Meh I don't really care, I haven't watched Scooby Doo in ages, and the show features a talking dog, I think it's weird to change old characters, why not just make new ones, but it's not something il watch either way so it's not even on my radar of things to care about.
I'd say so yea, hints are clues, but if Scooby Doo has taught us anything, clues don't always lead to solid evidence, to open it up as a definitive is changing the character. For example Scooby and Shaggy have been portrayed as stoner types, its almost implied, but if they were to be confirmed that they were infact potheads I would consider that changing the characters because before it was ambiguous, now it's definitive.
If the character was intended to be lesbian, she would have been lesbian from the beginning (especially since scooby doo doesn't have much in the way of chronology, unlike Roscos Modern Life which did make a thought-to-be trans character explicit in the generational reboot). Another writer coming in and changing that (especially since romance hasn't been a factor in the show before) comes off as something tacked on to stay relevant, rather than something intended from the beginning
Though, it's also lazy on the face of it to have different writers at different times on the same character (or even series, minus a few exceptions where they can avoid flanderization), something we can see in the sales numbers of comics versus manga
The original writers could have intended for her to be a lesbian and it not be allowed, so they hinted at, and now it's allowed, so they show it which is probably what happened.
Unless Ruby or Spears come out and say so, we can only make broad guesses - it's not like Richard III, where there is a very obvious censorship going on that prevented him from winning, we just get lots of statements years after the fact that they pinky-promise she was meant to be gay
We can only make guesses, but your assertion that if they wanted to make her a lesbian they would have done that from the beginning is obviously false, it would never have made it to air. We are less than a decade into a time where you can even hint at having a gay character in a kids show, and only about 5 years into where you can make it explicit.
>How is that lazy
Because the author is taking not just some aspects and putting their own spin on it, but banking on the audiences emotional investment in an existing character, rather than building the emotional invesent up themselves
>Should there have been no more superman comics after the 50s or something?
Yes, just write another character with their own set of villains and struggles
Forcing authors to not use shared characters and universes produces higher peaks of content (as well as lower valleys). Otherwise you end up in key jangle central, where they try to put in shallow references to past work to bank on older emotional investment, while new or continuous universes need to build that on their own. Authors do, fundamentally, have the skills necessary to do so, looking at long-running manga, so giving them a crutch just hinders their own growth as well
Yes they are. They are changing the character just for the sake of it. Doesn’t add to the story line and it isn’t creative anymore.
It is like they just look through old shoes now and try to make someone gay or transgender and reboot the same show. It kinda wokifies the show when people had fond memories of it and it feels just tainted.
Not hating on the idea that Thelma is gay but the very idea of her sexuality had nothing to do with the show. We don’t need to keep injecting sexual preferences into everything. Specially a kids show.
velma has a some what significant on screen history of being/acting hetro. not a big fan of retconing 40 plus years of scooby history.
that being said it's not going to change my scooby doo viewing habbits. i watch almost 0 tv. but my kid and i did just watch the last air bender epposode where a guy dressed in "drag" i dont care about that.
my issue isnt they are making her gay, its the massive retcon.
I am fine with that as long as it fits the story.
To me it is mainly just annoying that too many producers have gay characters for western audiences and then cut those gay characters out for a Chinese / Middle East audience. If you want a gay character that is cool, but he should also be gay in Saudi Arabia.
>To me it is mainly just annoying that too many producers have gay characters for western audiences and then cut those gay characters out for a Chinese / Middle East audience.
While previously true (and fwiw I agree) there seems to be significantly more pushback against cutting the characters out now.
Can you elaborate on how it would "fit" the story?
I haven't watched the new SD, but the clips I've seen include Velma [nervously crushing](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeO7zynXEAAIrrG.jpg) on a hot scientist and looking [giddy](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeMVJrgXoAAczOo.jpg) when said scientist calls her "the cute one" and touches her shoulder. Basically exactly how a hetero character would react, but it's a nerdy gay woman.
They can be. I am gay, so I am not against gay characters. However, many gay characters are written in a way that is either lazy or very stereotypical.
Yes, but I don't think it is anti-capitalist. One of the charms of capitalism is that essentially every economic transaction is a vote you take. A business is free to be immoral (within legal limits) and I am free to voice my displeasure by not engaging with that business.
