djnyr, quick clarification question: why does the fact that Beaks is set against Fenton make him analogous to Lex Luthor?
I should have made my train of thought clearer there: New Fenton, as I mentioned when I discussed him in this series, was made much more of a conventional superhero and less of a superhero spoof. Giving him a recurring archenemy was part of the superhero-izing process. Beaks, as an unscrupulous billionaire who covets the superhero's powers and reputation and wants to control and/or destroy the hero, is extremely reminiscent of the Lex Luthor depicted on Superman: The Animated Series and the Justice League animated series--and, given Angones' penchant for imitating the Batman animated series from the same production crew, I'm pretty positive that he was thinking of the animated television version of Luthor when he made Beaks Gizmoduck's prime opponent. I also suspect he was inspired by Jesse Eisenberg's Luthor in Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman, who, like Beaks, was a variation on the young, irreverent tech-billionaire trope (right down to the casting of Eisenberg, who of course played Zuckerberg), and who was much more talkative, undignified and "nerdy" than Clancy Brown's television Luthor.
I fully understand that stereotypes can't wholly be avoided - no matter what show you look at, something problematic will come up. Maybe there's an example of misogyny that the show doesn't address or even agrees with. Maybe there are some implications about race that are really discomforting when analysed critically. Maybe there's some degree of problematic casting. However, in many cases, it can be forgiven or at least understood because you understand that there's no ill intent. There's a benefit of the doubt that comes from the fact that people aren't perfect - sometimes, people try to do something, but slip up. Be it failing to understand a particular nuance of a situation or not realizing an implication that comes with their story. Storytelling is a complex enough affair as it is - it's inevitable that people will make mistakes here and there.
This whole idea of perfect representation strikes me as American extremism in its idealism and individuality. Elsewhere in the world, people are rooted in a history that's messy and murky. America is the place to start over, to make a new start, to create a picture perfect representation of yourself and your people. But people define themselves in opposition to others --- which guarantees that you'll never represent people in a way that suits everyone. That's just people.
No, what I was trying to highlight is how selective society can be when it comes to "progressive" depictions of certain groups. We must now treat such-and-such with respect, but there's not a lick of better understanding people from the backwoods since World War II. If anything, America has regressed in that regard.
It's particularly painful because of the time period. In 2016-2017, the mainstream American media had this brief moment where they asked themselves: "Are we out of touch? No, it's the Turnip voters who are wrong." And it's during this timespan that DT17 gets made.
The cosmopolitan/rural division is one that I personally feel very strongly about, because I've lived in both places and the sheer (willing) blindness is staggering.
However, the main issue is that the Ducktales team constantly patted themselves on the back for inclusivity. Attention was drawn to every little detail: Della's prosthetic, Fenton and Gosalyn's race changes, the new VAs for characters like Panchito, José and Don Karnage... not to mention stuff like the constant, constant going on about the importance of family. Yet, in each category, it only mattered when it was visible.
I have to ask this because I haven't seen the show: this back-patting for inclusivity, is this in the show itself or is this communication from the crew? Because the latter I honestly get, that's just PR. That's why I usually wait a little while before watching media hypes: it's very easy to get fed up with a product because of the culture surrounding it, and that's just not good viewing.
A good example is a show like Steven Universe: the show with three magical space moms that's diegetically all about inclusivity. Or Hamilton, for that matter. Both have celebrity/fan cultures that push the lines of modern culture even further, but I shouldn't dislike them for Hamilton fan art or Rebecca Sugar's political views. Now, DuckTales may be all about family, but I don't see that as a progressive thing. It's not even a political thing. Walt Disney was all about family, and he was a conservative -- as was Carl Barks, arguably. So here I would separate the politics and the message --- but that doesn't stop the Beagles from being a major weak spot in the show's core message.
And mind you, I am very critical of Hamilton's Disneyfied representation of Alexander Hamilton. But I don't need to tell anyone here that the universalization of a certain set of values will age terribly.
