I get Angones' reasoning for wanting to change Duckworth. The 'stiff, dry butler' stereotype had run its course, even before DuckTales 1987 got to it. And as someone who grew up with the considerably more jovial Battista, Duckworth just seemed kind of boring and one-dimensional. Why would someone like Scrooge hire a run-of-the-mill butler? It doesn't suit his style, he's not that type of rich guy. And being a butler is a pretty personal job, moreso than being their secretary or accountant. Compared to the rest of the Ducks, Duckworth has the personality of an old rag.
Turning Duckworth into a ghost/demon was not the way to go about that, obviously. Count me as someone who'd love to have seen Battista be ported over to DuckTales instead --- even though his personality would still likely be butchered by the Sarcasm Mode of Angones' gang...
Last Edit: Apr 28, 2021 15:43:40 GMT by That Duckfan: clarity
That being said, on the topic of disrespect to characters... there's a serious implication that Duckworth went to Hell when he died.. . . When you piece it together, it just gets uncomfortable. What did Duckworth do to warrant being sent to Hell? Why is that a necessary implication to make for these characters?
Honestly, I really liked Violet. . . You mention that she's used to fill the 'plot device'/'knowledgeable Woodchuck' role, which I can agree with. However, what stands out to me is that she's usually given a positive reception for it.
I agree about the truly upsetting implications of "Demonworth"; that's another example of Angones and company not bothering to take their supernaturalism at all seriously, and tossing off "jokes" (like the death-in-life doom of Scrooge's parents) that are really horrifying if we take them as seriously as the showrunners ask us to take the Heartfelt Moments.
Regarding Violet, I think the irksome thing about her, to me, is the fact that she's not mocked for being bookish, "nerdy", and a super-skilled Woodchuck, while Huey is continually mocked for it. It's fine that these traits, as you mention, are treated positively in Violet, but every time they are, it makes me irritated that the same traits are shown as annoying and uncool in Huey. This differing treatment of Violet and Huey is obviously partly attributable to Angones' usual eagerness to appear progressive, but also creates the distasteful impression that Angones is diminishing one of the comic-book characters in order to boost one of his own characters. Angones' partiality for his own creations is also very evident in his treatment of the bad guys--Lunaris and especially Bradford, who are allowed to be much more threatening than any of Scrooge's comic-book antagonists, with the partial exception of Magica (who was made too threatening in the first season, then turned into a joke in the remaining seasons). Which brings me to the next part of my dissection:
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
A. Second in Wealth but First in Ineptitude
Barks’ most fully-developed treatment of Flintheart Glomgold was in “The Money Champ.” Although I enjoy all three of the Barks Glomgold stories, the Glomgold in “Second-Richest Duck” is simply a duplicate of Scrooge (which is the main point of the story—watching Scrooge react to a spiritual double who’s every bit as eccentric, crafty and greedy as himself), while Flintheart in “So Far and No Safari” is basically a plot device. “Money Champ,” however, gives a fully-rounded portrait of Flinty as an interesting antagonist, one who’s definitely a villain but who is fleetingly aware that he’s doing wrong. “Money Champ” also demonstrates that there is a distinct but very thin line between Scrooge and Flinty; we see both of them presented with the same temptation, which McDuck wrestles with and overcomes but which Glomgold gives in to. Additionally, the Glomgold of “Money Champ” is presented as a truly formidable foe for Scrooge, equaling him in smarts and scrappiness--which, combined with his greater unscrupulousness, allows Glomgold to stay ahead of McDuck for much of the story, till Glomgold’s own villainy finally backfires on him.
Neither Original Ducktales nor Rosa ever gave Glomgold a moment of self-knowledge the way Barks did in “Money Champ,” but both of them built on the formidable qualities of Glomgold demonstrated in that story and stresed that he had much in common with Scrooge. The continual back-and-forth, tit-for-tat bickering of Scrooge and Glomgold in Original Ducktales episodes like “Masters of the Djinn,” “Robot Robbers,” and “Ducky Mountain High,” to name only three examples, is very much in the tone of Barks’ stories; the Original Ducktales Glomgold was also allowed to verbally bait Scrooge and frequently outfoxed him, something the Angones Glomgold would never be allowed to do. For all the criticisms of Original Ducktales’ Scottification of Glomgold and its relocating him to Duckburg, I think that show captured the basic essence of the Barks character quite faithfully—sly, sarcastic, ruthless, a full match for Scrooge, and much more similar to his rival in temperament than either of them would admit.
Rosa, for his part, did an excellent job of making Glomgold a full equal and truly threatening rival to Scrooge in stories like “Son of the Sun,” “Return to Plain Awful,” and “Island at the Edge of Time”. His rendition of the character in those tales felt like an entirely believable development of the Barks original. However, in “Terror of the Transvaal” Rosa somewhat lost his grip on Flinty, due in part to the increasing emphasis, in his later work, on the Sheer Awesomeness of Scrooge and the corresponding diminishment of all his antagonists; the Glomgold of that story is reduced to a pathetic, cowardly, buffoonish sneak-thief who only gives Scrooge momentary trouble because Scrooge is too naïve. Rosa’s last full use of the character, in “The Last Lord of El Dorado” is better in that it gives Flinty some genuinely competent moments, but he still spends too much of the story enmeshed in slapstick and silly disguises and is treated far too contemptuously by Scrooge.
Another problem with “Transvaal” is that it backdates Scrooge and Flinty’s enmity to the days when both of them were poor and implies that Glomgold was motivated to become a “somebody” because of his personal envy and hatred of Scrooge (Rosa, as we know, wanted to more explicitly show that Scrooge “created” Glomgold in a flashback in “Son of the Sun.”) The whole idea of the hero and villain “creating” each other has become such a cliché that I much prefer the Barks concept of the two characters developing entirely independently of each other and ultimately clashing simply because of who they are, not because they have a shared history. I always get the impression that Rosa’s Glomgold wants to become the World’s Richest Duck in order to beat Scrooge--while Barks’ Glomgold wants to beat Scrooge in order to become the World’s Richest Duck.
Unfortunately, Angones and company, in handling Flinty, ignored Barks, ignored Original Ducktales (except for the character’s design), and ignored the earlier Rosa Glomgold tales. Instead, they appear to have drawn primarily on late Rosa as a starting-point for their Glomgold (if they consulted the comics at all)—providing their own version of the “Scrooge created Glomgold” idea, then taking Glomgold’s envy and hatred of Scrooge and Flanderizing it into stalkerish monomania, with the idea that he deliberately copies everything about his arch-nemesis. They also took Glomgold’s sporadic fallibility and frustration from the later Rosa stories and turned it into perpetual, blustering, oblivious idiocy, far beyond even the character’s lowest moments in “Transvaal” or “El Dorado.”
Defining Glomgold as solely motivated by a desire to defeat McDuck, not as a hard-driving Alpha Tycoon in his own right, is limiting enough, but making him utterly idiotic and incompetent in his efforts to best Scrooge is much worse. I can’t understand why no one in the New Ducktales team was able to realize that making the hero’s arch-enemy a fumbling idiot does not make the hero look cooler. Angones and his writers seemed to be having a competition to see how pathetically obsessed and ridiculous they could make Glomgold—beating the “joke” of his egoism and ineptitude to death, while laughing hysterically at their own humor, and self-indulgently bringing episodes to a screeching halt for long, pointless riffs on this theme.
