#tpflp

One of the many reviews of the series came from Parade magazine. The publication declared that the series premiere "fell flat" with fans, citing Twitter users who called it a "disappointment", and stated that the show downplayed the #MeToo movement. It also noted that some on the social media platform claimed the show had a writing style of making "brown girls that hate themselves," portraying Indian girls as "losers", made Velma a self-insert for Mindy Kaling (who voices Velma), and called it "vulgar". To add to this, on the show's official account, in tweets possibly written by Kaling in the tone of her character, Daphne is described as a character who will be known "for much more than being hot", implying that Velma has feelings for her. Additionally, Velma expresses jealousy that Daphne has two "hilarious moms" and describes them as "Daphne’s police officer moms".

While there is no doubt that the comedic writing of the series isn't always the best, it admittedly flew over my head at times, I don't believe there are any self-hating characters. While Velma seems that she is "self-hating", in reality, she gets more depth as the series moves forward. No character is, by the end of the first season, shown as a loser. In terms of vulgarity, it is important to remember that vulgar means "of the common people", and it can be a charge leveled against LGBTQ+ people (and content).

In contrast, Ed Power of The Telegraph, a conservative British tabloid, claimed that the series "sexualized" teens, has "juvenile humor" and treats Fred as a stereotype. He also said the series is not "clever or subversive", but it rather an "accumulation of bad decisions", and claimed that the "left" and "right" united against the series. He also declared that some online had taken issue with Kaling's political views.

While I'm not sure about her exact political views are, apart from speaking out against White producers, it is important to remember she is only an executive producer of the series and is not even the series creator (that's Charlie Grandy). So, it seems wrong to say the series is "hers". Otherwise, Fred is no stereotype, as his character somewhat grows over the course of the series.

As noted earlier, some people have criticized Kaling's views, including when she liked a tweet of transphobe J.K. Rowling at one point. However, she is only part of the crew, as there are many other people working on Velma. In any case, it is better to examine the show's positives and negatives instead of just on the views of one individual.

Furthermore, other than the shower scene in the first episode (which seems to be a reference to similar scenes in horror films), it does not appear that the series sexualizes anyone. Velma has nothing like the ecchi-esque themes in My Dress-Up Darling, cringe-worthy scenes in Akebi's Sailor Uniform, sexual assault in Citrus, or the protagonist of The Great Jahy Will Not Be Defeated!, Jahy, who wears a dirty long t-shirt and shorts (and a revealing outfit after she transforms into her demon form for temporary period of time). All of these series have fan service up the wazoo. In contrast, Velma does not have that.

As for being "clever" and "subversive", I would argue that Velma was never attempting to do either. Nor is the series a complete waste of time and energy as Nadria Goffe of Slate argued. I disagree with Goffe's claim that the show is misogynist, based on actions in the series by female characters and the fact that some (like Velma's stepmom) are toxic. At the same time, I agree that "race-swapped rebranding" can be good, when its done well.

One of the more interesting aspects of Velma is how many of the relationships of the protagonists with their families are rocky, and unhealthy. There are too many series, especially in animation, which portray families as positive and without problems. While that is the case for some people, it isn't the case for many others. One example of this is how Velma doesn't always get along with her dad, and even less with her stepmother, and another instance is how controlling Fred's parents can be of his life. This contrasts with Norville, who remains supported by his parents through it all.

It also differs from the relationship Daphne has with her two detective moms. The series bucks the trope of finding your "real" parents, since Daphne believes that she is reconnecting with her birth parents (Brenda and Darryl), who are members of the Crystal Mines gang,. But, it turns out they are just manipulating her. Even so, the reunion of Velma with her two moms afterward cannot compare with the heartfelt revelation of Turanga Leela's two parents in the fourth season of Futurama.

Goffe states that they don't know who the show is made for. I'd presume that the series is made for Indian-American women, and other adults, but that's just my guess. I also disagree with the argument by Shirley Li, of The Atlantic, that the series punishes its audience for being invested in the characters. In fact, I would argue that the series does reward viewers to some extent, as Daphne and Velma, especially, become more relatable, despite their personality flaws, in some regards.

