It's odd to hear Terence McGovern talking how actors in the new show did a bad job when Tony is siting next to him...
To be fair the creators of new Duck Tales did plan to have Alan Young as Fergus (an easter egg similiar to Russi Taylor voicing young Donald) but sadly he died before the recording.
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
The stories where Scrooge & clan went on adventures were the most inspiring to my imagination.
Oh, the treasure-hunt stories are some of my favorites too, and I entirely understand why they fired up Rosa's imagination so much and why Original Ducktales leaned so heavily on them (using those nifty "treasure map" end credits to remind you of the paramount treasure-hunt theme even when a particular episode didn't focus on treasure-hunting). I just think that to define Scrooge primarily as an archeologist/adventurer/treasure-hunter (I often hear him compared to Indiana Jones by people with only a passing acquaintance with Barks) is not accurate; Scrooge, in Barks' stories, can be an adventurous treasure-hunter, a down-to-earth businessman trying to stick to business in a crazy world, a harried but resilient victim, or a purely comic figure, and focusing just on the first aspect to the exclusion of the others, as New Ducktales has done, badly narrows the character.
Returning to my dissection, here's the next two sections of Part 2 of "I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#2.--The Grown-Ups.
C. The Della Nobody Wanted
I've already expounded at great length on the problem with Della on this show. The problem, in essence, breaks down into two parts, the first of which is that bringing in Della disrupts the quasi-parental dynamic between Donald and the Nephews which has existed as long as the Nephews themselves have. As soon as the boys' mother comes on the scene, that dynamic is changed utterly and a major aspect of Donald's character and the Nephews' character is eliminated. By bringing in Della as quickly as they did, the Angones crew showed that they had no real understanding of either Donald or the Nephews, despite their insincerely sentimental focus on Donald-as-parent. This is one Duck issue I entirely agree with Rosa on: Della can return in the future, but she can't enter the here-and-now without permanently disrupting the fabric of the Ducks' world.
That said, though Della was unfortunately fated to be a disrupting influence, she didn't have to be as poorly conceived and poorly written a character as Angones and company made her. I've already talked, in my section on Scrooge, about how the efforts to "blame" him for Della getting lost in space didn't make any logical sense; the equally bizarre flip side of that situation is the comparative lack of blame which attaches to Della, who was really entirely responsible for her own loss--she had absolutely no reason, other than sociopathic levels of egoism, narcissism, and overconfidence, to zoom off in the Spear of Selene. Really, how is she any different from a teenager who steals his dad's car keys, goes joy-riding, and gets in a wreck? If anything, she's worse than that, because she was joy-riding in a spaceship, not just a car, and because she left behind three unhatched children, who, for all she knew, could have grown up as orphans if Donald hadn't decided to devote his life to them.
When she comes back, she still clearly hasn't learned everything, and has merely switched gears from trying to be a Totally Awesome Pilot to a Totally Awesome Mom, trying to impose her own ambitions and ideas on children she's never known. As Alquacksey, myself, and others have pointed out, the fact that Della is allowed to immediately assume the parental role she never had, with little resentment from the Nephews (except when the writers decide it's time to manufacture a single-episode conflict) and none at all from Donald, rings utterly false. I spent the first four months of my law career, and a good deal of my internship before that, working in family law, and believe me, I've seen families that split up over much less dramatic incidents than this.
I obviously wouldn't want the Ducks' world to descend into realistically unpleasant family dysfunction, but then the writers shouldn't set up such grandiose Family Drama and expect us to take it seriously when its implications are too unpleasant for them to touch. As with so much else on this show, the writers are trying to have it both ways and failing miserably; we can either take Della seriously as a character and be repelled by her, or we can regard her as an allegedly comic kook not meant to be taken seriously--but not both.
The last-episode "revelation" with Bradford sneeringly revealing that he told Della about the Spear of Selene was also ludicrous, if Angones and company thought it somehow made Bradford responsible for her loss; to recur to the joy-riding teenager analogy, if someone tells a teenager that his dad left his car out in the driveway, that doesn't absolve the teenager of stealing it. If anything, the fact that Bradford was apparently certain that Della was so crazy that she'd drive off in the rocketship as soon as she heard about it indicates that her selfish recklessness was so ingrained and so well-known that Bradford was able to rely on it as a factor in his plans.
As I said before, in my debate on Della with Duckhuefan, I never want to see this version of Della again, and I sincerely hope it doesn't become the accepted version of the character simply by default of being the only version to appear in animation.
D. Misfire on the Launchpad
Most of the Original Ducktales generation (myself included), regard Launchpad McQuack as by far the best original character to come out of that show, and the most worthy to become a permanent part of the Duck-comic pantheon. Even those who are less than enthusiastic about Original Ducktales, like GeoX and Rosa himself, have an appreciation for Launchpad (Rosa even once said that he'd have used McQuack in a story if he'd only been part of his childhood comics-reading).
While Donald could have been slotted in to some of the Original Ducktales episodes which simply had Launchpad tagging along with Scrooge and the Nephews, the character's solo or starring episodes were built around his unique character and would not have worked as well with anyone else. Episodes like "Hero for Hire," "Top Duck," "Armstrong," "Where No Duck Has Gone Before" and "Double-O Duck" did a great job of establishing Launchpad as a character who believes he's a classic all-around Adventure Hero, dresses the part, and attempts to act the part, while being largely unaware of his own boundless clumsiness and cluelessness, which makes him come off as absurd even when he thinks he's being cool (his intro scene in "Three Ducks of the Condor," when he strikes a heroic pose for the camera, unaware that his scarf is on fire, is a perfect example of this). However, the real key to his personality is that, despite his clumsiness and cluelessness, his belief in the heroic ideal and his sheer persistence in trying to behave like a hero helps him to win out, though rarely in the way that he (or anyone else) might expect.
You would think that, what with Launchpad originating in animation, Angones and company might have done a better job with him than they did with the original comics characters, but no such luck. They began by making him a walking "Har har, he's so dumb" joke; the original Launchpad was not exactly bright, but his dimness achieved its comedic effect from being juxtaposed with his heroic pretensions, and wasn't solely a joke in itself. He wasn't even an established pilot in the first episode, unlike his first appearance in Original Ducktales--just a chauffeur and wannabe pilot, which, along with his costume change, further undercut the comic contrast from the original show--i.e., that such a goofball looked like a classic adventure hero and worked in a classic adventure hero job.
I will admit that the writers apparently took note of the fan complaints as the show progressed and tried--rather heavy-handedly at times--to give Launchpad a little more depth, but the decision to make him an obsessive devotee of the Darkwing Duck TV show more or less prevented him from fully recapturing his parodic hero traits from Original Ducktales; his hero-worship of Darkwing didn't allow much room for heroic posturing of his own. In fairness, this isn't entirely the fault of Angones' crew; Launchpad on the original Darkwing Duck show had already been transformed into a rather different character than he was on Original Ducktales--on Darkwing, he was quite content to be a sidekick and served more as a laid-back humorous counterpoint to Darkwing's would-be superhero act; it was a funny dynamic, but it obscured Launchpad's own original function as a spoof of action heroes.
The big Heartfelt (TM) scene in the final episode, with all the characters giving Launchpad a pep talk to get him to take on Steelbeak, was a particularly heavy-handed scene; I appreciate the idea of giving him a chance to shine, but it still somewhat misjudged the character; in effect, it played out like Launchpad needed to be convinced, for the first time, that he could be a hero, instead of just a sidekick. The Launchpad of "Hero for Hire" or "Armstrong" had crises of confidence when he questioned his heroism, but there it was a question of renewing faith in himself, not acquiring faith in himself for the first time.