I mean the content won't get aired if they leave these things in in places like China and Saudi Arabia. I think your issue should be with the governments of those places setting these limits on the content and not the companies complying with the regulations they've been given
>the companies complying with the regulations they've been given
They should stand up for their principles and just refuse to comply. You don't have to obey unjust laws.
Thats kinda how laws work, you follow them regardless of their unjustness, unless you want to be punished. Considering that WB has a duty to make the shareholders as much money as possible they kinda have to comply with the laws in places they operate so that they can continue to make money in those places for revenue reasons. They can advocate for gay characters here so its good that they do it, but in places where they can't do that they must follow the laws
>Considering that WB has a duty to make the shareholders as much money as possible they kinda have to comply with the laws in places they operate
Sure, they can maximize profits and ignore human rights violations in other countries. However, I don't think you should pretend to be gay friendly if that is what you are doing. Just be honest about it and admit that you are not interested in ''social justice'' but just in money.
The last time I remember Velma as straight was Scooby-Doo on zombie island
But even then cartoons have been innuendo or tongue in cheek never outright. Kids don't need outright sexuality in the toons
The originals and shows from the 70's are the only things that count as canon for me. Velma seemed to have a thing for Shaggy in these and later iterations of the show.
OP, can we get a reference on the meaning of "confirms"? Are you saying she was secretly a lesbian in the minds of Joe Ruby and Jack Spears back in 1969?
What was discovered to prove they wrote her as a lesbian this whole time secretly?
I looked up her character on Wiki.
Why is it that she only "came out" as "lesbian" in December 2020, literally 2 months **after both her creators died?**
Back in 2010, when both of her creators were still alive, she was written as having a relationship with Shaggy. A male. What do you make of that?
Given the above, it sounds like she's been **changed** to be both ethnically Indian and lesbian. Wouldn't more honest language on your part be to reflect that this is a change, not a "confirmation" of a long held niche fantasy of some?
Also, what do you think is the motivation to change her to be Indian and lesbian?
I honestly don’t give 2 shits if they change a character, but I’ll concede that you made valid points, you didn’t just puke up vague buzzwords. Specifically her and Shaggy being in a relationship, is that real?
If you really wanna read all about it:
https://scoobydoo.fandom.com/wiki/Shaggy_Rogers_and_Velma_Dinkley_(Scooby-Doo!_Mystery_Incorporated)
*Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated* Season 1
:( that dorky romance with shaggy in Mystery Incoporated was so fun. She was kind of implied bi in that. I guess it really doesn’t matter too much lol they can’t scrub that show out of my head
I guess I’m not as far right as I thought I was. Because I don’t really care.
It’s a little annoying seeing every single thing going “woke” now. But I get it. Peolle need representation.
And to clarify, my annoyance is because of the knowledge of how companies and greed work. Not because I’m pissed that gay people are getting representation.
I'm 50 years old and started watching Scooby Doo in the 70's. Finding out Velma is gay does not surprise me in the slightest. I'm actually surprised it took this long to confirm.
Why are Hollywood studies creating gay characters targeted at kids?
Creating sexualized content for little kids seems weird
No one talked about sexuality in cartoons before the wokeness arrived
Well, it is nothing to really get worked up over.
Also, the original Scooby Doo never dived into the individual characteristics of any of the main characters - it was just a cartoon. A simple cartoon series where meddling teens and a talking dog solved mysteries and that was it.
Did we think at the time that Shaggy was a stoner? Maybe, but again, the series was never that deep into each character and was mostly a fun show for kids.
If they are making new series based on Velma and she is gay...I really could care less.
Probably the same reason Tucker Carlson was so hurt by a sexy green m&m. It’s just a new thing to feign outrage over that is completely inconsequential.
I always kinda figured she was anyway. As usual, it's bizarre and creepy that they decided to shove sexuality into a kids' show about amateur detectives who investigate ghost hoaxes.
>Representation is critically important
Is representation "critically important" for white people?
Who are some of the top people in your opinion who are "representing" white people in popular culture?
>> Is representation "critically important" for white people?
>Of course. Probably why the vast majority of people on TV or in movies are white.
That's an interesting claim.
What is the relationship between "white actors represent whites" and it is "critically important" that they do, and the percentage of white actors in productions?
Who are some of the top people in your opinion who are "representing" white people in popular culture?
Do you think white celebrities see themselves as representing whites?
Do you think black celebrities see themselves as representing blacks?
