Submitted by Happy123boy t3_11ds3ae in television
For those who don't know, Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law was a cartoon that aired on Adult Swim during the early to mid 2000s. Much like Velma it was based on an old Hanna-Barbera cartoon, in this case Birdman and the Galaxy Trio. However, unlike Velma it seems to have been much better regarded as a TV show. What did HB do right that Velma maybe could have taken notes from?
not to mention reboots back then were less themselves
people are generally sick of reboots because they generally suck dick. Velma is no exception
I don’t really see the connecting point besides Hanna-barbera to make between the two. They are vastly different shows/styles/senses of humor.
I guess the connecting point is nobody asked for either show, but for birdman, that was the joke.
Velma is basically like they asked right wingers what they think "woke" media is like and then they made that show. It almost feels patronizing/insulting to those with progressive ideals and obviously right wingers won't watch it, so it's a show for no one
Harvey Birdman is like D or C list character anyway, so they were free to mess around with it and nobody really took it seriously. Scooby Doo is A list so to speak and has an established... I guess we'll call it canon or something. You can't mess with that.
Same thing will probably happen with maybe a Flinstones or Jetsons remake with stoner kids or deadbeat parents.
Plus Harvey Birdman is actually funny and elevated the character. Velma doesn't elevate anything but also downgrades everything.
What they needed to do was get another nobody-really-takes-seriously character and should've messed with that, let's say... Muttley or Dick Dastardly or I dunno Droopy or something.
Great point. Sealab 2021, Harvey Birdman, and Space Ghost coast to coast all took Hanna Barbara characters which nobody was doing anything with and elevated them.
My only bone of contention is that canon can be altered, but generally you have to have material good enough to justify the audience overlooking the change. A good artist learns the rules so they can bend or break them and create great art. It's the difference between Kubrick's The Shining and Terminator: Dark Fate. Velma isn't good enough to justify the change to canon.
Yes, at the end of the day the material just has to be good. I've no doubt that a talented writer can turn Flintstones, Jetsons, Scooby or whatever into something completely different but if it still hits the right notes it can be good.
Velma's just poor execution plain and simple.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I haven’t seen either. But based on the limited knowledge I have, I’m going to guess one had good writing and the other didn’t.
How dare you compare Harvey Birdman to Velma.
Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law was much more in the vein of Space Ghost, Coast to Coast than Velma. Take a mostly forgotten character from the past and then build an entirely different genre of show around them.
Velma takes the character from one of the most beloved animated IPs and just makes them all unlikeable, but still staying in the "mystery solving kids" genre.
Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law wasn't setup as an origin story. Harvey was no longer a superhero and now practiced law. Velma tried to create an origin story for a well known popular character, overwriting existing literature.
Velma might have been better received if they had framed it as her post-mystery incorporated life, ie what's Velma doing now that she's left the crew. That would have given them much more room to work with.
You can see this in other spin-offs like Harley Quinn which is set in her post-joker life.
Did you...get that thing I sent you?
The Birdgirl spinoff wasn't that good either.
Season 1 had its moments, but season 2 was fucking gold throughout.
This should have been the Scooby remake, not Velma.
At its heart, HB had an affection for its source characters.
Velma does not, and that makes it a botch.
Well written, funny and entertaining. Not racist
Harvey Birdman wasn’t a lame edgelord fest.
It was funny
I haven't seen Harvey Birdman, but seeing as Velma was horribly racist and sexist, I would imagine that's the first difference that would stand out.
[deleted]
Writing with the purpose of offending people is fucking stupid and childish.
Harvey Birdman was aimed at teenage white males, so r/television loved it.
Velma was not aimed at teenage white males, so r/television hated it.
Your mistake is thinking that because r/television hates a show it is a bad show.
Yes, clearly it's just r/television being biased, right?
Yeah, seems it's poorly reviewed. That being said, the volume of discourse in this sub seems out of whack. It's the show the sub loves to hate.
Yeah, that's fair. People have definitely had a bone to pick about the show. I wouldn't even argue against the idea that there's probably some sexist and racial animosity in the mix there, motivating some of that criticism. I just hate to see people excuse the show of all its faults because of that. It can both be a lightning rod for people's worst urges and be a terribly written mess.
so what you're saying is that anyone who isn't white enjoys watching garbage ass shit like Velma? that's offensive to non whites, actually
exactly! the reason birdman worked is in the name: Man.
NeatlyTrimmed t1_jaagvho wrote
HB hadn’t already been through a bunch of reboots. It was a fresh take on a classic cartoon. Velma, despite their attempts to make it edgier and more targeted at todays audience, is something like the 6th or 7th iteration of the gang. Oh, and they left out the fucking TALKING DOG!