Frankly, Angones and company missed a golden opportunity to resolve the differences between the Original Ducktales and Darkwing Duck versions of Launchpad; I would have tried to show that Launchpad, overawed by Darkwing and Gizmoduck's superhero exploits, had started to think that a low-tech hero like himself was obsolete and resign himself to being a sidekick, only to realize at a climactic moment that his brand of heroism was needed as well--but such an arc would have required the New Ducktales crew to engage in some deeper analysis instead of skimming along the surface of the characters, something they were consistently unwilling or unable to do.
I think it was very good but when I saw the first concept art like 5 years ago, well, what we actually got didn't live up to my expectations. The show was way to "modern" and hyperactive, and fast.
But to me, the real problem was it's lack of good storylines. The show has made "adventure" a catchphrase and that's what Barks' best stories were about, or anything made by Don Rosa, and what DT87 focused on...
...yet, DT17 doesn't have real adventures, which means if it were a test it would fail with an F- for totally missing the point! "Adventures" as in long multi-episode story arcs with epic plots! Cause those real adventures all happen off-screen, like, the beanstalk to the sky, the expedition to the goat kingdom of Goatulm, or the Indiana Jones style expedition to that temple in the jungle. Instead what we got are short gag stories masquerading as fake "adventures". It's like trying to fit Barks' 32 page stories into 10 pages, or advertising with Scarpa's long adventure tales and then printing just short slapstick comics.
The show is about adventure, adventure that we just don't come to see.
The stories where Scrooge & clan went on adventures were the most inspiring to my imagination.
Oh, the treasure-hunt stories are some of my favorites too, and I entirely understand why they fired up Rosa's imagination so much and why Original Ducktales leaned so heavily on them (using those nifty "treasure map" end credits to remind you of the paramount treasure-hunt theme even when a particular episode didn't focus on treasure-hunting). I just think that to define Scrooge primarily as an archeologist/adventurer/treasure-hunter (I often hear him compared to Indiana Jones by people with only a passing acquaintance with Barks) is not accurate; Scrooge, in Barks' stories, can be an adventurous treasure-hunter, a down-to-earth businessman trying to stick to business in a crazy world, a harried but resilient victim, or a purely comic figure, and focusing just on the first aspect to the exclusion of the others, as New Ducktales has done, badly narrows the character.
Returning to my dissection, here's the next two sections of Part 2 of "I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#2.--The Grown-Ups.
C. The Della Nobody Wanted
I've already expounded at great length on the problem with Della on this show. The problem, in essence, breaks down into two parts, the first of which is that bringing in Della disrupts the quasi-parental dynamic between Donald and the Nephews which has existed as long as the Nephews themselves have. As soon as the boys' mother comes on the scene, that dynamic is changed utterly and a major aspect of Donald's character and the Nephews' character is eliminated. By bringing in Della as quickly as they did, the Angones crew showed that they had no real understanding of either Donald or the Nephews, despite their insincerely sentimental focus on Donald-as-parent. This is one Duck issue I entirely agree with Rosa on: Della can return in the future, but she can't enter the here-and-now without permanently disrupting the fabric of the Ducks' world.
That said, though Della was unfortunately fated to be a disrupting influence, she didn't have to be as poorly conceived and poorly written a character as Angones and company made her. I've already talked, in my section on Scrooge, about how the efforts to "blame" him for Della getting lost in space didn't make any logical sense; the equally bizarre flip side of that situation is the comparative lack of blame which attaches to Della, who was really entirely responsible for her own loss--she had absolutely no reason, other than sociopathic levels of egoism, narcissism, and overconfidence, to zoom off in the Spear of Selene. Really, how is she any different from a teenager who steals his dad's car keys, goes joy-riding, and gets in a wreck? If anything, she's worse than that, because she was joy-riding in a spaceship, not just a car, and because she left behind three unhatched children, who, for all she knew, could have grown up as orphans if Donald in hadn't decided to devote his life to them.
When she comes back, she still clearly hasn't learned everything, and has merely switched gears from trying to be a Totally Awesome Pilot to a Totally Awesome Mom, trying to impose her own ambitions and ideas on children she's never known. As Alquacksey, myself, and others have pointed out, the fact that Della is allowed to immediately assume the parental role she never had, with little resentment from the Nephews (except when the writers decide it's time to manufacture a single-episode conflict) and none at all from Donald, rings utterly false. I spent the first four months of my law career, and a good deal of my internship before that, working in family law, and believe me, I've seen families that split up over much less dramatic incidents than this.
I obviously wouldn't want the Ducks' world to descend into realistically unpleasant family dysfunction, but then the writers shouldn't set up such grandiose Family Drama and expect us to take it seriously when its implications are too unpleasant for them to touch. As with so much else on this show, the writers are trying to have it both ways and failing miserably; we can either take Della seriously as a character and be repelled by her, or we can regard her as an allegedly comic kook not meant to be taken seriously--but not both.
The last-episode "revelation" with Bradford sneeringly revealing that he told Della about the Spear of Selene was also ludicrous, if Angones and company thought it somehow made Bradford responsible for her loss; to recur to the joy-riding teenager analogy, if someone tells a teenager that his dad left his car out in the driveway, that doesn't absolve the teenager of stealing it. If anything, the fact that Bradford was apparently certain that Della was so crazy that she'd drive off in the rocketship as soon as she heard about it indicates that her selfish recklessness was so ingrained and so well-known that Bradford was able to rely on it as a factor in his plans.
As I said before, in my debate on Della with Duckhuefan, I never want to see this version of Della again, and I sincerely hope it doesn't become the accepted version of the character simply by default of being the only version to appear in animation.
D. Misfire on the Launchpad
Most of the Original Ducktales generation (myself included), regard Launchpad McQuack as by far the best original character to come out of that show, and the most worthy to become a permanent part of the Duck-comic pantheon. Even those who are less than enthusiastic about Original Ducktales, like GeoX and Rosa himself, have an appreciation for Launchpad (Rosa even once said that he'd have used McQuack in a story if he'd only been part of his childhood comics-reading).
While Donald could have been slotted in to some of the Original Ducktales episodes which simply had Launchpad tagging along with Scrooge and the Nephews, the character's solo or starring episodes were built around his unique character and would not have worked as well with anyone else. Episodes like "Hero for Hire," "Top Duck," "Armstrong," "Where No Duck Has Gone Before" and "Double-O Duck" did a great job of establishing Launchpad as a character who believes he's a classic all-around Adventure Hero, dresses the part, and attempts to act the part, while being largely unaware of his own boundless clumsiness and cluelessness, which makes him come off as absurd even when he thinks he's being cool (his intro scene in "Three Ducks of the Condor," when he strikes a heroic pose for the camera, unaware that his scarf is on fire, is a perfect example of this). However, the real key to his personality is that, despite his clumsiness and cluelessness, his belief in the heroic ideal and his sheer persistence in trying to behave like a hero helps him to win out, though rarely in the way that he (or anyone else) might expect.
You would think that, what with Launchpad originating in animation, Angones and company might have done a better job with him than they did with the original comics characters, but no such luck. They began by making him a walking "Har har, he's so dumb" joke; the original Launchpad was not exactly bright, but his dimness achieved its comedic effect from being juxtaposed with his heroic pretensions, and wasn't solely a joke in itself. He wasn't even an established pilot in the first episode, unlike his first appearance in Original Ducktales--just a chauffeur and wannabe pilot, which, along with his costume change, further undercut the comic contrast from the original show--i.e., that such a goofball looked like a classic adventure hero and worked in a classic adventure hero job.
I will admit that the writers apparently took note of the fan complaints as the show progressed and tried--rather heavy-handedly at times--to give Launchpad a little more depth, but the decision to make him an obsessive devotee of the Darkwing Duck TV show more or less prevented him from fully recapturing his parodic hero traits from Original Ducktales; his hero-worship of Darkwing didn't allow much room for heroic posturing of his own. In fairness, this isn't entirely the fault of Angones' crew; Launchpad on the original Darkwing Duck show had already been transformed into a rather different character than he was on Original Ducktales--on Darkwing, he was quite content to be a sidekick and served more as a laid-back humorous counterpoint to Darkwing's would-be superhero act; it was a funny dynamic, but it obscured Launchpad's own original function as a spoof of action heroes.