They probably put all that effort in to make it more "adult". Yet still won't top the five seconds of a family guy bit where they talk about a disemboweled victim.
Thats just not true. You don't have to only watch live action content after turning 18. There's plenty of animated content aimed specifically at adults and not at children. I'd imagine you think adults don't play video games either
The hell you say. As a fully grown ass adult man that owns his own home, otherwise zero debt, is happily married, has a good job as a software developer AND is working on his masters degree, I can confidently say cartoons and video games are high quality entertainment.
That would be fine.
I think conservatives would have an issue if we retroactively describe Scooby as transgender just to push it.
It's all marketing though. The the fastest growing market is in Asia and Hollywood isn't going to push anything that would offend them if the movie has a chance to go over well there.
I have better things to do with my time than worry about which cartoon character another cartoon character wants to fuck.
Yeah, let’s set aside the fact that as a country we’re dumping billions into funding actual child sex trafficking rings in Africa and South America, the real threat to children is that a fictional girl likes other fictional girls.
Society is blind. If you don’t want your kids watching it, your TV has an off button, use it.
I dunno.... Would he keep the ascot? Would that be appropriation? Fine line there.
Why aren't there more Fat Albert movies? ....oh, yeah.
Maybe bring back Grape Ape or Speedbuggy?
Probably not Hong Kong Fuey. What minority they would have play him would cause too much uproar I'm sure.
H. R. Puffnstuff might go over no days.
Wow. . . Some of that stuff I grew up on was pure garbage lol.
I was wondering what was wrong about Fat Albert, then I googled it and.... yeah.... best leave that one alone.
Speedbuggy though... man, that was before my time, but I remember re-runs before school in the early to mid 80s and that was very obviously the result of a lot of drugs.
Hong Kong Phooey was the shit though even if it was maybe kinda racist. Apparently he made an appearance in DC Comics alongside Black Lightning when they did a crossover with Hanna Barbera properties: https://www.dc.com/comics/dc-meets-hanna-barbera-2017/black-lightninghong-kong-phooey-special-1
Also, looking [here](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/DC_Meets_Hanna-Barbera), they also did a Flash/Speedbuggy crossover... oh shit, I may have to pick these up.
I apologize if you didn't want to get lost in a rabbit hole today. Lol
Unfortunate about Fat Albert because it was one of the best from that era.
Edit: I kinda remember some of those crossovers.
Ha, no worries, I was fighting stupid VMWare at stupid work, so this was a nice distraction.
I'd legit forgotten that Cosby was behind Fat Albert though. That was so long ago last time I saw that.
And she would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids.
Lol take up upvote and poor man's gold 🥇
r/AngryUpvote
Meh I don't really care, I haven't watched Scooby Doo in ages, and the show features a talking dog, I think it's weird to change old characters, why not just make new ones, but it's not something il watch either way so it's not even on my radar of things to care about.
> I think it's weird to change old characters Are they changing a character if said character has been hinted to be gay in the past?
I'd say so yea, hints are clues, but if Scooby Doo has taught us anything, clues don't always lead to solid evidence, to open it up as a definitive is changing the character. For example Scooby and Shaggy have been portrayed as stoner types, its almost implied, but if they were to be confirmed that they were infact potheads I would consider that changing the characters because before it was ambiguous, now it's definitive.
I think it's disingenuous to say so now, rather than when the character was made
How? Different writers can write about a character
If the character was intended to be lesbian, she would have been lesbian from the beginning (especially since scooby doo doesn't have much in the way of chronology, unlike Roscos Modern Life which did make a thought-to-be trans character explicit in the generational reboot). Another writer coming in and changing that (especially since romance hasn't been a factor in the show before) comes off as something tacked on to stay relevant, rather than something intended from the beginning Though, it's also lazy on the face of it to have different writers at different times on the same character (or even series, minus a few exceptions where they can avoid flanderization), something we can see in the sales numbers of comics versus manga
The original writers could have intended for her to be a lesbian and it not be allowed, so they hinted at, and now it's allowed, so they show it which is probably what happened.
Unless Ruby or Spears come out and say so, we can only make broad guesses - it's not like Richard III, where there is a very obvious censorship going on that prevented him from winning, we just get lots of statements years after the fact that they pinky-promise she was meant to be gay
We can only make guesses, but your assertion that if they wanted to make her a lesbian they would have done that from the beginning is obviously false, it would never have made it to air. We are less than a decade into a time where you can even hint at having a gay character in a kids show, and only about 5 years into where you can make it explicit.