I think “87-Cent Solution,” with Glomgold’s antics at the funeral and his later licking of Scrooge’s belongings, was the cringe-inducing low point of Angones’ unfunny love affair with his one-joke version of Glomgold, but there’s a great deal to choose from—other examples including Flinty’s slide presentation in “Moonvasion”, his self-defeating ravings at the beginning of “Doomsday Vault,” and his romance-comics style recounting of his meeting with Goldie in “White Agony Plains.” Even the character’s redesign was obviously intended to crudely ram home the joke of his inferiority and ineptitude; why else would they have taken pains to make him both chunkier and shorter than Scrooge?
Of course, as always with this show’s characters, Angones tried to have it both ways with Glomgold, using the “Duke Baloney” episode to show a repressed sympathetic side to the character and trying to demonstrate that Scrooge inadvertently contributed to his going astray. However, by this point the writers had forfeited all right to have Glomgold taken serious, having firmly established their supposedly tragic villain as a one-dimensional cartoon.
As I’ve said before, the single panel in “Money Champ” where Glomgold is recalling his mother’s fondest hopes gives more depth and tragedy to the character than all the faux nightmare-sequence dramatics of “Duke Baloney.” There should always be a feeling with Glomgold that, “there but for the grace of God” goes Scrooge. Not only is it impossible to feel that Angones’ Scrooge could conceivably fall from grace and become Angones’ Glomgold; it’s also impossible to believe that any human being (or Duck equivalent) could ever fall into the absurd evildoing that Angones’ Glomgold indulges in.
DJNYR you should reslly consider doing a Youtube video with all your points,
I could, but I've always been better with written arguments than public speaking (briefs and motions are my favorite part of my law practice, but going into court is always a bit more intimidating).
Part of the issue with Glomgold is that he comes off as a duck version of Lord Hater from Wander Over Yonder. Between the VA and his overall characterization as an attempt to spoof archetypal villains (in Hater's case, galactic overlord types ala Ming the Merciless and Darth Vader and Thanos) there's no doubt that New Glomgold was modeled on Hater.
The big difference is that Hater's characterization was a part of his show's wider message that no one is beyond redemption. They didn't really do this in the show when it came to the big villains.
That being said, on the topic of disrespect to characters... there's a serious implication that Duckworth went to Hell when he died.. . . When you piece it together, it just gets uncomfortable. What did Duckworth do to warrant being sent to Hell? Why is that a necessary implication to make for these characters?
Honestly, I really liked Violet. . . You mention that she's used to fill the 'plot device'/'knowledgeable Woodchuck' role, which I can agree with. However, what stands out to me is that she's usually given a positive reception for it.
I agree about the truly upsetting implications of "Demonworth"; that's another example of Angones and company not bothering to take their supernaturalism at all seriously, and tossing off "jokes" (like the death-in-life doom of Scrooge's parents) that are really horrifying if we take them as seriously as the showrunners ask us to take the Heartfelt Moments.
Regarding Violet, I think the irksome thing about her, to me, is the fact that she's not mocked for being bookish, "nerdy", and a super-skilled Woodchuck, while Huey is continually mocked for it. It's fine that these traits, as you mention, are treated positively in Violet, but every time they are, it makes me irritated that the same traits are shown as annoying and uncool in Huey. This differing treatment of Violet and Huey is obviously partly attributable to Angones' usual eagerness to appear progressive, but also creates the distasteful impression that Angones is diminishing one of the comic-book characters in order to boost one of his own characters. Angones' partiality for his own creations is also very evident in his treatment of the bad guys--Lunaris and especially Bradford, who are allowed to be much more threatening than any of Scrooge's comic-book antagonists, with the partial exception of Magica (who was made too threatening in the first season, then turned into a joke in the remaining seasons). Which brings me to the next part of my dissection:
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
A. Second in Wealth but First in Ineptitude
Barks’ most fully-developed treatment of Flintheart Glomgold was in “The Money Champ.” Although I enjoy all three of the Barks Glomgold stories, the Glomgold in “Second-Richest Duck” is simply a duplicate of Scrooge (which is the main point of the story—watching Scrooge react to a spiritual double who’s every bit as eccentric, crafty and greedy as himself), while Flintheart in “So Far and No Safari” is basically a plot device. “Money Champ,” however, gives a fully-rounded portrait of Flinty as an interesting antagonist, one who’s definitely a villain but who is fleetingly aware that he’s doing wrong. “Money Champ” also demonstrates that there is a distinct but very thin line between Scrooge and Flinty; we see both of them presented with the same temptation, which McDuck wrestles with and overcomes but which Glomgold gives in to. Additionally, the Glomgold of “Money Champ” is presented as a truly formidable foe for Scrooge, equaling him in smarts and scrappiness--which, combined with his greater unscrupulousness, allows Glomgold to stay ahead of McDuck for much of the story, till Glomgold’s own villainy finally backfires on him.
Neither Original Ducktales nor Rosa ever gave Glomgold a moment of self-knowledge the way Barks did in “Money Champ,” but both of them built on the formidable qualities of Glomgold demonstrated in that story and stresed that he had much in common with Scrooge. The continual back-and-forth, tit-for-tat bickering of Scrooge and Glomgold in Original Ducktales episodes like “Masters of the Djinn,” “Robot Robbers,” and “Ducky Mountain High,” to name only three examples, is very much in the tone of Barks’ stories; the Original Ducktales Glomgold was also allowed to verbally bait Scrooge and frequently outfoxed him, something the Angones Glomgold would never be allowed to do. For all the criticisms of Original Ducktales’ Scottification of Glomgold and its relocating him to Duckburg, I think that show captured the basic essence of the Barks character quite faithfully—sly, sarcastic, ruthless, a full match for Scrooge, and much more similar to his rival in temperament than either of them would admit.
Rosa, for his part, did an excellent job of making Glomgold a full equal and truly threatening rival to Scrooge in stories like “Son of the Sun,” “Return to Plain Awful,” and “Island at the Edge of Time”. His rendition of the character in those tales felt like an entirely believable development of the Barks original. However, in “Terror of the Transvaal” Rosa somewhat lost his grip on Flinty, due in part to the increasing emphasis, in his later work, on the Sheer Awesomeness of Scrooge and the corresponding diminishment of all his antagonists; the Glomgold of that story is reduced to a pathetic, cowardly, buffoonish sneak-thief who only gives Scrooge momentary trouble because Scrooge is too naïve. Rosa’s last full use of the character, in “The Last Lord of El Dorado” is better in that it gives Flinty some genuinely competent moments, but he still spends too much of the story enmeshed in slapstick and silly disguises and is treated far too contemptuously by Scrooge.
Another problem with “Transvaal” is that it backdates Scrooge and Flinty’s enmity to the days when both of them were poor and implies that Glomgold was motivated to become a “somebody” because of his personal envy and hatred of Scrooge (Rosa, as we know, wanted to more explicitly show that Scrooge “created” Glomgold in a flashback in “Son of the Sun.”) The whole idea of the hero and villain “creating” each other has become such a cliché that I much prefer the Barks concept of the two characters developing entirely independently of each other and ultimately clashing simply because of who they are, not because they have a shared history. I always get the impression that Rosa’s Glomgold wants to become the World’s Richest Duck in order to beat Scrooge--while Barks’ Glomgold wants to beat Scrooge in order to become the World’s Richest Duck.
Unfortunately, Angones and company, in handling Flinty, ignored Barks, ignored Original Ducktales (except for the character’s design), and ignored the earlier Rosa Glomgold tales. Instead, they appear to have drawn primarily on late Rosa as a starting-point for their Glomgold (if they consulted the comics at all)—providing their own version of the “Scrooge created Glomgold” idea, then taking Glomgold’s envy and hatred of Scrooge and Flanderizing it into stalkerish monomania, with the idea that he deliberately copies everything about his arch-nemesis. They also took Glomgold’s sporadic fallibility and frustration from the later Rosa stories and turned it into perpetual, blustering, oblivious idiocy, far beyond even the character’s lowest moments in “Transvaal” or “El Dorado.”