The big Heartfelt (TM) scene in the final episode, with all the characters giving Launchpad a pep talk to get him to take on Steelbeak, was a particularly heavy-handed scene; I appreciate the idea of giving him a chance to shine, but it still somewhat misjudged the character; in effect, it played out like Launchpad needed to be convinced, for the first time, that he could be a hero, instead of just a sidekick. The Launchpad of "Hero for Hire" or "Armstrong" had crises of confidence when he questioned his heroism, but there it was a question of renewing faith in himself, not acquiring faith in himself for the first time.
Frankly, Angones and company missed a golden opportunity to resolve the differences between the Original Ducktales and Darkwing Duck versions of Launchpad; I would have tried to show that Launchpad, overawed by Darkwing and Gizmoduck's superhero exploits, had started to think that a low-tech hero like himself was obsolete and resign himself to being a sidekick, only to realize at a climactic moment that his brand of heroism was needed as well--but such an arc would have required the New Ducktales crew to engage in some deeper analysis instead of skimming along the surface of the characters, something they were consistently unwilling or unable to do.
For real, though, everyone blaming Scrooge is still hilarious. He has a literal spaceship built for her and is going through the motions to ensure that it works properly, so that he can surprise her when the kids are born. When she finds out, Donald begs her not to be stupid, and to put her kids first - and I'm not inferring that, it's made very clear in the show itself. Then, she gets into this incomplete/untested rocket and, as could be expected, gets into serious trouble. And that's Scrooge's fault? I know I'm just reiterating what you've said above, but the logic is absurd. Like you say, it all comes down to them manufacturing the conflict. Which isn't necessarily a problem, but they're more concerned with being at the end point than how they actually reach it. And as for Bradford... I mean, as far as villains go, I preferred Jiminy Cricket. Remember in Pinocchio, how he told Pinocchio about the bad things he could do? Marvellous villain right there. Honest John, Stromboli, the Coachman? Well, sure, but Jiminy Cricket told Pinocchio about bad people and temptation, so obviously it was his fault!
I know I've mentioned it before, but really, Della is a horrible parent. Her blatant favouritism towards Dewey, the opposite behaviour towards Louie, and the very selective interest in Huey. I'll just throw in two points that have bugged me that I didn't get to address in my last posts: Compare "Challenge of the Senior Junior Woodchucks"(CotSJW) to "Lost Harp of Mervana"(LHoM). In the former, Della is very attentive to what's going in Huey's life - because it's something that interests her. She was a woodchuck and loved it, so now she has a reason to Be there for Huey - unlike with the game, where it had to be played on her terms. In the latter, she stays out of the adventure altogether because she dislikes fish - not fear, not danger... she dislikes fish. The issue is that they keep doing things that blatantly show that Della's a bad parent, and Donald is much better. In LHoM, she doesn't join her family on the adventure because of her dislike of fish - keeping things on her terms. In CotSJW, Donald goes along to cheer Huey on - even though he hates the whole 'woodchuck' experience. He endures it because it's important to Huey. It's something that Della still hasn't learned - you're there for your kids or you're not. You don't pick and choose based on what interests you. And, again, it's made so much worse because they keep showing Donald being an actual good parent, which makes Della look even worse. On LHoM, just to add, the part when Dewey comes back in with his fin, and she responds with disgust and "I have no family". Now even the favourite child gets ignored because he's doing something Della doesn't like. I get the snarky nature of the show, but come on, pick your moments. At this point, liking her children based on how much she enjoys their interests is practically an established character trait!
Part of the issue is that other cartoons have handled similar issues, and did a much better job. Gravity Falls, Steven Universe and OK KO are shows that have all handled similar dynamics. Sure, each one had flaws in the way it was done, but not to this extent. Steven Universe:
Though Rose Quartz never returns to Steven's life, her impact on it is very important. As Steven learns about the things that she had done to characters like Bismuth, Spinel or Pearl, he grows to resent her. When he talks to an AI construct of her, he does throw blame at her - he throws what he knows in her face and talks about the damage that she has done to him and to other people. Between the original series and Steven Universe: Future, we see that her disappearance caused significant damage, to the point that Steven doesn't want to acknowledge her existence.
Ford coming back disrupts everything for the Pines family. He and Stan don't just move on from their rough history - they fight, they struggle to get along, and the problems caused by Ford's disappearance and Stan bringing him back can't just be glossed over. It even causes problems with Dipper and Mabel, who have different responses to Ford - Dipper responds positively to Ford, because he can relate to him in ways that he can't relate to Stan. He gets to have with Ford what Mabel has had all Summer with Stan. The show explores all of these changes - it knows when to take things seriously and when jokes are appropriate.
KO is fairly well adjusted - the lack of a father figure in his life has impacted him, but he has grown up as a good kid all the same. Carol has been a good mother to him, and as the show goes on, Mr. Gar develops from someone that KO looks up to, to a mentor figure, to a father figure. In contrast, we find out his biological father, Professor Venomous, is a villain - and is responsible for TKO, his dark alter ego. Like Della, Professor Venomous only really bothers to be a father figure to KO when it interests him - when he can get glorbs from him, or when he can see how KO's turbonic energy has developed. He actually has a lot in common with Della - he abandoned Carol because of his own insecurities, which led to him becoming a villain. It had a major impact on everyone he knew at POINT and caused serious damage to people's relationships with each other. Unlike Della, though, things don't miraculously improve when he gets back - Greymann is still crippled, Carol and Mr. Gar hate him for what he did and KO can't just instantly accept him back into his life. Plus, he's a villain - and ultimately, though he gets a shot at redemption, it's with Lord Boxman; he doesn't get to have a place in the lives of his old comrades or as KO's father.
Other shows have done these things well - the problem is, like you say, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to bring in all of these complex dynamics, but also want a peachy resolution - each of the above shows delves into the reality that sometimes, that's just not possible. Della's behaviour would have some serious negative repercussions - if you want to look at the emotional effect her return has on the family, you have to accept that it's not all going to be positive. The show just refuses to place responsibility on her shoulders, which is seriously unhealthy in a show that's supposed to be focused on family dynamics.
I agree with the idea that this shouldn't be the accepted version of Della in the future. I wouldn't mind stuff like her leg or her being a pilot being carried forward, but the personality needs to change. Well, either it needs to change, or she needs to be held accountable for her actions.
Then we have Launchpad.
He's probably one of the show's worst characters. For one, he's just an unnecessary presence in a show with such a bloated cast - his original role of filling in for Donald is no longer necessary. He's not needed as the pilot because Della is back. He doesn't really have any of what made him likeable - in Ducktales or Darkwing Duck - so he doesn't really bring anything to the table. Honestly, his entire character feels like a meme from the 2000s - his entire character for the most part is "lolsorandomandquirky" humour, which really isn't funny. He gets the occasional laugh here and there, but most of his jokes are cringe-inducing. Then there's his stupidity - look, Launchpad was never the brightest bulb in the socket in either show. Still, he wasn't what he is in this show. In all honesty, his character is a little disturbing - he's barely functional, especially in the earlier episodes. He latches onto a small child as his best friend. He's constantly unable to understand the most basic of instructions or explanations... it all feels like something where the character has some sort of vague disorder or mental health issue. Maybe it's just me (I have the same issue with Doofus Drake, though I haven't seen many people share the sentiment), but this show does things like this a few times - "It's wrong to fat shame. Anyway, let's give Doofus and Launchpad some blatant issues that point to some form of disorder, that'd be hilarious. Or, let's give Huey blatant autistic traits... and then have his family constantly mock or ignore him for it, that's a good dynamic!" It's difficult to articulate, but what I'm trying to say is that some characters, like Launchpad and Doofus, go way beyond what I'd consider reasonable. It's not just "he's dumb" or "he's a greedy child", they go out of their way to give them traits that are often attributed to people with specific disorders. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it plays into why I hate this version of Launchpad so much - it's one thing to water them down into terrible humour. It's another when the character just feels like a mockery of people with mental health difficulties.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
It's obvious that the whole lore with Della was just an attempt to imitate him falling out with his family in Rosa's work. Except here it had really nothing to do with any moral lapse on Scrooge's part, it was just down to Della being irresponsible and Scrooge at worse enabling her (with that not framed as where he went wrong), which is made worse by the reveal Bradford set that up too. This carries over into how they handled Bombie the Zombie (here he wasn't a tool of revenge for Scrooge's colonialist antics but just targeting him and Louie for not showing enough humility) and his parents with sister (Matilda being just another Webby and Fergus being just "ugh I hate my dad"). They didn't really want to even acknowledgdge the idea that Scrooge's empire building rooted in exploitation, let alone that regardless of how nice he might be to his kin he's still a business lord.