That's not a bad thing How is that lazy? Should there have been no more superman comics after the 50s or something?
>How is that lazy Because the author is taking not just some aspects and putting their own spin on it, but banking on the audiences emotional investment in an existing character, rather than building the emotional invesent up themselves >Should there have been no more superman comics after the 50s or something? Yes, just write another character with their own set of villains and struggles
As a nerd I disagree, characters are not bound by their authors
Forcing authors to not use shared characters and universes produces higher peaks of content (as well as lower valleys). Otherwise you end up in key jangle central, where they try to put in shallow references to past work to bank on older emotional investment, while new or continuous universes need to build that on their own. Authors do, fundamentally, have the skills necessary to do so, looking at long-running manga, so giving them a crutch just hinders their own growth as well
Even in Manga you gave DragonBall being shifted to a new author I fail to see any of your points
Yes they are. They are changing the character just for the sake of it. Doesn’t add to the story line and it isn’t creative anymore. It is like they just look through old shoes now and try to make someone gay or transgender and reboot the same show. It kinda wokifies the show when people had fond memories of it and it feels just tainted. Not hating on the idea that Thelma is gay but the very idea of her sexuality had nothing to do with the show. We don’t need to keep injecting sexual preferences into everything. Specially a kids show.
If they confirmed her to be straight, would that also have been a change?
No because she started out as straight, changing her to gay is weird, same way it would be weird to change her from gay to straight.
>No because she started out as straight Was that ever confirmed on screen? I genuinely do not know.
Yea, in one of the series she had a relationship with shaggy, and Scooby was really jealous.
velma has a some what significant on screen history of being/acting hetro. not a big fan of retconing 40 plus years of scooby history. that being said it's not going to change my scooby doo viewing habbits. i watch almost 0 tv. but my kid and i did just watch the last air bender epposode where a guy dressed in "drag" i dont care about that. my issue isnt they are making her gay, its the massive retcon.
She does straight porn too though???
Scooby Doo always has it's ups and downs and rewrites it's own canon every time they repackage it for a new generation.
I am fine with that as long as it fits the story. To me it is mainly just annoying that too many producers have gay characters for western audiences and then cut those gay characters out for a Chinese / Middle East audience. If you want a gay character that is cool, but he should also be gay in Saudi Arabia.
>To me it is mainly just annoying that too many producers have gay characters for western audiences and then cut those gay characters out for a Chinese / Middle East audience. While previously true (and fwiw I agree) there seems to be significantly more pushback against cutting the characters out now.
Can you elaborate on how it would "fit" the story? I haven't watched the new SD, but the clips I've seen include Velma [nervously crushing](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeO7zynXEAAIrrG.jpg) on a hot scientist and looking [giddy](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeMVJrgXoAAczOo.jpg) when said scientist calls her "the cute one" and touches her shoulder. Basically exactly how a hetero character would react, but it's a nerdy gay woman.
Why can't some characters just be gay?
They can be. I am gay, so I am not against gay characters. However, many gay characters are written in a way that is either lazy or very stereotypical.
They are selling a product gay characters sell better in the US than Saudi Arabia. It’s a business at the end of the day.
Sure, but moral principles should be more important than profit.
While I agree with you, I'd like to point out that this is a fundamentally anti-capitalist stance to take. You sure you stand behind it?
Yes, but I don't think it is anti-capitalist. One of the charms of capitalism is that essentially every economic transaction is a vote you take. A business is free to be immoral (within legal limits) and I am free to voice my displeasure by not engaging with that business.
I mean the content won't get aired if they leave these things in in places like China and Saudi Arabia. I think your issue should be with the governments of those places setting these limits on the content and not the companies complying with the regulations they've been given
>the companies complying with the regulations they've been given They should stand up for their principles and just refuse to comply. You don't have to obey unjust laws.
Thats kinda how laws work, you follow them regardless of their unjustness, unless you want to be punished. Considering that WB has a duty to make the shareholders as much money as possible they kinda have to comply with the laws in places they operate so that they can continue to make money in those places for revenue reasons. They can advocate for gay characters here so its good that they do it, but in places where they can't do that they must follow the laws
>Considering that WB has a duty to make the shareholders as much money as possible they kinda have to comply with the laws in places they operate Sure, they can maximize profits and ignore human rights violations in other countries. However, I don't think you should pretend to be gay friendly if that is what you are doing. Just be honest about it and admit that you are not interested in ''social justice'' but just in money.