Defining Glomgold as solely motivated by a desire to defeat McDuck, not as a hard-driving Alpha Tycoon in his own right, is limiting enough, but making him utterly idiotic and incompetent in his efforts to best Scrooge is much worse. I can’t understand why no one in the New Ducktales team was able to realize that making the hero’s arch-enemy a fumbling idiot does not make the hero look cooler. Angones and his writers seemed to be having a competition to see how pathetically obsessed and ridiculous they could make Glomgold—beating the “joke” of his egoism and ineptitude to death, while laughing hysterically at their own humor, and self-indulgently bringing episodes to a screeching halt for long, pointless riffs on this theme.
I think “87-Cent Solution,” with Glomgold’s antics at the funeral and his later licking of Scrooge’s belongings, was the cringe-inducing low point of Angones’ unfunny love affair with his one-joke version of Glomgold, but there’s a great deal to choose from—other examples including Flinty’s slide presentation in “Moonvasion”, his self-defeating ravings at the beginning of “Doomsday Vault,” and his romance-comics style recounting of his meeting with Goldie in “White Agony Plains.” Even the character’s redesign was obviously intended to crudely ram home the joke of his inferiority and ineptitude; why else would they have taken pains to make him both chunkier and shorter than Scrooge?
Of course, as always with this show’s characters, Angones tried to have it both ways with Glomgold, using the “Duke Baloney” episode to show a repressed sympathetic side to the character and trying to demonstrate that Scrooge inadvertently contributed to his going astray. However, by this point the writers had forfeited all right to have Glomgold taken serious, having firmly established their supposedly tragic villain as a one-dimensional cartoon.
As I’ve said before, the single panel in “Money Champ” where Glomgold is recalling his mother’s fondest hopes gives more depth and tragedy to the character than all the faux nightmare-sequence dramatics of “Duke Baloney.” There should always be a feeling with Glomgold that, “there but for the grace of God” goes Scrooge. Not only is it impossible to feel that Angones’ Scrooge could conceivably fall from grace and become Angones’ Glomgold; it’s also impossible to believe that any human being (or Duck equivalent) could ever fall into the absurd evildoing that Angones’ Glomgold indulges in.
I agree on Duckworth, it just gets a little too much at times.
I don't personally mind the presence of the supernatural, even to a significant extent. However, if supernatural elements are going to be introduced, the implications of them need to be thought through.
As we can all agree, most of them in this show really weren't thought through.
Then again, given what happened to Doofus, maybe someone on the team just really didn't like Duckworth. It's hard to tell at this point.
I agree on the treatment of Huey vs Violet.
I've mentioned before that I not only greatly dislike their treatment of Huey on this show; he's a very accurate and realistic portrayal of an autistic person, down to some legitimately impressive details. As you say, however, he's seen as 'annoying and uncool' within the show itself.
Honestly, I still think it's grossly insulting and offensive. So I definitely understand what you're saying about the treatment of him in comparison to Violet.
It's made even worse by the fact that Webby is one of the characters that gives Huey a rough go of things on multiple occasions because of the traits in question. In comparison, she's much kinder to Violet, and even compliments her on her traits.
That being said, Violet herself seems to have a solid understanding with Huey for the most part. Maybe I'm forgetting, but I can't remember any time off-hand where she treated him in any mean-spirited way (Outside of 'Challenge of the Senior Junior Woodchucks', where she apologizes every time she's rude to him). I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in the show as a whole, there are problematic elements in relation to her character, but none of them are problems with Violet herself.
Of course, I hadn't considered the idea that the team were knocking the comic characters down to build their own ones up. (I can be pretty dense at times, and miss some blatantly obvious points) It certainly does cast a different light on Violet; at the very least, it does detract from the positive dynamic she has with Webby, to some degree. That being said, in a vacuum, I still like her character; sure, there are some prominent issues that come with the character, but they're not issues with the character herself. If the show didn't treat Huey so poorly, there'd be plenty of room for fun, wholesome group dynamics - which we see shades of with her character already.
Now, on to the meat of the matter - Glomgold.
You're pretty much spot-on for Barks' Glomgold; he's definitely the superior version of the character. Plus, 'The Money Champ' is a fantastic story; not only does it show him as a three-dimensional villain, but it makes something from 'The Second Richest Duck' abundantly clear - Glomgold really is only a squillionth of an inch behind Scrooge. Barks' Scrooge definitely has his flaws, but Glomgold tips just past them to the point of villainy. Glomgold is clever, but Scrooge is just that tiniest bit sharper. It shows that, if Scrooge doesn't bring his A-game, Glomgold will most likely beat him because they're that close in terms of capabilities. Then there's the ending of 'The Money Champ':
Glomgold manages to get one last laugh at Scrooge; Glomgold lost and has to eat Scrooge's hat, but it was shrunk; as a result, a lot of the satisfaction disappears for Scrooge. Glomgold obviously didn't intend for the hat to be shrunk, but he purposefully draws attention to the wager, just to spite Scrooge and ruin his victory. It's a great moment for his character - it shows that he really is a match for Scrooge when it comes to being sharp; it's his failure to properly apply his sharpness that causes his loss, rather than an inferiority to Scrooge.
Honestly, your summation of Glomgold in the original Ducktales is pretty spot-on, nothing much I could add.
Then there's Rosa's version. Like yourself, I feel that Scrooge 'creating' Glomgold detracts from the dynamic - though Barks' Glomgold does have something of a personal beef with Scrooge later on, his ultimate goal is to be the richest duck in the world. Their meeting in 'Terror of the Transvaal', while an interesting interpretation of the character, changes Glomgold's motivations. Personally, I never really bought Rosa's justification - his explanation that Glomgold's attitude could fit someone who had met Scrooge before. "On the other hand, we have no indication that Flintheart doesn't already know Scrooge in that tale; in fact, the cool manner in which Flintheart receives Scrooge could be inferred as a sign that Flintheart knew who he was, and knew he was on his way to Africa, having met him on the ship coming over." It just doesn't read that way to me; like, it can work, but it feels like a massive stretch. Still, Barks' Glomgold only cares about Scrooge in the sense that he's a rival - a challenger for the title of richest duck, which is a blow to his ego. When they argue with each other, it devolves to "I have this"/"Well I have this!" - they want to be the best, and won't settle for less. It's only personal in the sense that both are insulted by the other's status; "I'm obviously better, who does he think he is?" Whereas, with Rosa, it becomes something different. Unlike Barks' stories, where Scrooge and Glomgold are neck-and-neck in every way, Rosa's Scrooge is just superior to Glomgold. Barks' Glomgold wants to defeat the richest duck in the world - Rosa's Glomgold wants to defeat Scrooge McDuck. Rosa's version is defined by his relationship to Scrooge - if you don't have Scrooge involved, Glomgold is still just some swindler trying to coast by on the success of others. Without meeting Scrooge, he doesn't even really care about being fabulously wealthy - his response to Scrooge's dreams of wealth is a "blah blah blah" motion with his hand. Barks created a character that served as a reflection of Scrooge - someone who was in just about the same position as Scrooge, but failed to ever surpass him because he took Scrooge's negative qualities too far. Rosa's version of that character no longer works as that reflection - he's still a worthy antagonist, as you say, but an element of the character is lost. We know that he was a pathetic swindler who only wanted to become rich out of spite, and that made him into the man he is. Basically, I fully agree with you - Rosa's version of Glomgold has plenty of solid appearances as an antagonist, but the idea that Scrooge 'created' him detracts from Barks' character.