Doofus was just them trying to hard to subvert the original Doofus by making him into Gideon Glee with some Anthony Fremont thrown in ("creepy child who all the adults are scared of or at least his parents"). Except his "power" just came from his inheritance. Doofus is in the same place as Manny in that he was an overused joke that the showrunners were too attached to.
He's probably one of the show's worst characters. For one, he's just an unnecessary presence in a show with such a bloated cast - his original role of filling in for Donald is no longer necessary. He's not needed as the pilot because Della is back. He doesn't really have any of what made him likeable - in Ducktales or Darkwing Duck - so he doesn't really bring anything to the table. Honestly, his entire character feels like a meme from the 2000s - his entire character for the most part is "lolsorandomandquirky" humour, which really isn't funny. He gets the occasional laugh here and there, but most of his jokes are cringe-inducing. Then there's his stupidity - look, Launchpad was never the brightest bulb in the socket in either show. Still, he wasn't what he is in this show. In all honesty, his character is a little disturbing - he's barely functional, especially in the earlier episodes. He latches onto a small child as his best friend. He's constantly unable to understand the most basic of instructions or explanations... it all feels like something where the character has some sort of vague disorder or mental health issue.
Adding to your thoughts a little, and voicing a few additional thoughts of my own on Launchpad...as with the kids and their "character traits," or the reduction of Kit Cloudkicker to a "a bear who cloud-kicks", Launchpad on New Ducktales was a victim of the Angones strategy of defining characters' personalities around a single characteristic--in Launchpad's case, "dumb." Flanderization is an overused term, but this show is replete with it; I sometimes think the Flanderization phenomenon is caused in part by the dominance of meme humor, where everything is dependent on being able to recognize a character and/or a situation in a single glance for a quick laugh. Whatever the cause, being dumb wasn't what made the original Launchpad funny and appealing; it was his being cheerfully oblivious and catastrophically careless and a genuine "world-famous pilot, adventurer and derring-doer" (to quote Scrooge's introduction of him in "Armstrong") at the same time.
Apparently that degree of duality in a character is too much for Angones and company to handle. Instead, they effectively took Launchpad and other multi-faceted characters and divided their character traits between them and other characters, as if he wanted to make sure that each character had one (but just one!) "character trait". This resulted not only in Flanderization but in cast bloat as well. As you observe, Della stole a significant portion of Launchpad's personality (the daredevil recklessness and even aspects of his costume), though without capturing any of his appeal; Scrooge, by becoming a swashbuckling Super Adventurer, also stole a lot of Launchpad's raison d'etre, as did Dewey with his own swashbuckling pretensions.
Something similar happened with Donald; Della supplanted him as the Nephews' primary and sometimes irritable guardian; Louie took over the scheming aspects of his personality, and Dewey his egotistical side, leaving him with little function. As I'll discuss later, when I cover guest/supporting characters, it felt like a lot of Gyro's personality also got handed off to Fenton (which also turned Fenton into a different character in the process).
That's all just an extension of how the cast is overly bloated. Launchpad for all his good points was still a stand-in for Donald to begin with, something they doubled when they introduced Fenton (with Launchpad being his world's Double-O-Duck and Fenton being something of a stand-in for Donald's personas like Cold Shadow or Duck Avenger).
Since we're on this subject, I'll elaborate on a point I made on Bradford.
With Bradford we have a villain who has the following bits:
-is elderly, like Scrooge -is rich like Scrooge -represents to a point modern business practices
In addition to being more or less MCU Hydra minus the WAK ties, Bradford comes suspiciously off like he was designed to be a stand-in for Glomgold (who is more or less Duck Lord Hater) and Rockerduck (who strangely had his places as being the much younger rival to Scrooge handed to Glomgold while Glomgold had his place as Scrooge's contemporary given to Rockerduck) made when they realized they failed to give Scrooge any credible rivals.
It's obvious that the whole lore with Della was just an attempt to imitate him falling out with his family in Rosa's work. Except here it had really nothing to do with any moral lapse on Scrooge's part, it was just down to Della being irresponsible and Scrooge at worse enabling her (with that not framed as where he went wrong), which is made worse by the reveal Bradford set that up too. This carries over into how they handled Bombie the Zombie (here he wasn't a tool of revenge for Scrooge's colonialist antics but just targeting him and Louie for not showing enough humility) and his parents with sister (Matilda being just another Webby and Fergus being just "ugh I hate my dad"). They didn't really want to even acknowledgdge the idea that Scrooge's empire building rooted in exploitation, let alone that regardless of how nice he might be to his kin he's still a business lord.
Doofus was just them trying to hard to subvert the original Doofus by making him into Gideon Glee with some Anthony Fremont thrown in ("creepy child who all the adults are scared of or at least his parents"). Except his "power" just came from his inheritance. Doofus is in the same place as Manny in that he was an overused joke that the showrunners were too attached to.
Absolutely. No matter what you think of Rosa, he made it clear that Scrooge was at fault for the falling out with his family. They warned him that his exploitative ways were wrong, but he wouldn't listen. He drove a wedge between them, which only furthered when he treated them like dirt upon his return. Scrooge has his epiphany as they leave, but ignores it - being the richest duck in the world mattered more to him than reconciling with his family.
The DT17 team refuses to give Scrooge that amount of accountability. They're dead set on Scrooge having the same origins, but they refuse to address the problems that that causes. They want Scrooge to be this amazing figure, but forget the importance of his flaws.
Barks' Scrooge could be a pretty horrible person, especially to Donald. Plus, while he's not as bad as Glomgold or the like, he's still willing to do some terrible things for money. The difference is that Barks has no problem showing that side of him - and he usually gets punished for it.
That's not the case here. He's not much worse than anyone else in the show (As has been discussed in the thread, pretty much everyone in this show is horrible to each other), and the problematic elements of his character are scrubbed away or ignored. Like, in ""Living Mummies of Toth-Ra" - having Scrooge McDuck dropping $9,000 on burritos for everybody with no more complaints than a little "My money...!" This is supposed to be the same character that refuses to buy newspapers because you can pick up used ones in the park!
As you point out, a significant element of the problem is that they're not just ignoring things: Some of their changes actively cause more problems. Since Bombie is now there to follow the richest person in the world, we can infer one of two things: Either Scrooge's dark day with Foola Zoola never happened, or it did and he got away with no punishment. They wanted to keep the timeline like it was in the comics, but they didn't consider how that would affect the story they were telling.
As for Doofus, I know that they were trying to subvert the original character, but their mindset is one that I find legitimately problematic. Their whole reason for changing his character (As well as Burger Beagle) was that it's wrong to make jokes involving fat shaming, which was a prominent element of both characters. That's fine, but... their solution for him is just as bad.