Aysia Iftikar of Pink News noted that fans have relentlessly criticized the series, citing the show for "perpetuating stereotypes against South Asian women...poor attempts at self-aware comedy and...losing the essence of what people love about the Scooby Doo gang." She also stated that some took issue with the "crude" adult humor and said the show "annihilated" the character of Velma in previous iterations. Those are of Indian descent would have a different view of the series than me, as a White man, so I can't, personally, speak to any possible stereotypes in the series when it comes to South Asian women. On the other hand, I agree with those who argue that Kaling is being held to an "impossible standard" as compared to other producers and creators.

Much of the aforementioned criticism seems to stem from the fact that Velma is a stark contrast from its predecessors. There is no rule that reboots or revivals have to be the same as the original series. To give an example, The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder is different from The Proud Family, as it is more glitzy than its predecessor. So, it is no surprise that Velma would not have the same structure, humor, or plot than those Scooby-Doo series that came before it, which were aimed at all-ages, rather than adults. This is especially the case since Scooby-Doo is not part of the series, which is an understandable decision.

Comments by the above-mentioned reviewers pale in comparison to Taylor Henderson's review on Pride.com, which states that Velma doesn't "live up to the hype" and is a "crude, cliche, self-aware...incoherently violent...thinking mess of a series". He adds that bisexual energy from Velma and Daphne doesn't "save" the series. The latter sentiment was echoed by Heather Hogan of Autostraddle. While there is undeniably "hype" around the series, and it surely is crude and cliche, and even self-aware, I have to laugh at the comment about "incoherent" violence in the series.

The series is much tamer, in its violence, than the Indian Tegulu blockbuster film, RRR, which includes a scene of British colonists mauled by wild animals, the extreme violence in Akiba Maid War (especially in the first episode), the blood-filled scenes throughout The Legend of Vox Machina, or the occasionally gruesome scenes in gen:LOCK, especially in the last season. Perhaps Velma is a mess, as Henderson points out, but it has some merits.

Joshua Alston of Variety magazine posed similar arguments, calling the series "irreverent to a fault", designed to be "labeled a childhood-ruining travesty", and said while Velma centers Velma's queer identity, it is not groundbreaking. Alston also says the characters are "unpleasant" to spend time around, notes the number of pop culture references and referential jokes", and asks why the show needs to exist at all.

Alston makes good points, in terms of the number of reference to pop culture or referential jokes, and the fact that the show isn't groundbreaking, considering the recent LGBTQ animated characters in The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder, RWBY: Ice Queendom, Dead End: Paranormal Park, and Star Trek: Lower Decks, to name a few. At the same time, I would argue that the characters are designed to be unpleasant and not-all-together likable. I see a likeness to the Never Have I Ever protagonist Devi Vishwakumar. She is not the most likable person, and can be a jerk to people, with her behavior said to make her a "real person" in the eyes of some.

Angie Han, TV critic for The Hollywood Reporter, takes a different tact. She says that the series employs many common tropes, is extremely self-aware, is like Riverdale, and states that the characters are "joke-delivery machines" rather than individuals. She further says that Velma doesn't lose sight of the affection for the heroine, has thoughtful and emotionally honest moments, and criticizes the emphasis on "snark over heart," noting that is something the show could "stand to consider for itself."

In terms of the reviewers I noted so far in this post, I agree with Han above any of the others because she is more fair and less negative. One of the show's weaknesses is that it falls in line with the same tropes in shows like Riverdale, just as Wednesday does repeatedly. But, Velma does not include the harmful anti-Black underones that Wednesday has, in part because Black characters are not villains in this series. The jokes can be stale and the pop culture references will mean little if it is watched a few years from now, just as similar humor in Futurama doesn't land as well now as it did when it aired. On the other hand, the show's emotional honesty and thoughtfulness at times are some of the strongest moments.

There are a few more reviews I'd like to mention before ending this post. One of those is from Liz Shannon Miller in Consequence. She argues that there is "too much jammed into this series" and that there is "no clear focus". She also states that the series feels toned down as compared to mature animation currently in development, while truing to be "super-edgy".

On the other hand, Miller praises the voice acting and the "bright, poppy, and fun" animation, and criticizes the writing as inadequate. I'd have to agree as the writing can be lackluster, but would say that although the show's focus can be disparate, it is be strongest when Velma or Daphne are solving mysteries of their own, whether about birth parents (in the case of Daphne) or an evil scientist switching brains (in the case of Velma).

Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times and Darren Franich of Entertainment Weekly said the same thing as Miller. Roeper criticized the jokes and humor as exhausting, the writing as subpar, while praising the casting as diverse. Franich described the show as a "new bland, a deconstructed canonical bonanza pulled right off the corporate assembly line" and stated that Harley Quinn, also on HBO Max, is better constructed, and stronger, an argument with some merit. This is undoubtedly the case as Velma does try and poke at storytelling methods, like flashbacks and callbacks, but Harley Quinn does the same more effectively.

The views of Roeper and Miller are aligned with what is stated on the show's Rotten Tomatoes page: that the show has "plenty of attitude and style" but does not have the "first clue for how to turn its clever subversion into engaging fun." For one, I would argue that the series is more dramatic than funny, although it's writing can be lacking, it is not bland. It is different than previous iterations, but is not "subversive". Kaling, herself, never described the series that way.

In an October 2022 review, she told Entertainment Weekly that it was fun to voice Velma, that she and Charles? Grandy were "inspired by Into the Spider-Verse", said that with animation they could do anything, and stated "the essence of Velma is not necessarily tied to her whiteness...I identify so much as her character...so many people do...[so we decided,] let's make her Indian in this series." She further said that Velma is the hart of the show, that she is a "big fan of Scooby Doo," and that Velma felt like the best character "to handle a scarier environment" similar to Veronica Mars and Riverdale. In addition, Grandy said the idea of the series is not to "completely replace" previous shows, but just to be a "one little weird ice planet in the Scoobyverse."

In his article, Toon4Thought puts it well. He argued that he didn't mind changes to characters or get behind the "visceral hatred" for Velma Instead, he criticized the show's writing and praised the actual mystery as "engaging enough". He added that the writing for the characters feels "very haphazard" and more like Family Guy than a dramatic character-driven story. Even so, he argued that the show could use a rewrite to fix inconsistencies in characters and balance humor, but  said that people were disingenuous with approaching the series, especially with claims it was a "franchise killer". He concluded by saying that, overall, the show was a letdown, with clumsy and unfocused writing, and said that while an audience can demand better and rip media to shreds, "we also can and should not be assholes about it."

I have to agree with Toon4Thought, even more than others I've mentioned in this post. Before Velma, I've watched shows strongly disliked, by a core group of people, such as gen:LOCK and High Guardian Spice, and especially enjoyed watching the latter. However, Velma was nothing like either of those series. Sometimes, the show made good points, like in the seventh episode when Velma crossdresses as a guy named "Manny", everyone appreciates her worst qualities, and the series makes fun of how a guy can "do anything" and their male power. In addition, there is a social commentary in the final episode about human experimentation, corporate power, and even hypnosis. However, the latter is not as evocative as that in Jordan Peele's well-known horror film, Get Out, where the protagonist, Chris Washington, is hypnotized to purportedly "cure" his addiction to smoking.

This brings me to two reviews from CBR. In the first of these, by Sean Migalla, argued that the series "struggled" through the first season, with a "lack of commitment" to plotlines, but can "find its footing" in a second season. He also said the second season wouldn't be under the microscope as much as the first season. The second, by Joshua M. Patton, argued that the show is indicative of an "identity crisis" among new owners of HBO Max (Warner Bros. Discovery), calling it a "callous remixing" of Scooby-Doo which would do better if it was family-friendly. He concludes that it pushed boundaries in "desperate reach for an edge" and is formulaic in contrast to Harley Quinn.

Part of what Migalla and Patton are talking about is indicative in episode 8 of Velma, which appears to make fun of flashbacks and their use in storylines, with the flashbacks of each of the main characters intersecting with each other. That same episode further reinforces their arguments, as there are many intersecting plotlines, callbacks to the original series, and romantic drama. Patton is right that the show tries to be edgy. For example, in episode 9, Norville makes fun of Teddy Roosevelt as a murderous imperialist, but never expands upon his one-off comment. The new owners of HBO Max may be in a bit of a crisis of identity over the company's new CEO, David Zaslav, engaging in a content purge, angering many animators.

Apart from these reviews is an article by Kate Francis in Digital Spy. She notes the "abject disappointment" of fans over Velma, and hopes that the series can take in the feedback of fans and "come back swinging with fresh Scooby content soon." While I have my criticisms of the series, I hope that what Francis is talking about happens, and the second season of the series allows the show to blossom, coming back even stronger than before.