With Ducktales, there are too many mistakes for me to look past. The team claims to be inclusive, but there are several notable examples of them pushing harmful stereotypes or thought processes. I can't believe that any of the prominent inclusive changes were done out of sincerity when there are so many elements of the show that are harmful or degrading. It just reeks of doing these things for publicity - not as a mistake (because there are far too many for me to believe that), not as a mishandling (because these issues only seem to crop up for topics that aren't as prominent in discussions of inclusivity), and not as an example of the network being involved (Because they've been so open about the network not letting them explicitly call Penumbra gay. Plus, it's not down to rushing either because there were three seasons of faffing about with the Beagles - they could have been given something in that time instead of the constant filler they're stuck with).
You've also mentioned the lack of sincerity, which sounds to me like a much bigger issue than publicity framing. Say what you want about Hamilton or Steven Universe, but there's no doubt that their creators had their heart in their message. It doesn't need to be laid open in every episode, but with sincerity comes a certain consistency that you can tell from how it is. Isn't that what creative vision is all about? A lot of what I've been reading here just sounds like lazy writing, nothing more or less.
Plus, as djnyr pointed out, the stereotype is made so much worse by the show's setting. It's not just the typical 'hillbilly' stereotype - the fact that they're constantly shown as being idiotic by the brilliant billionaire... it's shockingly tone deaf. Like... not even absurd to the point of being funny, it's just... terrible.
Scrooge McDuck has not friends, only interests.
(Also, I'm just gonna say apologies for the fact that I seem to keep sending you essays )
It's cool. It's so rare to find people who care about these kinds of issues. We should talk.
I've thought a lot about the idea of 'perfect representation', or something that would equate to that, and would honestly say that it's not something that could feasibly exist. There are so many issues that, realistically, one can't understand unless they've lived them. Be it around race, class, neurodivergence, religion, sex, gender, ability... one can easily have a surface level understanding of how others work, but there's an understanding that comes with a lived experience that can never be matched. The question of 'perfect representation' brings up several more - how much of one's lived experience needs to be shown? How accurate does the casting need to be? Can this form of representation be harmful if it's done inaccurately? I've come to understand that, if you break it down, there are several boxes that one would need to tick, and ticking them all is totally infeasible. No matter how many people are represented accurately, there will be at least one who is represented inaccurately - no matter how carefully the teams involved think things through, they'll ultimately miss something.
I fully agree about the ridiculously selective nature of being progressive, in many cases. I also have type 1 diabetes - as far as most popular culture goes, all that means is I'm a sugar-munching fatty who's going to lose a leg by the time I'm 40. As someone who has spent the majority of their life struggling with being underweight, you can imagine that I don't find those jokes funny - even though they're pretty much the only mention of diabetes in popular media. Seeing as diabetes is pretty much universally treated as a joke (It's either the aforementioned jokes or the constant "This is so sweet it gave me diabetes" nonsense), I've quickly grown used to the fact that very few people care to learn about what diabetes actually is. Even on the few occasions that I've seen it be taken seriously, it was absurdly inaccurate. Like, the closest thing I have to reasonable, accurate representation on that front is Paul Blart: Mall Cop. As such, I can definitely get where you're coming from - it sucks to know that 'your group' isn't one of the ones that needs to be respected. I can't comment on America specifically, but it is sad to see how quickly people from certain backgrounds are dismissed out of hand - and how certain stereotypes are allowed to continue, even though they're insulting, low-effort and rarely ever have any purpose beyond picking an easy target.
I totally agree that people are willingly blind on these issues. It's honestly shocking - rather than just accept a welcoming stance, or even a neutral one, there's this bizarre need to bend over backwards and justify why hating certain groups is wrong. Like you say, it comes back to people defining themselves in opposition to others. I suppose there's not much more I can say on it (Especially about America), beyond "Hate begets hate". Obviously, it's not nearly that simple, but recurring, pervasive stereotypes like the ones that the Beagles represent certainly don't help anything.