Now, onto DT17's Glomgold. I can agree that he doesn't work as Flintheart Glomgold - he, like many other characters, is far beyond a terrible adaptation of a character. That being said... while he does have plenty of flaws, I actually really enjoyed this character. (For convenience, I'm going to refer to the character as Duke Baloney. We all know he's a terrible adaptation, so I'll be referring more to his merits as a character that they've created. Seeing as he's so far divorced from any other version of Glomgold, he may as well be an original character anyway.)
There's one detail about him that makes him work for me - he actually belongs in the universe that has been created. One of the main complaints about this show is that it's mean-spirited down to the core; the characters do horrible things, the relationships feel hollow and pretty much all of the 'loving' sentiment is unearned. Whenever you have moments where you're supposed to feel emotional about the characters, it misses the mark because either it's totally unearned (See: Della) or because the show feels the need to ruin the moment with a high-LARIOUS joke. Most of the major characters come across as obnoxious at best and downright horrible at worst - not a good look for your protagonists. Duke, however, is right at home with it - they don't constantly feed us the nonsense that they do with other characters: "No, we know that Della abandoned her children and has barely grown as a person, but she cares!", "We know that Gyro is blatantly a horrible person, but it's all because of what happened with 2BO!". These sentimental moments never work naturally, so the show has to constantly tell us how we're supposed to feel. You don't get that with Duke - because he's a natural fit for this universe and they can work with that. He's every bit as cruel, sarcastic and mean-spirited as this universe is made to be - and he's completely unapologetic about it. He revels in being that person, and openly admits to it. When he does something terrible, you're not waiting for the eye-rolling moment of him learning his incredibly basic lesson, nor are you waiting for the 'heartfelt moment' where his cruel behaviour gets glossed over. As a result, his character feels much more sincere than most of the protagonists - I know that the show isn't going to turn around and expect me to think of him as some poor, misunderstood soul, unlike it does with the supposed heroes.
While I do enjoy him as being grossly incompetent, I can agree that it doesn't really work with the narrative. For one, I just can't buy him as the second-richest duck in the world. No matter how you spin it, there's no way that he could maintain that level of wealth. They make it out that he made his fortune by cheating people and doing things underhandedly, but he's so incompetent that the idea of him staying rich for so long is just unbelievable. Then, as you say, he doesn't do anything to make Scrooge look more competent - he never presents a meaningful challenge in any way. And they constantly beat you over the head with that; "Look at how much better Scrooge is in every way!" doesn't really work when the same could be said of literal children.
Admittedly, however, I did find his antics to be hilarious, if I'm honest. A large part of that is my own sense of humour - I love 'stupid humour'. The kind that's reliant on being sheer, bizarre nonsense; it's outlandish and barely makes any sense. Or the kind of jokes that rely on unbelievable stupidity or moon logic from the characters involved. As you can imagine, that gave Duke plenty of points for me. Plus, like I mentioned above, his character comes across as sincere in-universe; unlike the constant snarky quips or sarcasm, most of the jokes around him are raw, unbridled lunacy. Of course, it says a lot about the show when my praise for a villain is that the humour around him is more sincere than that around the protagonists, but I digress. Most of the scenes you mentioned being cringe-inducing low points were honestly great for me - mainly because, again, they have the show embrace its mean-spirited nature, rather than piling on thick layers of shallow sentiment. Him being so totally absorbed in his own world is endearing to me - he has this vaguely discernible internal logic that makes sense to him, and that's all that matters to him. Plus, I actually like his bizarre, over-the-top nature; I can definitely understand it coming across as too much, but the sheer lengths he goes to to do things his way is something that tends to get laughs out of me. I suppose that a lot of it boils down to personal preference, though - him being a deranged, over-the-top lunatic is funny to me.
I will say, though, I do feel that the 'Scottish' side of him felt excessive. Like, when Bradford has been defeated and Duke's comment is "He's not even wearin' a kilt." Honestly, that entire element of the character felt tacked on - either make him Scottish, or keep him South African. Like I said, I enjoy the stupidity involved with the character, but the reasoning there was too flimsy even for my tastes.
As for 'The Ballad of Duke Baloney'... I actually liked the episode, but yeah, it fails to arouse any real sympathy for Duke. Honestly, I felt that, again, it worked because it subverted the show's usual trite nature. He has his shot at a happy life - then he gets his epiphany and a real shot at redemption... and ignores it, because he prefers being his usual self. He recognizes that he could have a happy life as a fisherman, but wholeheartedly embraces himself as a terrible person. When you have characters (like Della) constantly learning lessons but continuing to be nasty people, it's just refreshing to see the lesson rejected and for the character to admit to what they are. As far as his backstory is concerned... no. I don't necessarily mind the idea of Duke and Scrooge having the same beats for their origin point, but the way it's handled is ridiculous. The main issue is that, despite his ridiculous attitude, Duke is completely in the right. Duke may have missed the point of Scrooge's lesson, but he was still entitled to be paid for his work; Scrooge just continued to argue with him, and never even considered just giving him the dollar for the shoe-shine. Then, as Duke points out, Scrooge is the richest duck in the world. There's a huge difference between being conned by some random ditch-digger and being conned by literally the richest person alive. Plus, Duke was only a child at the time - sure, his ridiculous schemes were never going to go anywhere, but why trample on the kid's ideas? He gets into an argument with a literal child because the child had a wacky idea to get rich. It's just absurd. Obviously, Duke's overreaction is excessive, but Scrooge was completely in the wrong there. The fact that that single incident led to him becoming Glomgold... it's not exactly top-tier writing or anything, but it's consistent enough with his character that I can live with it.
Plus, while I've mentioned it before, I may as well bring it up since it's relevant here. The team were very vocal about getting authentic voice actors... so why was it that the South African character pretending to be Scottish was played by an American? It's not even like Magica where, to my memory, they never specifically claim that she's Italian in the show. Glomgold is confirmed to be South African in universe. Why was he not played by someone from South Africa? Failing that, someone who was Scottish? It's not the biggest deal, but considering how much attention was drawn to Panchito, José and Don Karnage, it sticks out.
All in all, I suppose my main point is that Duke Baloney is a character that, like most in this show, can't be taken seriously. The difference is that, with him, you're not really expected to; he's completely designed around the ludicrous, mean-spirited nature of the show and, as a result, fits into it easily. I understand completely why plenty of people dislike him - he's an abysmal adaptation of the real Flintheart Glomgold, and his humour is aimed at a very particular audience. He managed to appeal to me and get some solid laughs, but I get that he's not for everyone.
Plus, as aldwayne says, he was a blatant expy of Lord Hater from Wander Over Yonder, right down to sharing the same VA. Hater is one of my favourite characters of all time, so that definitely impacted my opinions
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I wonder if the difference between Huey and Violet can be placed in a wider context of contemporary cartoon gender tropes. In a kind of reverse bigotry, girls (and minorities) are more often portrayed as heroes and examples, while boys are acceptable targets to be laughed at. Of course, it's never wholly black-and-white, not even in DuckTales, but the differences between what they do and how they are treated are clear: Della versus Donald, Violet versus Huey, Webby versus Doofus, Beakley versus Gyro. I think it's largely a coincidence that this coincides with the new characters dreamt up by Angones and company, because they happened to be balancing out the male-centredness of the old series and comics.