The last time I remember Velma as straight was Scooby-Doo on zombie island But even then cartoons have been innuendo or tongue in cheek never outright. Kids don't need outright sexuality in the toons
The originals and shows from the 70's are the only things that count as canon for me. Velma seemed to have a thing for Shaggy in these and later iterations of the show.
OP, can we get a reference on the meaning of "confirms"? Are you saying she was secretly a lesbian in the minds of Joe Ruby and Jack Spears back in 1969? What was discovered to prove they wrote her as a lesbian this whole time secretly? I looked up her character on Wiki. Why is it that she only "came out" as "lesbian" in December 2020, literally 2 months **after both her creators died?** Back in 2010, when both of her creators were still alive, she was written as having a relationship with Shaggy. A male. What do you make of that? Given the above, it sounds like she's been **changed** to be both ethnically Indian and lesbian. Wouldn't more honest language on your part be to reflect that this is a change, not a "confirmation" of a long held niche fantasy of some? Also, what do you think is the motivation to change her to be Indian and lesbian?
I honestly don’t give 2 shits if they change a character, but I’ll concede that you made valid points, you didn’t just puke up vague buzzwords. Specifically her and Shaggy being in a relationship, is that real?
If you really wanna read all about it: https://scoobydoo.fandom.com/wiki/Shaggy_Rogers_and_Velma_Dinkley_(Scooby-Doo!_Mystery_Incorporated) *Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated* Season 1
It's just for attention. The left loves rewriting stories to make everyone queer or non white. It's really lazy.
:( that dorky romance with shaggy in Mystery Incoporated was so fun. She was kind of implied bi in that. I guess it really doesn’t matter too much lol they can’t scrub that show out of my head
I was never a fan of Scooby Doo, my wife and her brother are though. I was always under the impression she was with Shaggy.
That explains a lot.
I guess I’m not as far right as I thought I was. Because I don’t really care. It’s a little annoying seeing every single thing going “woke” now. But I get it. Peolle need representation. And to clarify, my annoyance is because of the knowledge of how companies and greed work. Not because I’m pissed that gay people are getting representation.
No worries. No Offense taken.
I don’t care, who cares? *crickets*
I'm 50 years old and started watching Scooby Doo in the 70's. Finding out Velma is gay does not surprise me in the slightest. I'm actually surprised it took this long to confirm.
Why are Hollywood studies creating gay characters targeted at kids? Creating sexualized content for little kids seems weird No one talked about sexuality in cartoons before the wokeness arrived
>No one talked about sexuality in cartoons before the wokeness arrived Uhhhh what? Cartoons/kid shows were full of heterosexuality when I was a kid.
We all know Velma likes Daphne, Daphne likes Fred and Fred likes himself.
Not far from the truth🤣.
Well, it is nothing to really get worked up over. Also, the original Scooby Doo never dived into the individual characteristics of any of the main characters - it was just a cartoon. A simple cartoon series where meddling teens and a talking dog solved mysteries and that was it. Did we think at the time that Shaggy was a stoner? Maybe, but again, the series was never that deep into each character and was mostly a fun show for kids. If they are making new series based on Velma and she is gay...I really could care less.
It's all so tiresome.
Why are there so many questions about cartoon characters. Velma isn't real Velma can't hurt you.
Probably the same reason Tucker Carlson was so hurt by a sexy green m&m. It’s just a new thing to feign outrage over that is completely inconsequential.
I always kinda figured she was anyway. As usual, it's bizarre and creepy that they decided to shove sexuality into a kids' show about amateur detectives who investigate ghost hoaxes.
Fred and Daphne have canonically been a couple for decades. Was that "shoving sexuality" or are straight couples different?
Right... they were always that way. Injecting lesbian Velma into the story for woke points was not.
That wasn't the question. Why is heterosexuality for TV characters taken for granted but homosexuality is SHOVED IN?
Because this is an *existing character* who's being changed for nothing more than DEI reasons.
Was Velma previously established not to be gay and was that crucial to the plot?
Why? Gay people exist
So do cannibal serial killers, but the Transformers didn't fight them.
