If he tried with May and June and it failed then why does Bradford still think it means direct descendent and go after Webby specifically?
Possibly he thought the problem was that May and June were “two steps removed” from Scrooge (clones of Webby rather than of Scrooge directly)? I don't think it especially matters.
And that's your problem "I don't think it especially matters." Of coarse it matters when the entire plot of the episode depends on it making sense. Think critically about something for once.
Last Edit: Mar 20, 2021 17:49:51 GMT by Fergus McDuck: So the KKM Doesn't get mad at me for double posting
And that's your problem "I don't think it especially matters." Of coarse it matters when the entire plot of the episode depends on it making sense. Think critically about something for once.
I think there are more important things about storytelling than spelling out every mechanical detail of the magical technobabble. On the level of character development and symbolism, the story works. And the reason Buzzard still went after Webby isn't even a logical plot hole at all — it's simply something that is left unsaid, but which it is easy for fans who care about that sort of thing to make up explanations for.
And that's your problem "I don't think it especially matters." Of coarse it matters when the entire plot of the episode depends on it making sense. Think critically about something for once.
I think there are more important things about storytelling than spelling out every mechanical detail of the magical technobabble. On the level of character development and symbolism, the story works. And the reason Buzzard still went after Webby isn't even a logical plot hole at all — it's simply something that is left unsaid, but which it is easy for fans who care about that sort of thing to make up explanations for.
I don't really know much more I can say. You're defending a clear plothole that throws a wrench in the plot. You're literally arguing the villain's reason for going after one of the main characters is just a "mechanical detail." Look, symbolism and character development are great but you need to have a set of rules for your story and more importantly a clear reason that the story takes place. Leaving some things up to fans can be great done well (cough, cough, Cowboy Bebop) but when your story needs to depend on headcanons from the fans for it to even make sense then that's bad writing.
Last Edit: Mar 20, 2021 19:07:30 GMT by Fergus McDuck
I don't really know much more I can say. You're defending a clear plothole that throws a wrench in the plot.
But it's clear why he wanted Webby. The only thing that is not clearly spelled out is why he reverted to thinking he needed Webby even though May and June didn't work. But we do know what he wanted with Webby, just not how he came to the conclusion that she would help him get it. And especially given that he is correct, I think it's a real stretch to call “We're not shown on-screen how the evil mastermind figured out the true thing” a plot hole.
Again though… ‘Plot holes’ depending on the specifics of how magical papyruses interpret the word “heir” should not meaningfully impact one's enjoyment of a comedy adventure cartoon. This isn't James Joyce, for pity's sake. The plotting of DuckTales 2017 is already miles more intricate and self-consistent than that of the Classic Series. Take any given hour-long special of the original DuckTales, or even run-of-the-mill episodes, and you will find many, much more baffling elements which the writers clearly feel no need whatsoever to even begin to address. (Just off the top of my head, “why on Earth Mrs Beakley's tuning fork does what it does in Treasure of the Golden Suns” comes to mind.)
There are many things you can credibly say DT17 gets wrong that more conventional Disney cartoons did not… but "plot holes"?
I don't really know much more I can say. You're defending a clear plothole that throws a wrench in the plot.
But it's clear why he wanted Webby. The only thing that is not clearly spelled out is why he reverted to thinking he needed Webby even though May and June didn't work. But we do know what he wanted with Webby, just not how he came to the conclusion that she would help him get it. And especially given that he is correct, I think it's a real stretch to call “We're not shown on-screen how the evil mastermind figured out the true thing” a plot hole.
Again though… ‘Plot holes’ depending on the specifics of how magical papyruses interpret the word “heir” should not meaningfully impact one's enjoyment of a comedy adventure cartoon. This isn't James Joyce, for pity's sake. The plotting of DuckTales 2017 is already miles more intricate and self-consistent than that of the Classic Series. Take any given hour-long special of the original DuckTales, or even run-of-the-mill episodes, and you will find many, much more baffling elements which the writers clearly feel no need whatsoever to even begin to address. (Just off the top of my head, “why on Earth Mrs Beakley's tuning fork does what it does in Treasure of the Golden Suns” comes to mind.)
There are many things you can credibly say DT17 gets wrong that more conventional Disney cartoons did not… but "plot holes"?
See, I don't think I can say anything more about why it's a plot hole, but what you're doing is turning me saying DuckTales 2017 is poorly written to DuckTales 1987 is well written. But guess what? No WAK the original was poorly written it was made in the 80's! That doesn't excuse the fact that the new show is bad. And AT LEAST the original DuckTales is a faithful adaptation even if it's no where near as good as the comics in terms of plotting and character developement, AT LEAST I feel like I'm watching the same characters.