To my memory, the back-patting is mostly out of universe. What mainly comes to mind is interviews with Angones and Youngberg, as well as Angones' tumblr. I try not to attribute things specifically to him (As, in many cases, he's speaking on behalf of the team). I understand PR, but there's a point where things get excessive; none of these changes (the VAs, the prosthetic, the race changes etc) were a part of the show's identity. There was a lot of self-praise for these decisions; about how proud the team were to be making these changes, and how they were making sure that there was no place for hate in their show, and how important it was that they were doing these things accurately... it was brought up a lot. Maybe it's selective memory, but I can't recall any other show drawing that much attention to these things. Like, obviously, Steven Universe drew attention to details around LGBTQ+ representation, but since that was an integral theme of the show itself, it's understandable. I won't deny that my hatred for several other elements of the show have probably exacerbated how significant this issue is in my eyes. It just gets under my skin to see them praising themselves for inclusivity when there are so many problematic elements in the show itself - though I take your point, that's not necessarily a flaw in the show itself.
I wasn't wholly clear when making my point about family - the 'inclusive' element there was how the show looks at the idea of the fluidity of the concept of family. The supposed 'progressive' element was the reinforcement of the idea of found family - it's not necessarily about blood or biological relation, but a person's importance in your life and your love for them. And yet, the show undermines this on several occasions. For one, there's Webby and Scrooge... I doubt I'll bring anything to the table that hasn't been brought up. Then there's Della - because she's the triplets' biological mother, she just has a right to force herself back into their lives and they just have to accept that; despite her abandonment, she never has to earn their love or approval, because "she's their mom". Then there's the utterly laughable scene when Bradford is defeated, and Scrooge points out that Bradford lost to Scrooge's family - all of them. Somehow, his family includes characters like the Rescue Rangers, Kit and Molly, Darkwing, Gandra Dee... that's not what found family is. Family isn't "literally every person who helps you ever" - several of these people have no significance to Scrooge whatsoever. To refer to them as his family is an insult to the concept of found family - most of these people are barely even friends. The show is constantly pushing the message that family is the people you love, not just your blood relatives - this is, in theory, a great message. With the near-deification of the idea of 'family being the most important thing', it's important for people to know that an abusive blood relative doesn't have to be included as family, or that a step-parent or adoptive family member is in no way less valid than a blood relative. The issue is that the show keeps backpedalling on that idea; "Sure, found family is important, but Della is the kids' mom - she should be welcomed back into their lives with little to no resistance! How dare Louie criticize her!", "Webby needs to learn every other episode that she's a valid member of the family... sike, she's actually a blood relative, now she's really valid!", "Family isn't just blood relatives - it can be anyone, from your wacky cousin, to your pilot's friends, to your nephew's old college buddies, to some mice that you've barely even met..." The team is supposedly showing different family dynamics, but the way it handles these dynamics ranges from insulting and poorly handled to hilariously ridiculous.
On the subject of a lack of sincerity, I might be picking you up wrong, so apologies if that's the case. To me, sincerity (in this context) is the idea of wanting to do right by people who haven't been given a reasonable showing by the media in general. It's not necessarily about perfect representation - but the idea that the people involved genuinely believed in what they were doing. They were aware that a certain group is either not given a voice or is usually portrayed inaccurately, and wanted to show things from the perspective of that group. One of the main points of Steven Universe was to tackle the idea that homosexual relationships should be hidden from children, or that they are in some way 'inappropriate'. Wander Over Yonder carries the message that everyone is a person in their own right - it's not as simple as 'good guy' or 'bad guy', no matter how easy it is to lump people into those categories. Star VS the Forces of Evil, before it devolved into shipping nonsense, showed the dangers of historical revisionism, and how seriously prejudice can affect certain groups - it's easy to look at certain