Admittedly, however, I did find his antics to be hilarious, if I'm honest. A large part of that is my own sense of humour - I love 'stupid humour'. The kind that's reliant on being sheer, bizarre nonsense; it's outlandish and barely makes any sense. Or the kind of jokes that rely on unbelievable stupidity or moon logic from the characters involved. As you can imagine, that gave Duke plenty of points for me. Plus, like I mentioned above, his character comes across as sincere in-universe; unlike the constant snarky quips or sarcasm, most of the jokes around him are raw, unbridled lunacy. Of course, it says a lot about the show when my praise for a villain is that the humour around him is more sincere than that around the protagonists, but I digress. Most of the scenes you mentioned being cringe-inducing low points were honestly great for me - mainly because, again, they have the show embrace its mean-spirited nature, rather than piling on thick layers of shallow sentiment. Him being so totally absorbed in his own world is endearing to me - he has this vaguely discernible internal logic that makes sense to him, and that's all that matters to him. Plus, I actually like his bizarre, over-the-top nature; I can definitely understand it coming across as too much, but the sheer lengths he goes to to do things his way is something that tends to get laughs out of me. I suppose that a lot of it boils down to personal preference, though - him being a deranged, over-the-top lunatic is funny to me.
I can actually conceive of a setting in which I too would have found this version of "Glomgold" entertaining--the cartoons of Jay Ward, for example, where nothing is supposed to be taken seriously, or the original Darwking Duck series, which had a very off-the-wall sense of humor. However, in a show which presents itself as a supposed adventure series with genuine Stakes (TM), having the hero's most frequent recurring nemesis be an insane buffoon simply deflates any possibility of taking the adventure seriously. Glomgold is hardly the only deflating element in the show or even the most offensive, but he's one of the most ostentatious, shattering any fleeting sense of reality as soon as he appears and repeatedly stopping the story dead to engage in over-the-top shenanigans. Also, I just find it rather unpleasant that Glomgold is so relentlessly mocked for his pathetic, delusional ineptitude; repeatedly pounding on the the joke of "Har har, this guy thinks he's hot stuff but he's such a loser" is distasteful to me; again, his fat-little-duck redesign seems deliberately intended to ram home the point of his epic lameness, and rather gives the lie to Angones' slimming of Burger in the name of sensitivity.
As to casting an American as Flinty's voice, I think it's pretty clear that Angones wanted Craig Ferguson to essentially reprise his Lord Hater role, just as he wanted Catherine Tate to re-team with David Tennant, and was happy to jettison his proclaimed devotion to ethnically appropriate casting for the sake of exploiting those actors' prior work. Mention of Tate brings me to the next part of my analysis:
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
B. The New Face of Magica De Spell
Barks’ first version of Magica, in “The Midas Touch”, was cool, reserved, and crafty, always one step ahead of the Ducks and given to talking in a formal, rather poetic, slightly archaic idiom that seemed appropriate to her Continental origins and mystic profession (“Naught stands between me and my perfect amulet now save time and distance!” “Ah, Vesuvius! Your breath is hot tonight!”) This initial version soon gave way to a sorceress who was much more manic, irritable and slangy (cf. “Isle of Golden Geese”: “Oh gilly, golly, gee! Hang the strategy! We’re going ashore with all hands snatching!”).
Although he quickly developed Magica into a more comic figure, Barks still retained touches of her original cool menace and evocative command of language, nimbly balancing the sinister aspect of her powers with comedic touches. Magica’s long introductory sequence in “For Old Dime’s Sake,” when she demonstrates her new wand, is a beautiful example of this balancing act, with ominous artwork and dialogue like “In the ruined temples of Boreas, Juno, and the Furies, I scrounged secrets that tell me those gods were more likely live sorcerers than figments of ancient dreams!” giving a nicely eerie tone to the story, which is leavened but not dissipated by more humorous and colloquial lines like “From outer space I summon the boogermen of the universe!”
Although Original Ducktales never adequately defined just why Magica wanted Scrooge’s dime (in “Send in the Clones,” she rants about ruling the world, but in “Dime Enough for Luck,” she talks specifically about gaining control of all the money in the world), that show maintained, albeit without Barks’ level of skill, an appropriate balance between Powerful Magica and Funny Magica. The aforementioned “Send in the Clones” is a good an example as any; there, she’s dramatically conjuring in a visually impressive and eerie lair at one moment, then engaging in slapstick mistaken-identity shenanigans with the Nephews and the Beagles the next. Although I know many fans object to June Foray’s use of her East European “Natasha Fatale” accent for the character, rather than an Italian one, Foray’s energetic voice work also did a good job of conveying both Magica’s sinister side and her excitable, manic qualities.
All this is by way of prologue to my main problem with the New Ducktales Magica—i.e., that Angones and company completely failed to achieve Barks’ carefully balanced sinister/humorous take on Magica, and instead made her at once too evil and too ridiculous. New Magica is no longer a sly mortal student of the black arts out to snaffle Old Number One in order to achieve the very human goal of getting rich; she’s now a bloodthirsty immortal witch whose primary motivation (like every other villain on this show) is a murderous vendetta against Scrooge. Once again, Angones simply overwrote the comic-book character with a superhero/pop-culture cliché, in this case the Dark Enchanter/Enchantress imprisoned for years who returns to take revenge on her imprisoner and/or his descendants.
Angones, in building on the Evil Enchantress trope, also made Magica a gleeful mass-murderer--whose murderousness was most incongruously played for laughs, in yet another example of how this show attempts to joke its way around genuinely disturbing ideas that should either be given serious treatment or left alone. Her rants about destroying all of Scrooge’s loved ones in the first season and her callous and brutal treatment of Lena are bad enough, but the glimpses of her “backstory” are even worse—her annihilation of the Blot’s village, the clearly implied slaughter of its inhabitants, and her arbitrary and apparently irreversible transformations of the villagers into animals in the flashback sequence in “Life and Crimes of Scrooge McDuck” (not to mention her suggestion about turning those villagers into turnips and eating them).
It’s possible to have a villain threaten or even attempt horrible things and still play that villain for laughs (as Gottfredson so often did with Pete, and as Jymn Magon did with Don Karnage), but when a villain is shown to have actually done things as objectively horrifying as Magica is shown to have done here, it becomes much more difficult to laugh at the same villain. This is another case of Angones trying to have it both ways; his Magica is a sadistic tyrant, on a level with C. S. Lewis’ Empress Jadis or Maleficient from Sleeping Beauty, but he also tries to make scenes like her cruelty to the villagers “funny,” and even tries to make us feel sorry for her over the loss of her less maniacal but equally evil brother. What GeoX called the “psychotic kill-em-all” depiction of Magica also undermines some bits that are even genuinely funny, like the depowered Magica’s attempt to play magician at Funso’s in “GlomTales", which is promptly followed by reemphasizing her desire to slaughter Scrooge’s family.
Although I intend to deal with the show’s voice-acting at greater length in a separate post, I should add that I actually had no objection per se to Magica’s British accent on this show, just as Foray’s “Natasha” accent for Magica never really bothered me--particularly since neither of the TV versions of the character were ever actually identified as Italian; Magica should be tied to the Old World, due to the arcane nature of her profession, but I don't think being specifically Italian is as central to her character as, for example, being specifically Brazilian is to Jose Carioca's character (Barks, in "Isle of Golden Geese," even had her living in Duckburg itself). I think the main reason Barks made her Italian, and not some other European nationality, was simply (1) because he wanted to use Mount Vesuvius as her home base and (2) because he wanted her to be sultrily attractive, and Italian actresses like Sophia Loren and Gina Lollabrigida were regarded as the epitome of sultry attractiveness in America at the time of the "Midas Touch."