It's not a plothole when as explained the papyrus doesn't mention blood relation- it was the villain and Huey's assumption that it means that, but the text doesn't say it. It's a plot twist, a subtle one but well set-up. If anything its problem is it's too subtle for the show it's in.
Still though, not a plot twist that's good enough to deserve the eviscerating of the message. At the end of it all, Webby's part of the family because she's literal bloodkin of Scrooge, and that ruins the whole "family is who you choose" etc messaging, even if the plot tries to then have its cake and eat it by going "but actually even though she's actually bloodkin, that's not why she's the heir".
It's not a plothole when as explained the papyrus doesn't mention blood relation- it was the villain and Huey's assumption that it means that, but the text doesn't say it. It's a plot twist, a subtle one but well set-up. If anything its problem is it's too subtle for the show it's in.
Still though, not a plot twist that's good enough to deserve the eviscerating of the message. At the end of it all, Webby's part of the family because she's literal bloodkin of Scrooge, and that ruins the whole "family is who you choose" etc messaging, even if the plot tries to then have its cake and eat it by going "but actually even though she's actually bloodkin, that's not why she's the heir".
That's still doesn't explain why Bradford believes it means direct descendent when he tried it with May and June and it didn't work. It's a plothole, it conficts with what was previously established.
Last Edit: Mar 21, 2021 13:53:37 GMT by Fergus McDuck: I had more to add
That's still doesn't explain why Bradford believes it means direct descendent when he tried it with May and June and it didn't work. It's a plothole, it conficts with what was previously established.
Who knows if he didn't simply figure out the truth — that he needed someone whom Scrooge had a personal connection to?
Personally I could not care less whether the showrunners undermined their "message" of "you can choose your own family," since it's both a cliched message and a frequently unhealthy one. I've seen too many folks of my own generation (millennial) drift from one "family" group (i.e., a circle of like-minded friends) to another, without ever making any effort to create lasting bonds. Maintaining family ties with your blood relatives, whom you never chose to associate with, forces you to deal with differing personalities with differing interests and viewpoints; if you instead cut ties with your actual relations and form a new "family" out of your circle of friends who, typically, share your interests and pursuits, you can wind up with, essentially, an echo chamber and might never really learn how to accept people with whom you have little in common and who may be hard to get along with. You can always simply cut a friend out of your self-created "family" when they become too difficult to deal with; the older social taboos make it much harder to do that to a difficult relative.
Of course, it's different when you're talking about a situation where an adopted parent is the only family someone has ever known--but this show mixes its messages in that regard, as well; Webby, logically enough, still treats Beakley as her parental figure, since she's been a mother to her, but Della, who's never known HD&L, apparently thinks that her blood connection justifies her taking over the parenting of the boys, even though Donald is the only real parent they've ever known. As has been discussed before, the lack of real emotional conflict between Della, the boys, and Donald in the wake of Della's return and attempted takeover of parental duties is one of the many instances of this show setting up ideas that can't be adequately dealt with within its chosen jokey and insincere format.
As to whether the Webby/papyrus business is a plot hole or not, if we have to argue about it and explain to this extent, I think it's at least a confusing plot element. Just like with the confusing handling of Lena's origins and the relationship between Magica and the dime in Season One, the handling of the whole Webby/papyrus plot is an example of how this show's superficial and frenetic treatment of most of its high-concept magical/sci-fi plot ideas (like the incredibly dumb running joke of Manny) makes it very hard for the writers to buckle down and be coherent when one of the magical gimmicks needs to be taken seriously in order to make sense of the plot. All the arguing and theorizing on these boards, following on the heels of both the Lena revelations and the Webby revelations shows that the writers didn't exactly follow through on their job of making things make sense. To me, the clone-Webby twist poses more questions just than the "rightful heir" issue--why is she immediately dubbed Scrooge's "daughter" if she's a clone and not a biological descendant, and if she's just a clone of Scrooge, why is she female?
Addressing other issues raised by the finale: The presence in the FOWL containment units of Kit, Jose, Chip 'n' Dale, Goldie, and practically every other character seen in the show's run evidently made it appear that Bradford was planning to personally toss every "adventurer" in the world into the Solego vortex. However, that's no guarantee that other adventurers wouldn't come on the scene in the future; was he going to continue to exterminate adventurers all by himself after he exterminated all his FOWL associates? That would be the only way for him to keep maintaining his vision of order, and it seems like it'd take up way too much of his time. Considering how obsessed this show was with ripping off the Marvel movies, they should have simply had Bradford create some kind of adventurer-targeting killer satellite ala the helicarriers in Captain America: The Winter Soldier--that'd be a much more practical and plausible way of carrying out his goal.