events and attribute them to someone's race or group, but the background to these things is extremely complex. There were flaws in the ways each show handled their issues, but it was apparent that they wanted to draw attention to these issues - they may not have been perfect, but they put the effort in to communicate their messages carefully. Ducktales may have many examples of lazy writing, but if one sincerely cares about handling certain issues properly, lazy writing shouldn't be an issue. Maybe the hatred towards Doofus or the unfortunate implications with Huey are lazy writing - but these examples of lazy writing aren't just lazy, they're harmful; they carry the implication that the neurodivergent or those with conditions outside of the typical are worthy of mockery. Maybe the Beagles are just an example of lazy writing, but the setting causes severe issues - it's not just a stereotype, it's an outright mockery of the underprivileged. Because the protagonists come from an explicitly wealthy family, the show carries a classist tone that implies that the poor are worthy of being laughed at. Maybe their poor handling of Della's return is just lazy writing - but when the show's main theme is that of family, it has some outright dangerous implications. Louie is shown to have reservations about Della, but he's expected to get over them because she, as their mother, has the right to be in his life. She asserts authority in ways that are completely unearned, and Louie just has to accept that because she's his mother. You cannot be lazy when handling dynamics like these - this implies that one's biological parents deserve the final say in their children's welfare, regardless of parenting ability, presence in the child's life or how the child actually feels. The examples of poor or lazy writing like these ones are what make me doubt the show's sincerity with its messages - why should I believe that the show actually cares about marginalized groups when it so readily and viciously mocks the neurodivergent or the underprivileged? Why should I believe that the show is making an honest attempt to discuss the importance of healthy family dynamics when the show is filled with and supportive of several unhealthy ones? Even on the off-chance that it does come down solely to lazy writing, there are certain situations where lazy writing is unacceptable - and Ducktales showcases several of them.
And I'd be down to talk - timezone permitting, of course
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Like I said, Scrooge's place as a captain of industry being handled how it was roots in the awkward place big business has among mainstream Leftism. Woke Capital being a thing means they couldn't really have an honest discussion over Scrooge's ridiculous amount of wealth and what it means for society.
The Beagleburg backstory being done how it does reflect this. The showrunners couldn't have it be something like Bombie the Zombie's backstory under Barks and Rosa since it really wouldn't reflect well on Scrooge as a corporate overlord. Can you imagine if Scrooge legit earned the Beagle Clan's undying hatred from manipulation and trickery without them being shown as obvious villains beforehand?
Like I said, Scrooge's place as a captain of industry being handled how it was roots in the awkward place big business has among mainstream Leftism. Woke Capital being a thing means they couldn't really have an honest discussion over Scrooge's ridiculous amount of wealth and what it means for society.
The Beagleburg backstory being done how it does reflect this. The showrunners couldn't have it be something like Bombie the Zombie's backstory under Barks and Rosa since it really wouldn't reflect well on Scrooge as a corporate overlord. Can you imagine if Scrooge legit earned the Beagle Clan's undying hatred from manipulation and trickery without them being shown as obvious villains beforehand?
I think you're overestimating mainstream leftism here. There's a section of American progressives that's critical of corporate excess, but they remain something of a minority. There are still plenty of 'woke' liberals who remain fully on the side of capital.
The problem, for me, lies with the Beagles. You can change Scrooge to fit the times. You could do so with most of his rogues' gallery, even. But the Beagle Boys were designed as bank robbers with little black masks. That kind of organized crime was dying out and becoming a comic cliché even in Barks' own time. And this hurts any return to the 'formidable' Beagles more than changes introduced by Lockman and Strobl.
What would be the contemporary equivalent of the Beagle Boys? Hackers who break into Scrooge's digital bank account? Financial con men who obfuscate people with promises of easy riches? Drug criminals? Not fat guys running around with their prison numbers on their chests like they came out of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon.