Sniffing Louie's hair, his eyes being wall-eyed/having strabismus (not sure of the proper phrasing), screaming and shaking when he doesn't get his own way, strange/awkward movements... they're all stereotypes associated with having disorders or developmental issues. Honestly, his character feels straight-out of something like Family Guy - distilled into one extremely offensive stereotype. What they did with his character is, quite honestly, disgusting and cowardly. It's wrong to mock someone for their weight, but apparently if they're neurodivergent or have developmental difficulties, they're fair game. Bonus points in having a character named DOOFUS having these stereotypical traits. They really just didn't care.
Though I've seen parodies, I've never seen the original appearance of Anthony Fremont. As such, I can't accurately comment on his portrayal. However, Gideon Gleeful as a point of comparison just further emphasizes Doofus' problematic elements: Gideon, for all his faults, isn't really portrayed as anything other than a spoiled rich kid with too much power. They never resort to making him a stereotype of disorders and difficulties that Doofus is.
He's probably one of the show's worst characters. For one, he's just an unnecessary presence in a show with such a bloated cast - his original role of filling in for Donald is no longer necessary. He's not needed as the pilot because Della is back. He doesn't really have any of what made him likeable - in Ducktales or Darkwing Duck - so he doesn't really bring anything to the table. Honestly, his entire character feels like a meme from the 2000s - his entire character for the most part is "lolsorandomandquirky" humour, which really isn't funny. He gets the occasional laugh here and there, but most of his jokes are cringe-inducing. Then there's his stupidity - look, Launchpad was never the brightest bulb in the socket in either show. Still, he wasn't what he is in this show. In all honesty, his character is a little disturbing - he's barely functional, especially in the earlier episodes. He latches onto a small child as his best friend. He's constantly unable to understand the most basic of instructions or explanations... it all feels like something where the character has some sort of vague disorder or mental health issue.
Adding to your thoughts a little, and voicing a few additional thoughts of my own on Launchpad...as with the kids and their "character traits," or the reduction of Kit Cloudkicker to a "a bear who cloud-kicks", Launchpad on New Ducktales was a victim of the Angones strategy of defining characters' personalities around a single characteristic--in Launchpad's case, "dumb." Flanderization is an overused term, but this show is replete with it; I sometimes think the Flanderization phenomenon is caused in part by the dominance of meme humor, where everything is dependent on being able to recognize a character and/or a situation in a single glance for a quick laugh. Whatever the cause, being dumb wasn't what made the original Launchpad funny and appealing; it was his being cheerfully oblivious and catastrophically careless and a genuine "world-famous pilot, adventurer and derring-doer" (to quote Scrooge's introduction of him in "Armstrong") at the same time.
Apparently that degree of duality in a character is too much for Angones and company to handle. Instead, they effectively took Launchpad and other multi-faceted characters and divided their character traits between them and other characters, as if he wanted to make sure that each character had one (but just one!) "character trait". This resulted not only in Flanderization but in cast bloat as well. As you observe, Della stole a significant portion of Launchpad's personality (the daredevil recklessness and even aspects of his costume), though without capturing any of his appeal; Scrooge, by becoming a swashbuckling Super Adventurer, also stole a lot of Launchpad's raison d'etre, as did Dewey with his own swashbuckling pretensions.
Something similar happened with Donald; Della supplanted him as the Nephews' primary and sometimes irritable guardian; Louie took over the scheming aspects of his personality, and Dewey his egotistical side, leaving him with little function. As I'll discuss later, when I cover guest/supporting characters, it felt like a lot of Gyro's personality also got handed off to Fenton (which also turned Fenton into a different character in the process).
Meme humor is definitely an important element of this show - I think it can work at times, but for the most part, it fails. The issue with Launchpad is that he's not just the result of meme humour, but outdated meme humour. Obviously, that's doomed to be the fate of all meme humour eventually (Hence why shows are so viciously derided when they use it), but Launchpad's meme humour is stuff that stopped being relevant at least a decade ago.
"Missing Links of Moorshire" is such a clear example of it: One moment that stood out to me as absurdly unfunny was when he says "I like talking this way 'cause it makes everything sound important. Bologna, trampoline." Then in the end, after giving his insightful comment, he's randomly choking on golf balls. These are jokes that you'd see in rage comics or on older tumblr blogs... the "random" humour that people cringe when they think about now because it really wasn't funny.
The one-note personalities are bad enough by themselves, but seriously, Launchpad's random humour isn't funny. It's painful.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Like I said, Scrooge's portrayal in DT17 is overall just a rich superhero who gets the kids all the stuff they want and the means to do whatever they want. Even in the original Ducktales there was some confrontation with Scrooge's place as a baron of industry (the episode where Scrooge loses his memory with Fenton filling in for him where the two end up in opposed sides of a labor strike).
The cynic in me suspects that at least part of what led to the change is a combo of the shifting over decades on how big business is seen especially in the current year and also culture difference between the Americas and Europe.
Like I said, Scrooge's portrayal in DT17 is overall just a rich superhero who gets the kids all the stuff they want and the means to do whatever they want. Even in the original Ducktales there was some confrontation with Scrooge's place as a baron of industry (the episode where Scrooge loses his memory with Fenton filling in for him where the two end up in opposed sides of a labor strike).
The cynic in me suspects that at least part of what led to the change is a combo of the shifting over decades on how big business is seen especially in the current year and also culture difference between the Americas and Europe.
I have probably said this before, but for me the most interesting thing you could do with Scrooge is going into that "Empire-Builder of Calisota" period. I mean, Scrooge leaves the Klondike with money than business sense, apart from his innate stinginess. So how did this hardened prospector turn into a successful businessman, so much so that he ended up becoming the richest duck in the world? You don't need to follow Rosa by the letter, there are different stories to tell with Scrooge. But I'd like to see him at a time when he's still a relatively small fish, so not everything is an automatic win. That should appeal to both sides of the Atlantic, shouldn't it?
I know Kari Korhonen has been writing a series in that period, and it's also covered by the My First Millions series, but for a history nerd like me there's a lot of untapped material there.
While I have plenty of problems with this show, there's one in particular that's been on my mind for some time. I've been very hesitant to bring it up for a few different reasons - it's a problem that's very personal to me, for one. It's not just a point of "This show is bad" or "This was adapted poorly" - it's something that I've found grossly insulting, both for others and on my own behalf. Then there's the gravity of the topic itself - I'm no authority on the issue. I worry about using the wrong terminologies, or speaking with more authority than I have any real right to. That being said, I've touched on the issue in this thread a few times - I feel comfortable enough bringing it up here without fear of judgement (Outside of correction if I'm wrong, of course).
This show's portrayal of neurodivergence and conditions is utterly disgusting. Being honest, it veers from "inaccurate" to legitimately feeling ableist. If it was one or two occasions, I'd be willing to say "Sure, every show gets things wrong here and there", but it happens enough times that it feels like a prominent aspect of a show that claims to be progressive.
For clarity's sake, I'll explain a little about what I mean when referring to neurodivergence and conditions - like I said, I may use the wrong terminologies here and there, so I'll explain to avoid confusion when possible.
Many people have conditions, disorders or neurodivergences that make them, in some way, 'different'. For example, alterations in one's physical appearance, cognitive abilities, way of thinking, behavioural patterns... we live in a period where certain differences are understood to be just that - a difference. This understanding is a very recent concept - people with such differences are often the subject of mockery, be it in the media or by the general populace. Even now, it would be asinine to think that such understandings have gone away - the fact that organizations like "Autism Speaks" are still standing and supported, or the fact that one of the main points of the anti-vaxx movement is the assertion that 'vaccines cause autism' are proof that there are still prominent ableist beliefs in general society today. In the media, there are many stereotypes around such differences - for autism, there are characters like Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, who serve as an absolute mockery of the disorder. Then there's the frequent joke of the 'special ed' class - which has people who are low-functioning being the butt of jokes. The jokes and stereotypes often centre around people who are 'weird' - they behave differently, they think differently, they understand things differently... there's no sincerity to these jokes - it's all just vicious mockery of easy targets.
