No, they were enhancing it. It didn't have to be a carbon copy. They were introducing new ideas. Characterisation.
This new thing is just doing a live-action cartoon for the sake of it and not bothering to be anything except brainless kid 'fun'.
Scrappy was the villain in the first film because everyone hates Scrappy. He's the epitome of a younger, annoyingly energetic character brought in to appeal to infants.
So going by that Batman Begins could have had Bruce Wayne now working at McDonalds after he left Gotham and stays there through the whole film. Oh and since batman fans seem to hate robin , he's the villain! After all that would be introducing new ideas. Characterisation. Right?
The fact was a lot of things they did were the opposite of what the characters were. Fans don't like scrappy? You leave him out. He was a good guy who enjoyed helping and kinda had hero worship for his uncle not a crazy generic villain who swears.
Daphne got kidnapped it was her thing. Like Scooby and shaggy been useless yet actually ending up been the ones who stopped the villains. It was part of what made it work. They changed so much it was almost not scooby any more.
So you prefer slapstick and zero characterisation to clever, referential humour and character-growth? :?
For Scooby yes. It's like they added a backstory and motivationns ect.. to the Grinch in the Jim Carrey version. You know what? The cartoon of the Grinch > Live action version despite the fact I actually like and own both the stuff they added wasn't what made the Grinch work.
Same for scooby, I like things like character development in other things but in scooby the characters had been the same since 1972 and was still popular and cool for a reason. The changes were not needed. There's a difference between clever character development and pointless unneeded changes.
The best kinds of "Kid's Films" are the ones that appeal to Adults as well. See: Toy Story.
Yes but Toy story was not based on an old property. Remember The Flintstones movies? They tried to appeal to both and were not as great as the original cartoon. Inspector Gadget tried it too and again it failed to capture the things that made the original great.
Toy story was an original property that could appeal to both. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990 film) captured what made the original and cartoon work and you know what? The fans liked it. You said it yourself previously with :
I am one of the four people (including Mole, I'm guessing) who actually liked the other live-action movies
So why do people not like it? The changes were pointless and it didn't feel like scooby doo. That's all i'm saying.
It would require the same amount of time and effort to make Scooby Doo's eyes look like an actual dog's eyes (a brown circle and a black circle) than it would to make them look like they do in this thing (a white circle and a black dot). You can't use the budget argument.
I can use the budget argument as look at the two :
Movies 1 + 2 Scooby :
The Mystery Begins :
This scooby doo is a lot less detailed than the previous one, Why? Smalled budget for cgi. So this scooby looks smoother and more cartoon-like. Why? it's cheaper to do. You don't think things like cgi scooby are related to budget? it's why the cast of this one is unknowns while previous one had people from things like Buffy and Scream. It's why cgi scooby is much much less detailed as its cheaper and easier to do.