I fully agree about the ridiculously selective nature of being progressive, in many cases. I also have type 1 diabetes - as far as most popular culture goes, all that means is I'm a sugar-munching fatty who's going to lose a leg by the time I'm 40. As someone who has spent the majority of their life struggling with being underweight, you can imagine that I don't find those jokes funny - even though they're pretty much the only mention of diabetes in popular media. Seeing as diabetes is pretty much universally treated as a joke (It's either the aforementioned jokes or the constant "This is so sweet it gave me diabetes" nonsense), I've quickly grown used to the fact that very few people care to learn about what diabetes actually is. Even on the few occasions that I've seen it be taken seriously, it was absurdly inaccurate. Like, the closest thing I have to reasonable, accurate representation on that front is Paul Blart: Mall Cop. As such, I can definitely get where you're coming from - it sucks to know that 'your group' isn't one of the ones that needs to be respected. I can't comment on America specifically, but it is sad to see how quickly people from certain backgrounds are dismissed out of hand - and how certain stereotypes are allowed to continue, even though they're insulting, low-effort and rarely ever have any purpose beyond picking an easy target.
I totally agree that people are willingly blind on these issues. It's honestly shocking - rather than just accept a welcoming stance, or even a neutral one, there's this bizarre need to bend over backwards and justify why hating certain groups is wrong. Like you say, it comes back to people defining themselves in opposition to others. I suppose there's not much more I can say on it (Especially about America), beyond "Hate begets hate". Obviously, it's not nearly that simple, but recurring, pervasive stereotypes like the ones that the Beagles represent certainly don't help anything.
You have as much of a right to be outraged about depictions of diabetes than about neurodivergence in that respect.
As for "people define themselves in opposition to others", that's related to this idea of "perfect representation". There will always be subgroups who define themselves as oppressed, even when the main group has become broadly accepted. You can see it on the fringes of the LGBT spectrum, for instance. I actually saw some good work about this dynamic the other day, in Disney's very own The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It's surprisingly good when it comes to the nuances of politics and identity, especially given Marvel's track record. Of course, you could never have a conversation like that in a DuckTales. It's not easy.
On the subject of a lack of sincerity, I might be picking you up wrong, so apologies if that's the case. To me, sincerity (in this context) is the idea of wanting to do right by people who haven't been given a reasonable showing by the media in general. It's not necessarily about perfect representation - but the idea that the people involved genuinely believed in what they were doing. They were aware that a certain group is either not given a voice or is usually portrayed inaccurately, and wanted to show things from the perspective of that group. One of the main points of Steven Universe was to tackle the idea that homosexual relationships should be hidden from children, or that they are in some way 'inappropriate'. Wander Over Yonder carries the message that everyone is a person in their own right - it's not as simple as 'good guy' or 'bad guy', no matter how easy it is to lump people into those categories. Star VS the Forces of Evil, before it devolved into shipping nonsense, showed the dangers of historical revisionism, and how seriously prejudice can affect certain groups - it's easy to look at certain events and attribute them to someone's race or group, but the background to these things is extremely complex. There were flaws in the ways each show handled their issues, but it was apparent that they wanted to draw attention to these issues - they may not have been perfect, but they put the effort in to communicate their messages carefully. Ducktales may have many examples of lazy writing, but if one sincerely cares about handling certain issues properly, lazy writing shouldn't be an issue. Maybe the hatred towards Doofus or the unfortunate implications with Huey are lazy writing - but these examples of lazy writing aren't just lazy, they're harmful; they carry the implication that the neurodivergent or those with conditions outside of the typical are worthy of mockery. Maybe the Beagles are just an example of lazy writing, but the setting causes severe issues - it's not just a stereotype, it's an outright mockery of the underprivileged. Because the protagonists come from an explicitly wealthy family, the show carries a classist tone that implies that the poor are worthy of being laughed at. Maybe their poor handling of Della's return is just lazy writing - but when the show's main theme is that of family, it has some outright dangerous implications. Louie is shown to have reservations about Della, but he's expected to get over them because she, as their mother, has the right to be in his life. She asserts authority in ways that are completely unearned, and Louie just has to accept that because she's his mother. You cannot be lazy when handling dynamics like these - this implies that one's biological parents deserve the final say in their children's welfare, regardless of parenting ability, presence in the child's life or how the child actually feels. The examples of poor or lazy writing like these ones are what make me doubt the show's sincerity with its messages - why should I believe that the show actually cares about marginalized groups when it so readily and viciously mocks the neurodivergent or the underprivileged? Why should I believe that the show is making an honest attempt to discuss the importance of healthy family dynamics when the show is filled with and supportive of several unhealthy ones? Even on the off-chance that it does come down solely to lazy writing, there are certain situations where lazy writing is unacceptable - and Ducktales showcases several of them.