A prominent issue with such stereotypes is that the people behind such shows present these stereotypes in a way that removes their accountability for something that is legitimately offensive. To go back to Sheldon Cooper, he's understood by most to have autism. The people behind the show, however, have refuted this: though they've acknowledged that he displays traits of autism (With Jim Parsons claiming that Sheldon 'couldn't display more traits of Aspergers'), the series co-creator 'feels uncomfortable' confirming that Sheldon is autistic. This is common in media that mocks anyone that's 'different' - they refuse to diagnose characters with specific conditions, disorders or neurodivergences, because that would hold them accountable to their portrayal. There's this bizarre understanding people have that, as long as it's not something specific, it's 'just a character', and such mockery is fair game.
Now, to tie it back to Ducktales '17, this behaviour is something that I've noticed is prominent in the series - the team behind it, on multiple occasions, portray characters with ableist stereotypes.
The most obvious example, and the one I've discussed the most on this forum, is Doofus Drake. Doofus is portrayed as a spoiled rich child - he's allowed to behave in certain ways because of his money and power. However, it goes beyond just portraying him as a spoiled rich kid - they have to make him 'weird' and 'creepy'. The way they do this involves some very prominent stereotypes relating to the 'special ed class' trope that I mentioned above. He shows socially inappropriate behaviour (sniffing Louie's hair), he's occasionally show to exhibit strabismus (Going 'wall-eyed' - note that this isn't a permanent trait, only showing up when the writers want him to look 'weird'), he flies into a screaming, shaking rage when things don't go his way, he makes erratic movements and he's shown to be a terrible burden on his parents. His portrayal is absurdly offensive. It baffles me that a supposedly inclusive show would write such a character, and it baffles me even further that Disney okayed it. Doofus is, of course, not known to have any specific condition or disorder. As such, all of these stereotypes, in-universe, are attributed to him being 'crazy'. It's made even worse by the fact that Doofus' parents talk about how 'the money and power changed him' - all of his behaviours are attributed to wealth. Then there's his name - normally, it would be given a pass due to the show's nature as a reboot/adaptation, but since he's so radically different to his original counterpart, it doesn't get one - Doofus. Synonymous with idiot, along with a certain slur that's used against people who exhibit these traits. While I doubt it was done maliciously, it shows an absurd lack of foresight on behalf of the creators - did no one look at these traits and think "Maybe 'Doofus' isn't an appropriate name for this character"? The fact that Doofus has been changed into a villain, coupled with the snarky nature of the show, is another significant problem. The intended audience for this show is children - impressionable children. Doofus' depiction as a villain imparts an extremely dangerous lesson - that it's okay to mock, bully and exploit people who exhibit such behaviours. He's accompanied by eerie lighting and scare chords, he's the constant subject of both fear and mockery from Louie... all in all, he's meant to be seen as a freak. Children could very easily come to the conclusion that people who present in the same manner as Doofus does are freaks or bad people - which is how bullying starts. Doofus reinforces an extremely problematic stereotype, and it's appalling to see something like this in a show that's supposed to be inclusive.
Another example is Launchpad. Launchpad is a lesser example of the same issue as Doofus - he veers more into unfunny 'random' humour than actual harmful stereotypes for the most part, but that doesn't mean that they're not present at all. The fact that he's a hero also helps - he's not a blatant target in the way that Doofus is. For one, his nature as a 'manchild' is upped severely - his status as Dewey's best friend veers into inappropriate at times. (Apparently, from what I've read, he had something similar with Doofus in the original show - I don't remember the show vividly enough to be sure, but I don't think it was to the same extent). His clinging to Dewey, his desperation to be a good 'best friend' to him, the fact that there's no typical 'adult/child' boundary placing... it puts across the idea that he's mentally a child. His capacity to function properly and his comprehension of reality are often brought into question (as the subject of jokes) - the most obvious example is when he grows to believe that mole people are real, and can be convinced that he might be one. Until "Beware the BUDDY System", he didn't have a driver's license, and apparently still doesn't have a pilot's license (if he gets one at any point, I don't remember it), but still drives and flies in a reckless and dangerous manner. He's easily exploited in "The Impossible Summit of Mt. Neverrest" and then again by Louie in "Timephoon". Sometimes, the show reels it back and tries to show these aspects of him in a positive light, but it falls flat because of how they go about it - for example, when Della learns that him using chewing gum to fix the plane is better than properly fixing it, and that his way of flying is just as valid as hers. The intent may have been positive, but it's a harmful message - you can't apply "sometimes, people do things differently and you should just accept that" to something like vehicle safety and operation, because that's extremely dangerous. Launchpad, of course, doesn't have any particular disorder or condition - According to Angones (here) "LP is not dumb. He is pure." This sort of infantilization is another problem - the idea that someone who's not intelligent is pure, sweet and, of course, "isn't really dumb, just has their own way of thinking." It denies any difficulties or problems at all - Launchpad's lack of intelligence is inarguable, and is frequently used as a joke; an off-hand example would be in "The Shadow War" when Gyro brings out the Barksian modulator: Gyro explains and Launchpad doesn't understand... then Gyro simplifies it and everyone understands... except Launchpad. The problem with that of Launchpad is the opposite of the one with Doofus - here, they act as though everything is peachy, and that anything he does is just 'Launchpad being Launchpad'. There are plenty of people with conditions and disorders that have difficulty functioning in certain situations - with Launchpad, it's laughed at and then promptly ignored. The reality is that someone like Launchpad would have no hope in the real world - his inappropriate behaviour and dangerous antics would land him in hot water, a lot. Now, obviously, there's an element of suspension of disbelief at play - the show's nature allows for stuff like his constant crashing. The problem is that suspension of disbelief works because you accept a premise for what it is - you don't question why Sonic the Hedgehog is blue because it's just something to be accepted in-universe. In DT17, however, attention is drawn to Launchpad's behaviour - Della points out the real-life problems with his flying, but the show makes her out to be wrong in doing this. The problem here is that people who are neurodivergent do certain things differently - in some cases, they can't do some things a certain way and, as such, have to abstain from whatever it is. Applying the "You can do anything and be whatever you want!" message to a character like Launchpad is problematic - equating blatant stupidity with "having a different way of doing things" is insulting. Likewise, in ""Double O Duck in You Only Crash Twice", they go with the typical 'Flowers for Algernon' plot - where Launchpad has to go back to being 'stupid' by the end of the episode. Note that in that episode, when he became intelligent, most of the traits that made him 'Launchpad' went away, which is directly attributing most of his behaviour to stupidity. Here, his neurodivergent behaviour is all directly attributed to stupidity - not just him being different, it's specifically because he's stupid (Something that, again, Angones denied). I understand the "fool becoming hyper-intelligent" trope, but when a character displays neurodivergent traits and has them erased by an increase in intelligence... it sends out a specific message. The message that if someone thinks differently or has their own way of doing things (Which the show has presented as being a good thing), it's because they're stupid.
Next, let's look at Huey: he's a character who displays blatant autistic traits. (See the Autistic Huey tag on tumblr for fan response) My problem is that, until much later in the series, these traits are consistently played for laughs. When Huey has a meltdown over losing the Beaks internship, it's played for laughs with Dewey making the comment that "Huey's broken". When he flies into a blind rage over the video game that he and Della play, there's no resolution - it's just played as a "Ha ha, now he's too far out of his comfort zone, how wacky!". His inability to be conventionally creative in the dream is shown as being horrifying and weird - the only one who supports him is Louie, who tells him to "Follow your lame dreams!". Then there's his rigidity and difficulty with changes to what he expects or knows - which almost always comes with him being shown as wrong and having to rectify that by the end of the episode. After Astro BOYD, there is no doubt in my mind that he's intended to be seen as autistic - that episode was so on-point and so reflective of how many people experience living with autism that it simply can't have been a coincidence (especially when coupled with certain other traits that can be seen in the Autistic Huey tumblr tags). Following that, the fact that he's so often portrayed as the boring sibling, the fact that he's the butt of so many jokes and, worst of all, the fact that, on several occasions, these traits are shown as being things about himself that he needs to change... it's honestly upsetting.