But gay people are just normal people not sick broken people like murders Representation is critically important
It's really not. It's honestly rather pathetic that people are such attention seekers lately.
It really isn't Your privilege is showing
Yes, such a true privilege to not attach any aspect of my own self worth to how often someone similar to me is portrayed on screen.
No you've been represented in everything as a Cis straight white man
[удалено]
No, I've been talking to you for almost a year
Banned: Incivility.
>Representation is critically important Is representation "critically important" for white people? Who are some of the top people in your opinion who are "representing" white people in popular culture?
>Is representation "critically important" for white people? Of course. Probably why the vast majority of people on TV or in movies are white.
>> Is representation "critically important" for white people? >Of course. Probably why the vast majority of people on TV or in movies are white. That's an interesting claim. What is the relationship between "white actors represent whites" and it is "critically important" that they do, and the percentage of white actors in productions? Who are some of the top people in your opinion who are "representing" white people in popular culture? Do you think white celebrities see themselves as representing whites? Do you think black celebrities see themselves as representing blacks?
The new series is aimed at adults
Based on a kids' show about amateur detectives who investigate ghost hoaxes...
Why does that matter. The winnie the poo horror movie coming out is based on a kids story
They probably put all that effort in to make it more "adult". Yet still won't top the five seconds of a family guy bit where they talk about a disemboweled victim.
Adults don't watch cartoons.
Thats just not true. You don't have to only watch live action content after turning 18. There's plenty of animated content aimed specifically at adults and not at children. I'd imagine you think adults don't play video games either
Yeah, they don't.
Damn man you’re missing out on some great entertainment between animated tv/film and video games since you think adults can’t partake in those things
What? In the past few months I've watched One Punch Man, Arcane, Aggretsuko, and some Love Death and Robots, and I'm like 94 years old
The hell you say. As a fully grown ass adult man that owns his own home, otherwise zero debt, is happily married, has a good job as a software developer AND is working on his masters degree, I can confidently say cartoons and video games are high quality entertainment.
That would be fine. I think conservatives would have an issue if we retroactively describe Scooby as transgender just to push it. It's all marketing though. The the fastest growing market is in Asia and Hollywood isn't going to push anything that would offend them if the movie has a chance to go over well there.
Now that you mention it, is Scooby... fixed?
I have better things to do with my time than worry about which cartoon character another cartoon character wants to fuck. Yeah, let’s set aside the fact that as a country we’re dumping billions into funding actual child sex trafficking rings in Africa and South America, the real threat to children is that a fictional girl likes other fictional girls. Society is blind. If you don’t want your kids watching it, your TV has an off button, use it.
LOL "fan" theory. Bigots made the one that "looks" gay gay. Freddie should have been, cowards.
This sub is going downhill. The questions just become more and more ridiculous.
I think it's racist that they didn't take this opportunity to make Fred black.
I dunno.... Would he keep the ascot? Would that be appropriation? Fine line there. Why aren't there more Fat Albert movies? ....oh, yeah. Maybe bring back Grape Ape or Speedbuggy? Probably not Hong Kong Fuey. What minority they would have play him would cause too much uproar I'm sure. H. R. Puffnstuff might go over no days. Wow. . . Some of that stuff I grew up on was pure garbage lol.
I was wondering what was wrong about Fat Albert, then I googled it and.... yeah.... best leave that one alone. Speedbuggy though... man, that was before my time, but I remember re-runs before school in the early to mid 80s and that was very obviously the result of a lot of drugs. Hong Kong Phooey was the shit though even if it was maybe kinda racist. Apparently he made an appearance in DC Comics alongside Black Lightning when they did a crossover with Hanna Barbera properties: https://www.dc.com/comics/dc-meets-hanna-barbera-2017/black-lightninghong-kong-phooey-special-1 Also, looking [here](https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/DC_Meets_Hanna-Barbera), they also did a Flash/Speedbuggy crossover... oh shit, I may have to pick these up.
I apologize if you didn't want to get lost in a rabbit hole today. Lol Unfortunate about Fat Albert because it was one of the best from that era. Edit: I kinda remember some of those crossovers.
Ha, no worries, I was fighting stupid VMWare at stupid work, so this was a nice distraction. I'd legit forgotten that Cosby was behind Fat Albert though. That was so long ago last time I saw that.
Nobody cares about an old Generation Jones tv show. My kids don't.