All that said, I still must criticize Angones for the hypocrisy of his Anglicization of Magica; as I and others have pointed out, he made a big deal out of getting ethnically appropriate actors for other roles (which led to the unforgivable jettisoning of Jim Cummings’ inimitable Don Karnage), but abandoned his professed devotion to authentic accents in order to exploit the Dr. Who connection between Tate and David Tennant. Regardless of her accent, Catherine Tate, like Foray before her, is a good actress who's able to be both amusing and intimidating, and is much better at purely vocal acting than most of the American celebrities on New Ducktales. The real problem with New Magica is not Tate's accent or acting, but the writing, which takes a great comical antagonist and turns her into a monster while simultaneously expecting us to find her comically entertaining.
Out of all the original Barks villains, Magica is the one who lends herself most easily to the screen. Disney has a great resume when it comes to witches and sorceresses, and her petty obsession over Scrooge gives her that personal touch that Angones is looking for. Furthermore, magic allows you to get creative in animation. I would encourage screen writers to make Magica larger than life, because it's fun. That said, there is such a thing as going too far. Magica is one of Barks' most human antagonists as well, and this is something other writers (including Don Rosa) all get right about the character. She's not a powerful being, she's a person who wields powerful and arcane spells. If the wand breaks, all she can do is throw a hissy fit. This is where I part with Angones' adaptation. The original DuckTales already had a dark wizard for mass destruction. Hello, Merlock the Magician?
Last Edit: May 2, 2021 18:38:48 GMT by That Duckfan
Out of all the original Barks villains, Magica is the one who lends herself most easily to the screen. Disney has a great resume when it comes to witches and sorceresses, and her petty obsession over Scrooge is unique. Furthermore, magic allows you to get creative in animation. I would encourage screen writers to make Magica larger than life. That said, there is such a thing as going too far. Magica is one of Barks' most human antagonists as well, and this is something other writers (including Don Rosa) get right about the character. She's not a powerful being, she's a person who wields powerful and arcane spells. If the wand breaks, all she can do is throw a hissy fit. This is where I part with Angones' adaptation. The original DuckTales already had a dark wizard for this kind of destruction. Hello, Merlock the Magician?
Yes, yes! I can identify with comics-Magica precisely because of her limitations. I may not be as singularly obsessed as she is, but I feel for her in her frustration. This is not entirely unlike the way in which I feel for Donald in his frustrations. If she becomes an immortal magical whatnot, she may grab my attention but never my sympathy. She is, ahem, like a hurricane.
Admittedly, however, I did find his antics to be hilarious, if I'm honest. A large part of that is my own sense of humour - I love 'stupid humour'. The kind that's reliant on being sheer, bizarre nonsense; it's outlandish and barely makes any sense. Or the kind of jokes that rely on unbelievable stupidity or moon logic from the characters involved. As you can imagine, that gave Duke plenty of points for me. Plus, like I mentioned above, his character comes across as sincere in-universe; unlike the constant snarky quips or sarcasm, most of the jokes around him are raw, unbridled lunacy. Of course, it says a lot about the show when my praise for a villain is that the humour around him is more sincere than that around the protagonists, but I digress. Most of the scenes you mentioned being cringe-inducing low points were honestly great for me - mainly because, again, they have the show embrace its mean-spirited nature, rather than piling on thick layers of shallow sentiment. Him being so totally absorbed in his own world is endearing to me - he has this vaguely discernible internal logic that makes sense to him, and that's all that matters to him. Plus, I actually like his bizarre, over-the-top nature; I can definitely understand it coming across as too much, but the sheer lengths he goes to to do things his way is something that tends to get laughs out of me. I suppose that a lot of it boils down to personal preference, though - him being a deranged, over-the-top lunatic is funny to me.
I can actually conceive of a setting in which I too would have found this version of "Glomgold" entertaining--the cartoons of Jay Ward, for example, where nothing is supposed to be taken seriously, or the original Darwking Duck series, which had a very off-the-wall sense of humor. However, in a show which presents itself as a supposed adventure series with genuine Stakes (TM), having the hero's most frequent recurring nemesis be an insane buffoon simply deflates any possibility of taking the adventure seriously. Glomgold is hardly the only deflating element in the show or even the most offensive, but he's one of the most ostentatious, shattering any fleeting sense of reality as soon as he appears and repeatedly stopping the story dead to engage in over-the-top shenanigans. Also, I just find it rather unpleasant that Glomgold is so relentlessly mocked for his pathetic, delusional ineptitude; repeatedly pounding on the the joke of "Har har, this guy thinks he's hot stuff but he's such a loser" is distasteful to me; again, his fat-little-duck redesign seems deliberately intended to ram home the point of his epic lameness, and rather gives the lie to Angones' slimming of Burger in the name of sensitivity.
As to casting an American as Flinty's voice, I think it's pretty clear that Angones wanted Craig Ferguson to essentially reprise his Lord Hater role, just as he wanted Catherine Tate to re-team with David Tennant, and was happy to jettison his proclaimed devotion to ethnically appropriate casting for the sake of exploiting those actors' prior work. Mention of Tate brings me to the next part of my analysis:
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
B. The New Face of Magica De Spell
Barks’ first version of Magica, in “The Midas Touch”, was cool, reserved, and crafty, always one step ahead of the Ducks and given to talking in a formal, rather poetic, slightly archaic idiom that seemed appropriate to her Continental origins and mystic profession (“Naught stands between me and my perfect amulet now save time and distance!” “Ah, Vesuvius! Your breath is hot tonight!”) This initial version soon gave way to a sorceress who was much more manic, irritable and slangy (cf. “Isle of Golden Geese”: “Oh gilly, golly, gee! Hang the strategy! We’re going ashore with all hands snatching!”).
Although he quickly developed Magica into a more comic figure, Barks still retained touches of her original cool menace and evocative command of language, nimbly balancing the sinister aspect of her powers with comedic touches. Magica’s long introductory sequence in “For Old Dime’s Sake,” when she demonstrates her new wand, is a beautiful example of this balancing act, with ominous artwork and dialogue like “In the ruined temples of Boreas, Juno, and the Furies, I scrounged secrets that tell me those gods were more likely live sorcerers than figments of ancient dreams!” giving a nicely eerie tone to the story, which is leavened but not dissipated by more humorous and colloquial lines like “From outer space I summon the boogermen of the universe!”
Although Original Ducktales never adequately defined just why Magica wanted Scrooge’s dime (in “Send in the Clones,” she rants about ruling the world, but in “Dime Enough for Luck,” she talks specifically about gaining control of all the money in the world), that show maintained, albeit without Barks’ level of skill, an appropriate balance between Powerful Magica and Funny Magica. The aforementioned “Send in the Clones” is a good an example as any; there, she’s dramatically conjuring in a visually impressive and eerie lair at one moment, then engaging in slapstick mistaken-identity shenanigans with the Nephews and the Beagles the next. Although I know many fans object to June Foray’s use of her East European “Natasha Fatale” accent for the character, rather than an Italian one, Foray’s energetic voice work also did a good job of conveying both Magica’s sinister side and her excitable, manic qualities.
All this is by way of prologue to my main problem with the New Ducktales Magica—i.e., that Angones and company completely failed to achieve Barks’ carefully balanced sinister/humorous take on Magica, and instead made her at once too evil and too ridiculous. New Magica is no longer a sly mortal student of the black arts out to snaffle Old Number One in order to achieve the very human goal of getting rich; she’s now a bloodthirsty immortal witch whose primary motivation (like every other villain on this show) is a murderous vendetta against Scrooge. Once again, Angones simply overwrote the comic-book character with a superhero/pop-culture cliché, in this case the Dark Enchanter/Enchantress imprisoned for years who returns to take revenge on her imprisoner and/or his descendants.