Finally, Donald and Della - two characters who have psychological issues that the show doesn't take seriously. Donald has serious anger issues - as in, he is literally seeing an anger management counsellor. Anger issues can have severe negative impacts on people's lives - they can be debilitating, and can take up a significant portion of someone's daily life. I won't comment on his anger issues being distilled the way they are, but certain elements of their portrayal bother me. The first is that Jones breaches patient confidentiality - Donald obviously couldn't consent to Jones sharing his information, yet Jones blabs everything to Dewey and Webby. Then there's the fact that it's played for laughs during a serious scene (Not even talking about the show in general, but when the kids are talking to Jones - "Donald's anger issues stem from a fear that the world is out to get him, and that no one understands him - quite literally!". This wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that, as has been discussed in this thread, the showrunners have shown blatant disrespect to Tony Anselmo as Donald's voice actor - I could have believed that it was a genuine comment, but that behaviour leads me to believe that it's just another joke in a serious scene. Then there's the assertion that "every outburst is Donald wanting to protect his family!" - look, anger can be channelled into positive output, I won't dispute that. But... this moment of setting it up as this awesome trait, debatably even being a good thing (as it's what gives him a second wind against Lunaris) is wrong. They build it up as this epic moment, where Donald channels his anger into breaking his muzzle, fighting Lunaris and then outwitting him. My issue is this: They have Donald actively seeing a therapist because he has severe anger management issues. It's specified that, during hard times, he needed to visit this therapist to be able to cope. They give a specific root for his anger issues, and how he manages those issues. This is a very real situation for many people - and not everyone has an effective way to channel it. Even if they do, it's a struggle that's very difficult to cope with. As a result, any time that Donald's anger is played for laughs just stops being funny - you know that Donald isn't just a comically angry character, he's someone who faces real, legitimate struggles that are debilitating for many people. It's too real to laugh at, which makes all of the jokes about him seem horribly mean-spirited (In a show where several of the jokes around Donald already feel pretty mean-spirited).
As for Della... she blatantly has PTSD. Which is constantly played for laughs. She mentions having a scaring contest with herself for three weeks, which leads to her being afraid to look in a mirror (which she follows up by shattering a mug because she could see her reflection). Frequent jokes about her horrible time on the moon, and how much she's struggling to adjust. This ties in to what people have complained about in relation to her as a character - if the show is written in a way that you're meant to take the characters seriously (Which, given the amount of drama in the show, is obviously the case), these moments are horrible. Like, Della has many flaws, as has been discussed on here. That being said, this aspect of how the show treats her is cruel - she has been on the moon for a decade, which has traumatized her. She's struggling to adapt back to life on earth, and has difficulties that are related to this trauma. Why does it need to be said that that's not funny? Again, it comes down to how the show chooses to portray her - making jokes about her trauma is an intentional choice on the part of the writing team. It would be one thing if Della was joking about her trauma, but she's not - most of the jokes are just "Ha ha, Della is traumatized" or "Ha ha, years away from earth have made it difficult for Della to relate to people". Like, it would be one thing if they brought her back from the moon and just glossed over it - but making it clear that she's traumatized and then mocking that... it's just nasty. Part of the problem is that they directly chose to make this an element of her character. If they didn't want to address something so serious, they could have just... not addressed it. It's really that simple. Compare to Steven Universe: Future:
In this series, Steven has significant issues related to PTSD. The show addresses how events in his life have traumatized him, and how he needs to see a therapist. They don't muck about, they don't mock him for it - it's clearly a very serious problem, and is treated as such. His corruption is a visual representation of the effect that it's having on him, and the show's ending addresses it for what it is - the only way he can overcome it is through support, therapy and actually addressing the problem. He can't fight it off, he can't joke it off (And he does his damnedest to do both), he needs help.
For those who haven't watched, a non-spoiler explanation would be that these issues can be handled respectfully, without mocking the issue - the show's nature as a children's cartoon doesn't, and shouldn't, give them a pass for how they portray the problem.
There are more examples than the above, but those are some clear examples that stood out to me.
These are all made worse by one factor: The fact that the show claims to be progressive. Both Doofus Drake and Burger Beagle were significantly changed because their characters were considered offensive due to the fat-shaming element carried by both of them. Characters like Don Karnage had their voice actors changed for the sake of inclusivity. Characters like Bombie the Zombie had their histories and backstories altered to remove problematic elements. To do all of the above, yet keep stereotypes and negative portrayals of those with conditions, neurodivergences and psychological issues... it feels so much worse. It's like they said "It's wrong to mock these groups... but this one here, open season team!" It feels like one of two things is being implied: 1. The inclusivity isn't sincere. Choices were made (and acknowledged) to prevent exclusion or insults to certain people, but others were overlooked or still shot at. As a result, it makes one wonder if they legitimately cared about representation, or if they had just enough to get 'woke points'. 2. It's considered okay to mock certain groups. Effort goes in to ensure that some groups are respected, but others are ignored. If this was all done sincerely... it sends out an upsetting message. "You're not significant enough to warrant respect."
Now, as I'd imagine was obvious from the rest of the post, I'm neurodivergent myself. I was recently diagnosed with having Autism Spectrum Disorder. As you can imagine, all it did was reframe things for me - I was still bullied for being neurodivergent. My atypical behaviours have been the subject of insults and mockery, and it's extremely rare for people to put effort in to accommodate this when it's not convenient for them. There's always been a feeling that I didn't belong, because I don't understand people. It feels as though every effort I make to relate to people blows up in my face, and it feels as though I'm just destined to be an outsider - a tertiary figure in the lives of others. Coming to terms with my diagnosis, and understanding how having autism has impacted my life... it has put plenty of things into perspective. I've had a long-standing love for animation, and my appreciation for certain scenes and characters has tied back, in many cases, to a feeling of being understood. Obviously, there aren't many characters that are canonically neurodivergent, but there are characters that many would identify as likely being such due to their behaviours or mannerisms. With characters like these, there's an underlying reason as to why they mean so much to me (and why representation in general matters so much) - I felt heard and accepted. When you feel abnormal, alone and unable to relate to people, it's amazing what a fictional character can do for you. To see someone mirror your struggles can be so validating in a world that refuses to give you any validation for who you are is a special feeling, one that's extremely difficult to articulate.
The reason that I bring this up is because of what the opposite can do for people. For the neurodivergent, the above-mentioned Sheldon Cooper is an obvious example - he reinforces several harmful stereotypes about autism. The attitude of the showrunners shows how little some people care about those that have autism. His character plays a significant part in the bullying and negative behaviour targeted at autistic people. And several characters on Ducktales have a similar effect. The depiction of Donald's anger issues or Della's psychological trauma make these issues look less serious than they actually are - they take problems that can be debilitating and treat them as no more than a punchline or plot device. The depiction of characters like Launchpad send out harmful messages about people who are neurodivergent - the message that "They're just stupid". Unlike the original Launchpad, who may not have been the most typical person around but was still intelligent to a degree, this Launchpad is thoroughly treated as a moron - and he loses most of his traits that would be considered neurotypical when he "becomes smart". The depiction of characters like Doofus reinforce VERY harmful sterotypes and thought processes - that people who have his mannerisms or difficulties are "crazy", weird and deserving of mockery. With the heavy emphasis on his atypical behaviours, the association is very easy to make, especially when one considers the target audience. Then there's Huey - admittedly, they got better to an extent later on, but some of his earlier appearances set a very upsetting precedent. People who think like him (Rigid, difficulty accepting change, people who express their interests in autistic ways, people who have meltdowns when they can't cope) are boring, should be laughed at and need to fix themselves.
