic wikilist and is not in any way a good model to shape another one like this. Also, it's way too early to even consider shaping this article like that Spider-Man one as well, we should at least wait until Scoob comes out or even gets a confirmed sequel to even consider simplifying the article and character table as three series should qualify. The major changes made to this page are fine as it is and should only be edited to build upon what is already there until those before-mentioned releases come about. Zucat (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a great model for how one should handle reception sections. But as usual you're only interested in ingoring everything I say and forcing your own way. Again, how exactly are we supposed to handle cast and crew sections when there are already 20+ animated DVD film? I'm not talking about some Scoob sequel, there are already tons of animated films. This article looks like a mess right now and you havn't even fixed the lead section to explain what the article is about now! That's number one priority when moving an article and changing it's focus. You don't seem to be interested in even listening to my conserns or taking my ideas into consideration. And how about the fact that you moved this article without any move discussion? Are we just going to pretend that didn't happen so you can have it your way without opposition?★Trekker (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I never once said it had to be my way, I simply said we had to wait. The article clearly states at the beginning that it focuses on the major Scooby-Doo feature-length films that are not the direct-to-video ones. And once again, you're jumping to conclusions and choosing to pick a warzone just because you don't like someone's logical consensus to an article that no longer meets a past requirement. What exaxtly makes your choices with this article better than the one's I merely suggested? All suggestions to improve and expand an article are welcome on Wikepdia. You are acting like you are the prime owner of the article when that's not one of the things that Wikepdia was made for. Someone besides me has already tended to the new title by removing the ! in it, so it should stay for now. It's somewhat hypocritical to say somebody is ignoring and disregarding your suggestions when you apparently didn't do the same thing to mine. I thought you would have learned to be more mature and lenient with other users edits after that last conflict you began, but apparently I was wrong. Zucat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on gods earth should this page ignore the DVD animated films exactly? And no, you're the one who is acting like an owner. You went straight ahead and moved this page without any consensus and keep disregarding my conserns or sugestions for using a draft. Either this page is about all films, or it's only about one type of film, but right now it's a mess of several different types of films but ignoring one specific one for no given reason. You have given zero logical reasonings for why your idea of keeping this page to only live-action films and the one animated one makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasonings for my edits, you're probably not reading my talk page messages all the way or just disregarding my words. One does not need consent to make qn edit, nor does it mean they're protective. Like, If I wanted to fix a typo, would have to alert the talk page just to do so? The only reason the DtV films are being exluded is because you brought up the idea of the article only covering the first four live-action films, which is irrelevant at this point due to the release of V&D and the upcoming animated film. The DtV films already have their own article of coverage. If you can't understand the reasonings for my changes, then you shouldn't even be continuing this discussion with me because all of bickering is not making constructive progress at all. Zucat (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You've given zero good reasoning that makes remotly sense. And actually one does need consenus for moving an article, especially when it changed the whole subject of the article. You don't seem to understand what it is that you're even doing. You havn't even learn how to format your comments yet despite it being told to you multiple times that it's good to do so and being incredibly simple. Why exactly should I leave this subject when you're the one who's being disruptive? And no the DVD films do not have their own article, that is false.★Trekker (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Give me one sinle good reason why "The article clearly states at the beginning that it focuses on the major Scooby-Doo feature-length films that are not the direct-to-video ones" is a good idea? How is that complete cherrypicking of subject for a page? Either the page is about one specific type of film or it is about all films, you don't get to choose randomly what films you want a page to include.★Trekker (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't tell me how to type my messages on here, I don't need somebody telling me how to talk to others on here when I've been doing it completely fine for years, that is straight-up rude and disrespectful. I technically don't have to abide by anything regarding this articles recent changes just because one mere person objects to it, I don't see anybody else besides you objecting to these changes outside of that one user who erased the exclamation point. Either read my earlier suggestions or come back with two other users besides yourself who actually oppose these changes, because a single individual like yourself does not have a say in a situation like this. And by the way, you're supposed to put all of your words and thoughts in a single talk page message instead of splitting them up into two, one is more than enough. Zucat (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, what if we renamed this article “List of Scooby-Doo films”? This could cover not just the live-action movies, but also all of the direct-to-video films!

What do you think of my compromise for this article?

MatthewRC (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Compromise for this article
I have a compromise for this article.

What if we renamed this article List of Scooby-Doo films and included all other Scooby-Doo movies, such as all of the direct-to-video movies?

What do you think of this compromise?

MatthewRC (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Daphne & Velma
Please check the references on Daphne & Velma where it is mentioned as Prequel and spin-off Plus Please check Superman in film, Supergirl is part of Salkind film series. Wikipedia works on sources not on personal opinions of editors. Sid95Q (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's the thing though. It's not included in the article outside of a paragraph explaining the film and its background. It's not included in the article anymore than that because it's technically not a Superman film as it doesn't feature the character itself.

Daphne and Velma falls into a similar category because while the Superman in film article is about films featuring the title character of Superman, Scooby-Doo in Film is about films based on the cartoon series (that includes the whole gang of characters via Mystery Inc). If only two of the main characters from the series are present in a single film, we can't exactly say if it's technically even a Scooby-Doo film or not because two characters doesn't give us a big enough concensus. Zucat (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)