Angones, in building on the Evil Enchantress trope, also made Magica a gleeful mass-murderer--whose murderousness was most incongruously played for laughs, in yet another example of how this show attempts to joke its way around genuinely disturbing ideas that should either be given serious treatment or left alone. Her rants about destroying all of Scrooge’s loved ones in the first season and her callous and brutal treatment of Lena are bad enough, but the glimpses of her “backstory” are even worse—her annihilation of the Blot’s village, the clearly implied slaughter of its inhabitants, and her arbitrary and apparently irreversible transformations of the villagers into animals in the flashback sequence in “Life and Crimes of Scrooge McDuck” (not to mention her suggestion about turning those villagers into turnips and eating them).
It’s possible to have a villain threaten or even attempt horrible things and still play that villain for laughs (as Gottfredson so often did with Pete, and as Jymn Magon did with Don Karnage), but when a villain is shown to have actually done things as objectively horrifying as Magica is shown to have done here, it becomes much more difficult to laugh at the same villain. This is another case of Angones trying to have it both ways; his Magica is a sadistic tyrant, on a level with C. S. Lewis’ Empress Jadis or Maleficient from Sleeping Beauty, but he also tries to make scenes like her cruelty to the villagers “funny,” and even tries to make us feel sorry for her over the loss of her less maniacal but equally evil brother. What GeoX called the “psychotic kill-em-all” depiction of Magica also undermines some bits that are even genuinely funny, like the depowered Magica’s attempt to play magician at Funso’s in “GlomTales", which is promptly followed by reemphasizing her desire to slaughter Scrooge’s family.
Although I intend to deal with the show’s voice-acting at greater length in a separate post, I should add that I actually had no objection per se to Magica’s British accent on this show, just as Foray’s “Natasha” accent for Magica never really bothered me--particularly since neither of the TV versions of the character were ever actually identified as Italian; Magica should be tied to the Old World, due to the arcane nature of her profession, but I don't think being specifically Italian is as central to her character as, for example, being specifically Brazilian is to Jose Carioca's character (Barks, in "Isle of Golden Geese," even had her living in Duckburg itself). I think the main reason Barks made her Italian, and not some other European nationality, was simply (1) because he wanted to use Mount Vesuvius as her home base and (2) because he wanted her to be sultrily attractive, and Italian actresses like Sophia Loren and Gina Lollabrigida were regarded as the epitome of sultry attractiveness in America at the time of the "Midas Touch."
All that said, I still must criticize Angones for the hypocrisy of his Anglicization of Magica; as I and others have pointed out, he made a big deal out of getting ethnically appropriate actors for other roles (which led to the unforgivable jettisoning of Jim Cummings’ inimitable Don Karnage), but abandoned his professed devotion to authentic accents in order to exploit the Dr. Who connection between Tate and David Tennant. Regardless of her accent, Catherine Tate, like Foray before her, is a good actress who's able to be both amusing and intimidating, and is much better at purely vocal acting than most of the American celebrities on New Ducktales. The real problem with New Magica is not Tate's accent or acting, but the writing, which takes a great comical antagonist and turns her into a monster while simultaneously expecting us to find her comically entertaining.
I can fully agree that he doesn't work if you take it seriously; like you say, he deflates pretty much any degree of tension whenever he's on-screen. I suppose my point of view is that I can enjoy him when things aren't taken seriously, where a good chunk of the cast don't really work either way; like with Gyro (If you take him seriously, he's a nasty person. If you don't, he's an uninteresting cliché). Of course, it again comes down to the humour - if that doesn't land, the character has no appeal whatsoever, so I do get your point.
As for his personality, I definitely get where you're coming from. I don't personally mind the idea to an extent, but there are times in the show where it gets taken too far, which carry some unfortunate implications. Like in "The Ballad of Duke Baloney", where Scrooge points out that "a simple brain injury is actually a step up" for him. It's this business of having to make it 'real' that bothers me - he's not just a wacky, cartoony lunatic, he has to have some sort of brain damage or something. I don't mind his failures too much, personally - it feels as if he's supposed to be a Dick Dastardly/Dan Backslide kind of character, but amped up to 11. The mockery from characters like Scrooge in particular does get excessive at times, but... I don't know, the way I picked it up might sound a little odd.
I actually find his insanity respectable in a way because he keeps going, despite all of the mockery? Like, he's hammered down constantly as this idiotic failure, but he never gives up - he keeps going for Scrooge's fortune, he's always able to blow off the insults, he always comes back with a more bizarre scheme... Plus, he's actually pretty clever by this universe's rules - in 'Moonvasion', he manages to save the day and get one over on Scrooge. In 'Glomtales', he only loses because the plot demands it - which comes through with the abysmal way it happens. Like, I definitely understand that they didn't intend it to come across that way - he's supposed to be the pathetic, delusional loser that you're describing. Yet, because of the mean-spirited nature of the universe, he ends up feeling less like the doofy villain and more like the underdog. Unlike the 'wonderful family' who are turning on each other and mocking each other at every opportunity, Duke has a single-minded tenacity and follows things through to the end. Unlike the wishy-washy sentiment carried by 'child-abandoning-Della' or 'I'm-the-best-person-ever' Scrooge, Duke revels in being a villain, and makes a point of denying these 'heartfelt moments'. Unlike the protagonists, who constantly go at things with this attitude of "eh, just another day at the office", Duke gives everything he does 110%. Hell, if I'm honest, he feels like more of a hero than the actual supposed heroes. His character is more genuine and, in all honesty, he earned some wins - 'Glomtales', in particular, was a case where he absolutely deserved to win, and his loss was a complete cop-out. Again, I'm aware that this isn't how we're supposed to interpret the character - he was made to be mocked, like you've said. It's just that I, personally, like his character because the writing of the show ends up making him more compelling than most of the actual protagonists to me.
As for his redesign... it is bizarrely at odds with the supposed progressive nature of the show. It's another Sheldon Cooper kind of deal - "Sure, he's a pathetic fat guy, but we didn't joke about him being fat, so it's fine!" Like... fat-shaming isn't exclusively about characters wanting to eat all the time. As you say, pointing a finger at one character and labelling him as a pathetic loser, and having him be one of the only overweight major characters in the entire series...? I agree, it's just ridiculous.
I figure that to be the case, but what bothers me is how little attention it gets. A lot of attention was drawn to the Caballeros, and many people praised the team for it. Yet very few people noticed or cared when it came to Glomgold? Again, Magica at least has the vague excuse of not explicitly being Italian in this universe (to my memory anyway), whereas Glomgold is excplicitly from South Africa.
At any rate, on to Magica!
One character I do have vivid memories of in the original series is Magica. I have very fond memories of her character - her appearances in non-Ducktales media, like "Donald Duck: Goin' Quackers" was one of my first exposures to the Duck universe beyond Donald. The Beagle Boys in that game didn't really leave much of an impact on me, but Magica did; her stages in that game are some of my personal favourites. As such, I'm a touch biased; I knew her through June Foray long before I learned of her Italian origins, so I have a tendency to be more lenient on her miscasting than I am for other characters.
As you say, the version of her in the original series captures a lot of what Barks was going for, even if there are a few missteps. That show, much like Darkwing Duck, was more interested in telling individual stories, rather than having continuity. As such, she falls into a similar situation to Negaduck - their motivations come second to their characters. Magica's motivation is whatever works in the episode, much like Negaduck's lack of a defined origin story. That being said, you're spot on about June Foray - though her accent is completely incorrect as far as the character goes, her delivery is just so perfect for what the character is that I can look past it. Again, though, there may be hints of nostalgic bias in that.
Then there's new Magica... ugh. She's so boring.