All in all, I guess what I want to say is that the show's attitude towards the neurodivergent, those with varying conditions and those who suffer from certain psychological issues comes across, to me, as extremely disrespectful. Because the show presents itself as being inclusive and progressive, this treatment feels more upsetting and insulting than it normally would. It feels as though the show reinforces certain ableist thought processes, and the fact that it's so widely praised for being progressive... it's very invalidating. I pretty much never see this addressed, and between my own personal developments and the fact that this is a place where I feel comfortable being honest about myself and my opinions, I felt that it was finally the time to do so. That's just about it - a very long rant, but one that's been rattling around in my head for a long time now.
I hope that my thoughts have been clear enough, and that my discussions on issues that I don't have quite as much personal familiarity with were handled properly. If anything that I've said is inaccurate, please don't hesitate to let me know!
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Here's the last section of Part 2 of "I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#2.--The Grown-Ups.
E. "Mrs. Beakley, we're needed"...to do what exactly?
I decided to treat the "Main Cast" as the characters who climb atop (and crash into) the logo in the credit sequence, and to split that cast into the Kids and the Grown-Ups. Thus, this will be the last "Grown-Ups" sub-section, and I'll move into the recurring supporting cast (Gyro, Fenton, Darkwing, etc.) next.
That said, I find it hard to really think of Mrs. Beakley as "Main Cast;" like the other main cast members, her "character traits" are pretty rudimentary, and being that sternness and secretiveness are among them, she's not as flamboyantly noticeable as most of the other "stars" of the show. That makes her much less in-your-face obnoxious than any of the Kids, but there's still fairly little justification for her presence; in the original series, there was a simple logic to Mrs. Beakley's presence, as it made perfect sense that a busy duck like Scrooge would bring in a governess to help him handle the Nephews. She was hardly a very memorable character on Original Ducktales, but the dynamic between her and the boys wasn't bad, and was never too one-sided--they could play pranks on her, but she could also calmly get the better of them. On this show, the Nephews have first one, then two, parental figures present, so Beakley has little interaction with them and instead winds up being almost totally defined by her relationship with Webby and Scrooge.
The Beakley-Webby relationship, even before the utterly ridiculous last-episode revelation of Beakley and Webby's backstory, makes very little sense; Mrs. B. is played up as a grim, no-nonsense figure, strict and protective in her dealings with her "granddaughter," but she's willing to let Webby gallivant around the world with an insane risk-taker like Scrooge? The last-episode revelation makes, in retrospect, Beakley's attitude even more inexplicable; she abandoned her work with SHUSH (despite being evidently their best agent) and moved in at Scrooge's mansion so she could protect Webby full-time, and is so devoted to keeping a secret that might hurt Webby that she knocks out her "trusted ally" Scrooge rather than share the secret with him---but was fine in the earlier seasons with having Webby adventure out in the open where FOWL could get at her? As with Donald supposedly being overprotective of the Nephews but letting them go off on excursions with Scrooge, Beakley's rigid devotion to taking care of Webby was a dynamic that was never maintained consistently and only trotted out when Big Drama and Dark Secrets were required.
As for the Beakley-Scrooge relationship, giving Scrooge an aide-de-camp unafraid to humorously or exasperatedly tell him off isn't a bad idea; Original Beakley herself would act as Scrooge's conscience at times on Original Ducktales (although Donald already filled it in Barks' comics, making me again question the necessity of New Beakley when Donald is present). However, the idea of that aide-de-camp being an ever-present former colleague with whom Scrooge shares a colorful past undermines both Rosa's quasi-tragic loner take on McDuck and Barks' quirkily antisocial version of the character. Having that shared past be in a spy agency makes things much worse, however; not only is the idea of Scrooge-as-spy antithetical to the character (which even fans of this show have admitted), but defining Mrs. Beakley first and foremost through the shopworn and unrealistic clichés of the James Bond/Man From UNCLE/Avengers spy fantasies (seriously, she's basically a retired and much grimmer knock-off of Mrs. Peel of Avengers fame) ensured that she would never really develop a personality beyond "serious, British-accented, and kickass".
In short, the writers removed one of Beakley's reasons for being here in the first place (her relationship with the Nephews), made an embarrassing and illogical hash of her other prime reason for being present (her relationship with Webby), and could only create a third reason for adding her to the cast (her shared past with Scrooge) by violently wrenching Scrooge's character out of shape and forever pinning Beakley's character to a compendium of superficial tropes.
All in all, I guess what I want to say is that the show's attitude towards the neurodivergent, those with varying conditions and those who suffer from certain psychological issues comes across, to me, as extremely disrespectful. Because the show presents itself as being inclusive and progressive, this treatment feels more upsetting and insulting than it normally would. It feels as though the show reinforces certain ableist thought processes, and the fact that it's so widely praised for being progressive... it's very invalidating. I pretty much never see this addressed, and between my own personal developments and the fact that this is a place where I feel comfortable being honest about myself and my opinions, I felt that it was finally the time to do so. That's just about it - a very long rant, but one that's been rattling around in my head for a long time now.
I hope that my thoughts have been clear enough, and that my discussions on issues that I don't have quite as much personal familiarity with were handled properly. If anything that I've said is inaccurate, please don't hesitate to let me know!
Having spent a good part of my adult life being compared to Sheldon myself, I know where you're coming from, and sympathize. "Weird nerds" are still considered OK to mock in popular culture--and, ironically, it's "nerdy" types like Angones' crew who are most likely to engage in that mockery; their thinking seems to be, "yeah, I'm nerdy, but at least I'm not crazy like those weirdos over there!" Also, I think this is part and parcel of the biggest, most overarching problem with the show--it wants to get kudos for being sensitive and heartfelt, but it can't hide its nasty, mocking, cynical sense of humor for very long.
Also, I think this is part and parcel of the biggest, most overarching problem with the show--it wants to get kudos for being sensitive and heartfelt, but it can't hide its nasty, mocking, cynical sense of humor for very long.
I agree that this is the overarching problem with the show. Going back to adrianthecool's comment on the lack of real adventure: I'd say that wasn't just a problem of a lack of long multi-episode story arcs with epic plots--it's that, but it's also the snarky, cynical tone, which undercuts every attempt to portray real adventure. That tone makes the sense of wonder necessary to adventure unsustainable. You know the show's creators' would mock anyone who showed such sincere wonder. That tone undercuts the show's attempts at sincere sentiment, as well.
All in all, I guess what I want to say is that the show's attitude towards the neurodivergent, those with varying conditions and those who suffer from certain psychological issues comes across, to me, as extremely disrespectful. Because the show presents itself as being inclusive and progressive, this treatment feels more upsetting and insulting than it normally would. It feels as though the show reinforces certain ableist thought processes, and the fact that it's so widely praised for being progressive... it's very invalidating. I pretty much never see this addressed, and between my own personal developments and the fact that this is a place where I feel comfortable being honest about myself and my opinions, I felt that it was finally the time to do so. That's just about it - a very long rant, but one that's been rattling around in my head for a long time now.
I hope that my thoughts have been clear enough, and that my discussions on issues that I don't have quite as much personal familiarity with were handled properly. If anything that I've said is inaccurate, please don't hesitate to let me know!
I think you have a very strong argument here, especially with regard to hair-sniffing, tantruming Doofus and somewhat-autistic Huey. It is really not OK for them to incorporate such traits into a character and then not deal with the fact that the show's treatment of the character with those traits is making a statement about the apparent disability.
And on Della: I think the non-recognition of the results of her having been traumatized are of a piece with the non-recognition of the emotional fallout of her return, the reveal about why she deserted her kids, and her attempts to reestablish herself as the boys' parent. The show wants to have character histories and dynamics which are taken seriously and affect the viewer emotionally, but then also wants to ignore completely the emotions and conflicts which would arise from those stories in real life whenever it's convenient for them to do so.