Also, the Blot was disappointing right up to the end; I thought the Frank Welker version on Original Ducktales was a bit too over-the-top, but he at least had some funny lines and a twisted sense of humor. This Blot is all humorless bombast and bluster, particularly disappointing since Giancarlo Esposito is a very good actor who played a much more sly and subtle villain on the Mandalorian series. At least the writers managed to give him a motivation (banal as it was) that more or less aligned with Bradford's, explaining why he was working for FOWL--but I still have no idea what Rockerduck was doing here, other than that Angones wanted to name-drop him to entice comics fans.
To me, the clone-Webby twist poses more questions just than the "rightful heir" issue--why is she immediately dubbed Scrooge's "daughter" if she's a clone and not a biological descendant, and if she's just a clone of Scrooge, why is she female?
Another good point I brought up earlier. A clone is not a biological descendent it would simply be a copy, if clone did mean biological descendent then May and June would be Webby's daughters. So why is Webby female and more importantly nothing like the young Scrooge?
Last Edit: Mar 21, 2021 17:25:56 GMT by Fergus McDuck: So the KKM Doesn't get mad at me for double posting
Personally I could not care less whether the showrunners undermined their "message" of "you can choose your own family," since it's both a cliched message and a frequently unhealthy one. I've seen too many folks of my own generation (millennial) drift from one "family" group (i.e., a circle of like-minded friends) to another, without ever making any effort to create lasting bonds. Maintaining family ties with your blood relatives, whom you never chose to associate with, forces you to deal with differing personalities with differing interests and viewpoints; if you instead cut ties with your actual relations and form a new "family" out of your circle of friends who, typically, share your interests and pursuits, you can wind up with, essentially, an echo chamber and might never really learn how to accept people with whom you have little in common and who may be hard to get along with. You can always simply cut a friend out of your self-created "family" when they become too difficult to deal with; the older social taboos make it much harder to do that to a difficult relative.
Interesting viewpoint, but it's hard to accept your family when your own mother tried to kill you and your grandma says you'll go to hell because you're bisex.
Personally I could not care less whether the showrunners undermined their "message" of "you can choose your own family," since it's both a cliched message and a frequently unhealthy one. I've seen too many folks of my own generation (millennial) drift from one "family" group (i.e., a circle of like-minded friends) to another, without ever making any effort to create lasting bonds. Maintaining family ties with your blood relatives, whom you never chose to associate with, forces you to deal with differing personalities with differing interests and viewpoints; if you instead cut ties with your actual relations and form a new "family" out of your circle of friends who, typically, share your interests and pursuits, you can wind up with, essentially, an echo chamber and might never really learn how to accept people with whom you have little in common and who may be hard to get along with. You can always simply cut a friend out of your self-created "family" when they become too difficult to deal with; the older social taboos make it much harder to do that to a difficult relative.
Interesting viewpoint, but it's hard to accept your family when your own mother tried to kill you and your grandma says you'll go to hell because you're bisex.
Um, oh-ok, I guess.
Last Edit: Mar 21, 2021 23:13:22 GMT by Fergus McDuck
The idea that (blood) family is somehow sacred, that's it's the deepest and most important bond you'll ever experience, and that you have to stick with them no matter what has spawned generations of very, very unhappy people.
(EDIT: Don't you people get me wrong: I'm not saying family is Hell per se. It can be Heaven too, and if it is, then good for them! But when it's Hell --- and that happens more often than one might think --- people shouldn't stick with it for the sheer sake of it.)
Last Edit: Mar 22, 2021 11:22:43 GMT by juicymcduck
The idea that (blood) family is somehow sacred, that's it's the deepest and most important bond you'll ever experience, and that you have to stick with them no matter what has spawned generations of very, very unhappy people.
(EDIT: Don't you people get me wrong: I'm not saying family is Hell per se. It can be Heaven too, and if it is, then good for them! But when it's Hell --- and that happens more often than one might think --- people shouldn't stick with it for the sheer sake of it.)
I disagree. Obviously if a family member physically or sexually abuses you, you you should not stay with them. But I think too many people nowadays don't know how to deal with family members that have different beliefs and waist their time holding pointless grudges. And anyway, bringing the conversation back to Uncle Scrooge and Donald Duck, learning to deal with frustrating family members was a big part of the comics. Donald began hating Scrooge for how he treated his mother but as time went on realized that Scrooge needed him and Huey Dewey and Louie, and in an ironic turn of events Donald is the one that tries to get Scrooge and his sister back together.
Last Edit: Mar 22, 2021 16:06:29 GMT by Fergus McDuck