How you can make Magica DeSpell bland, I have no idea, but they managed it. They have her as a serious villain figure, but... I just can't take her seriously. Like, in 'Jaw$', lines like "Dental hygiene can wait!" or "Could you please try to care about our centuries-old blood feud?" take away from that. Then you have episodes like 'Glomtales', where she's a magician at Funso's - it detracts from her as a serious character. The problem there is similar to the one with Glomgold - that one element of the character is integral to who they are.
I pointed out that Glomgold works for me because his humour lands - if it didn't, I'd have no reason to like him. With Magica, the seriousness doesn't land - and there's nothing compelling about her to fall back on. They're so quick to undercut her character with jokes (albeit slightly less quick than they are with most other characters), but once she's been undermined, the entire supposed appeal of her character disappears.
They try to make her come across as more evil, or more of a genuine threat, than most villains - but this isn't the kind of show where that works. Compare her to Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender:
Azula was introduced as a much more serious villain than Zuko. She actually won on multiple occasions, and was a much more serious threat to the protagonists than Zuko ever was. The reason it worked was because she was given time. From her first appearance, she appeared in a significant number of episodes, slowly building herself up as a serious threat and showing herself to be a real danger to the protagonists. Magica, in contrast, has to contend with everyone else on the Ducktales cast - as such, she doesn't have the opportunity to make that lasting impact that Azula does.
Even if you compare her to Lord Dominator from Wander Over Yonder:
Dominator is one of the most serious villains in Wander Over Yonder. She's still goofy like everyone else, but she's a legitimate threat in a way that characters like Lord Hater or Emperor Awesome are not. In her first appearance, she shatters the perceptions of the main characters: Wander can't befriend her, Sylvia can't fight her, Hater can't overpower her and Commander Peepers can't outwit her. Yet she's not played completely seriously either - she's just as zany as the rest of the cast, while still being a capable threat.
Magica is supposed to be a serious threat, but her appearances are spread out through the show which takes away from her impact when she does appear. Plus, among those appearances, she spends half of her time being undermined by the sarcastic nature of the show. She doesn't work as a goofy character, but she doesn't work as a serious one, either.
As for the attempts in "Life and Crimes of Scrooge McDuck" to give her sympathy... Ugh. Like, in that very same episode, she's tormenting villagers and gleefully destroying families. Not to mention that, at this point of the show, we've seen her emotionally abusing a child and slaughtering a village. Like, with Ma Beagle, you could still look at Scrooge as being a jerk from stealing a drink from a crying child - but Magica was just attempting to kill him. Why shouldn't he tell her to buzz off? She was the one who turned Poe into a regular raven, while trying to kill Scrooge - she doesn't deserve his help or sympathy.
I can agree that Magica being Italian isn't absolutely necessary for her character, but I simply cannot forgive them for making her British. For one, the crew going on about how great it was that they were inclusive, and how they were fixing older portrayals... again, Magica is much more prominent that Panchito, José, D'jinn etc. They claim to be progressive, but they didn't 'fix' two of the most prominent villains - the 'fixes' were saved for characters who had their race changed (Like Fenton or Gosalyn) or for characters that only had a couple of appearances (Like the Caballeros or D'Jinn). I can't comment much on Tate's role in Dr. Who (Never watched), but I didn't really enjoy her delivery here. It probably does come down to the script, though, as you say. She's supposed to be this great, hammy, evil villain, but... she doesn't really come across as threatening to me. You know in "Missing Links of Moorshire" when Glomgold starts ranting, and Scrooge groans, pointing out that they have another ten minutes of his diatribe? That's how I felt whenever Magica spoke. Like... "Ugh, I get it, you're eeeeeevil. Please just move on."
All in all, Magica was a waste. Weak as a threat, weak as a joke... honestly one of the most boring characters in the show, for me.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I can't comment much on Tate's role in Dr. Who (Never watched), but I didn't really enjoy her delivery here. It probably does come down to the script, though, as you say. She's supposed to be this great, hammy, evil villain, but... she doesn't really come across as threatening to me. You know in "Missing Links of Moorshire" when Glomgold starts ranting, and Scrooge groans, pointing out that they have another ten minutes of his diatribe? That's how I felt whenever Magica spoke. Like... "Ugh, I get it, you're eeeeeevil. Please just move on."
The thing about Catherine Tate is that she does well with grounded characters. She achieved fame in her own sketch show, The Catherine Tate Show, in which she generally played petty, b*tchy, or privileged women getting their comeuppance. Her most famous character is Lauren, a wisecracking high school student whose catchphrase is "Am I bovvered" ("Do I look like I care?"). Her character in Doctor Who is an interesting extention of that role: a frustrated temp who's being treated as disposable by the people in her life, but who learns to grow as a person as the Doctor believes in her and shows her the wonders of the universe.
Catherine Tate characters are typically skeptical, too cool for school, and aloof about the wider world.
Why they asked her to play an fantastical evil sorceress bent on death and destruction is well and truly beyond me.
Angones, in building on the Evil Enchantress trope, also made Magica a gleeful mass-murderer--whose murderousness was most incongruously played for laughs, in yet another example of how this show attempts to joke its way around genuinely disturbing ideas that should either be given serious treatment or left alone. Her rants about destroying all of Scrooge’s loved ones in the first season and her callous and brutal treatment of Lena are bad enough, but the glimpses of her “backstory” are even worse—her annihilation of the Blot’s village, the clearly implied slaughter of its inhabitants, and her arbitrary and apparently irreversible transformations of the villagers into animals in the flashback sequence in “Life and Crimes of Scrooge McDuck” (not to mention her suggestion about turning those villagers into turnips and eating them).
It’s possible to have a villain threaten or even attempt horrible things and still play that villain for laughs (as Gottfredson so often did with Pete, and as Jymn Magon did with Don Karnage), but when a villain is shown to have actually done things as objectively horrifying as Magica is shown to have done here, it becomes much more difficult to laugh at the same villain. This is another case of Angones trying to have it both ways; his Magica is a sadistic tyrant, on a level with C. S. Lewis’ Empress Jadis or Maleficient from Sleeping Beauty, but he also tries to make scenes like her cruelty to the villagers “funny,” and even tries to make us feel sorry for her over the loss of her less maniacal but equally evil brother. What GeoX called the “psychotic kill-em-all” depiction of Magica also undermines some bits that are even genuinely funny, like the depowered Magica’s attempt to play magician at Funso’s in “GlomTales", which is promptly followed by reemphasizing her desire to slaughter Scrooge’s family.
I'm glad you pick up on this recurring issue in DT '17, the attempt to joke around genuinely disturbing ideas. I fully agree that the creators repeatedly brought up horrible things for laughs, when they should have either avoided those things or taken them seriously in their implications for the characters. One could write a whole essay on DT '17 on this issue alone, with *lots* of examples, several of which you've mentioned above.
Part of the problem with Scrooge and Magica's past together is that it's within the wider trend of how the show refused to do any scrutinizing of Scrooge's place as a tycoon but still tried to make it look like he's "flawed." So the show trieees to make his "flaws" be less about his place as a captain of industry and more so sitcomy flaws. Except the show keeps giving him an out (the siblings misunderstood Della's fate, Bradford set it up).
When the smoke clears, it looks like the problem is that Scrooge is too mean to baby eating supervillains (which is supposed to also reflect Louie except Doofus is written as having few redeeming qualities).
Why they asked her to play an fantastical evil sorceress bent on death and destruction is well and truly beyond me.
Their understanding of who to get from Dr Who seems entirely based on just "get the popular ones from a decade ago". Sylvester McCoy would've been an obviously better Scrooge, but Tennant's the popular one with the modern audience, so oop (and don't even bother getting McCoy to play Fergus). They just went "what's the main female actress of Dr Who who's the campiest" and got Tate because of her more out-there snark and attitude, instead of considering someone with a smaller role in the show.