God Hates Velma Dinkley

 

"There's a very logical explanation for all this." - Velma

I am actually sort of embarrassed to admit that I really liked both of the Scooby Doo Live action films. All of the actors were perfect for their roles, especially Linda Cardellini as Velma. My life long crush on Velma has been brought to life!


Here is a link to a website that is devoted to Velma Dinkley, including some fan art, and here are some links to other Velma fan art: "Meet Velma", and "Pussycat Velma" and Pinup Velma. There is even a "Barbie's friend Skipper" Velma.

Now before I give my own recommendation of the two Scooby Doo films, I feel that it is important to give a "fair and balanced®" review. The ChildCare Action Project offers the Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) free of charge. Their "Entertainment Media Analysis Reports" are a detailed analysis of movies from 'Christian' perspective, "A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word." You can read about how they arrive at their decisions regarding films in this brief PDF file. They use six thermometers to decide how ungodlike film is, each thermometer representing a different aspect of intolerance. That's right, you guessed it - they are from Texas.

This is part of what they said about the Scooby-Doo 2 movie:

Scooby-Doo 2 is much better than the original Scooby-Doo (2002) not only because of the measurably lesser and fewer issues of assault on ethics and morality but because of just a plain better job at film making and story-telling. To help you see the difference in the moral quality between the two films, following is a comparative display of the scoring:

For example, note in particular the glaring lesser content of sexually questionable material and imagery [Sexual Immorality (S)] in Scooby-Doo 2 as compared to the same for Scooby-Doo (2002). The thermometers reveal a score of one left out of 100 for Scooby-Doo (2002) and 77 for Scooby-Doo 2. Scooby-Doo 2 is noticeably more violent than Scooby-Doo (2002) but is less evil as revealed by the large improvement of of the Offense to God (O) score. I will leave the rest of the comparison to you. Confidence is high our readers are quite capable of comparing the scores on their own. I provide the above comparative display simply as a matter of convenience. capalert.com

Here is a comparison of the holy thermometers that explain why God hates Scooby Doo movies:

I get excited every time I read this part! I had no idea how hot the Scooby Doo movie was until I read their little dissertation on the film:

The filmmakers were even considerate when the camera was viewing Velma from below while she was hanging from a catwalk -- she was wearing shorts under her short skirt. The filmmakers were even more modest this time during the more acrobatic scenes, keeping exposure of the girls to a relatively respectable minimum. About the most sexually suggestive matter in the whole film was Velma in a skin-tight red leather outfit trying to vamp it up to attract a man and the camera forcing the viewer to focus on her posterior as she climbed into a van from the side door. These matters of improved morality are of significant curiosity since the screenwriter is the same as for Dawn of the Dead, namely James Gunn.

There was only one use of the three/four letter word vocabulary and it was only a euphemism of a truly dirty word. [Prov. 22:11] There was, however, one clear use of God's name in vain but without the four letter expletive. There are a number of examples of crude and toilet humor such as Shaggy using Scooby as a source of compressed flammable gas and a bulldog barking in subtitles "Sniff my [euphemism of posterior]" at Scooby. Dart players throwing darts at a photo of Fred and landing one on his crotch could well have been left out. And one of the girls clamping an electric cable to the crotch of the metal clad Black Knight was a little gross. When Scooby ran between the legs of one of the monsters, the monster's pants dropped, exposing his underwear and some curvature of anatomy. A vomit shower given to one of the reporters was maybe more gratifying than offensive, but offensive crude humor nonetheless. [Eph. 5:4] capalert.com

Of course it is the CAP Ministry's solemn duty to God to attempt to bring an imaginary character out of her imaginary closet so Jesus can scorn her right before she goes straight to H-E-Double-Toothpicks:

One issue I would especially like you to know about was Velma's comment about mysteries when trying to dodge a social affair with Patrick. She said "A mystery is my mistress and I must hear her sweet call." Why would a woman say she must hear the sweet call of her mistress if it were not intended to be a token reference to lesbianism/homosexuality which is subtly, almost invisibly becoming even more common in movies for the young (and public school programs). I guess it all depends on how you define "mistress." At least you know it is there. As always, we tell you about the content of films from a moral standpoint by His Word so you can be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether a film is or is not fit for your kids and/or yourselves. capalert.com

There you have it! The evidence is overwhelming. Of course, they are very even handed about it. As a parent, you can make an "informed moral decision" about Velma yourself, the reviewer has not colored the language in any way. Let this be a lessen to the ladies reading this - the safety of your immortal soul depends heavily on your definition of the word "mistress."

Listed as among the Offenses to God in their review of the film Fantastic Four was the film's depiction of "corporate underhandedness" - Though Shalt Not portray Ficticious Corporate Slimeballs as Dishonest in any way! And nothing cheeses off God more than the "Fantastic" underpants of Sue Storm:

Jessica Alba stripping to her underwear while invisible (the stripping motions were not invisible) then becoming visible in her underwear then invisible again with the underwear visible. The writers just couldn't resist. capalert.com

The CAP Ministry provides this bit of scripture, Thess. 5:22, to explain why an invisible girl with visible underwear is bad: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." This might seem a bit vague, so they explain this by adding: "['Evil' includes all things that are sinful.]" This left me a bit confused - is all underwear evil, or just Jessica Alba's underwear?

The CAP Ministry's review of the film Labyrinth complained of "euphemism of the most foul of the foul words by a sprite" (Cheeky sprites!), "adolescent arrogance toward parents" (Shut your filty pie hole, you heathen!), "Character says 'Stop it. STOP IT' to a crying baby" (The babies of true Christians only cry on command.), and "camera angle to force viewer on private parts, twice." Really? Twice? Yowsa! I'm gonna have watch that movie again! Except maybe they are talking about Hogwart's filthy Lederhosen. Ick!

I actually saw the reference to "camera angle to force viewer on private parts" in almost every film that they reviewed, which bothered me. What if they have copies of these films that have crotch-shot scenes that were deleted in the films that I saw? I want to see some camera angles that force me to watch the private parts of at least some of the characters! It's funny how only the overly self-rightous ever seem to pick up on these juicy details - I guess the Christian Right does have more fun!

In their review of the film "Dudley Do-Right", the CAP Ministry states that they consider the concept of zen meditation and being "at one with the universe" is an "Offense to God". Even the film Flicka got a low rating for such offences as "teen arrogance at father, repeatedly" and "teen girl defying father's instructions, frequent". I am not going to watch Flicka though, because there does not seem to be any "camera angle to force viewer on private parts". (Drat!)

Even biblical films are not above scrutiny. The CAP Ministry worries that the movie "The Gospel of John" depicts "below navel skin - male," "suggestion of nudity under water," "adults in underwear," "drinking", and "murder by crucifixion". No, I'm not making this up. That's really what it says.

Considering their rather strong stance on these films (not a wide stance! definately not a wide stance!), what would the CAP Ministry say about a degenerate and ungodly film like Garfield? They state that the film depicts a "great fall with no consequences" (Wily Coyote is the anti-Christ!), "somewhat abrasive name-calling, repeatedly" (Rush Limbaugh must be Satan's Spawn!), and "crude humor three times (Garfield swinging his posterior)" - Ack! Whatever you do, don't let your kid see the swinging butt of a CGI cat!

That's not all though, the also list "dressing to maximize the female form and/or skin exposure (in a background TV music video)", "'gamming' (woman sitting in short skirt to maximize exposure of underside of upper legs) in background TV", and of course the ever-present "camera angle to force viewer on private parts". I don't know about you, but I'm getting hot just thinking about the Garfield movie. Move over Odie, I gonna get me some of that hot Garfield "lasagna." Two slices, please!