I think we understand one another perfectly on the subject of family and sincerity. The question I'm wondering is this: does DuckTales 2017 have a core message about the importance of extended family, or does it only pretend to have one? Was the prevailing thought "we should capitalize on nostalgia", or was it "we have a story to tell". Because all of these mistakes make me think that it's more likely to be the former. Of course, the crew can pretend to have some sincere artistic message about family, but their actions speak otherwise. At some point, it becomes less of an incident and more of a pattern. That's why I called it lazy writing -- maybe hack writing would be a better term.
Either you care about your artistic message, like Rebecca Sugar or Konietzko/DeMartino, and you fight for your story. Or you don't, and you make a mess of your emotional story arcs because we have to stay cool and funny. What is this, Family Guy? Either there was an unprecedented level of executive meddling, or Angones and crew just didn't have the right priorities.
Last Edit: May 10, 2021 9:13:38 GMT by That Duckfan
On the issue of Cultural Authenticity of Voice Actors: I think that this is a case of worrying about historically marginalized communities. No one worries in the same way about the cultural authenticity of actors playing characters who are European or North American. This difference is fairly defensible, in my opinion. The problem we're addressing is the way characters of historically colonized cultures have been played by actors of historically colonizing cultures. It's both a form of cultural appropriation, which is based on a power differential, and an instance of denial of representation to persons (and opportunity to actors) of the marginalized group. At its worst, this sort of casting involved stereotypical performance of the marginalized folks, including blackface and stupid, fake accents.
The issue is just not the same when you're talking about Italian or Scottish or White South African (Boer? British?) characters. Admittedly, people from some of these groups have been oppressed in certain circumstances, but there's not the power differential there is between the colonizers and the colonized (those are rough categories, but you get my drift). Yes, it was really obviously stupid when the movie Camelot cast the Italian actor Franco Nero as Lancelot du Lac. People joked, to Hollywood they're all just "European." But no one was worried, then or since, about this casting as perpetuating historic injustice towards the French people or French (or French-American) actors. Because the French are not in serious danger of being wrongly represented and passed over for acting jobs as a class.
Issue there is it's still the very American choice of deciding who gets to be the one that's marginalized and worried about. At the end of the day, it's American Cultural Hegemony deciding things for everyone else in the world- if you're South African, you're not deserving of consideration, so declares the United States of America. Of course, when's the last time you've seen a South African voice actor in an American cartoon? That doesn't matter. Of course, Ducktales is an American cartoon, the issue is the staff playing at global representation issues and then acting only on their limited American perspective. All things considered as far as representation in Hollywood/cartoons/etc, when's the last time you saw a genuine good representation of French people with a French actor that wasn't just OH NO THE COWARD HONHON BAGUETTE?
(and again, they failed at this with the Caballeros REGARDLESS, so)
Regarding Rockerduck being inexplicably tied to FOWL- it's just clocked to me, I'm pretty sure in the Boom/Joe Books Darkwing Duck sequel comics, there WAS a plot point at one point that Rockerduck was financing FOWL, or at least some villain. Wonder if the staff just had happened to read that.
Very good points by both of you regarding the New Ducktales Beagles and the broader issues they implicate. Moving on to the other side of the socioeconomic spectrum, here's the next installment of the Villains analysis:
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
D. The Billionaire Bad Guys Club
As an American, my exposure to John D. Rockerduck has been limited compared to that of many of the other members of this forum, but I know enough about the character to admit that Angones’ screen version captured some surface qualities of the comics version’s personality—-more so than his depictions of Glomgold, Magica, and the Beagles did. The animated Rockerduck, like the comics Rockerduck, is exuberantly conceited, fond of high living, and enjoys flaunting his wealth. However, the essence of the character is still missing.
Rockerduck, like all the other comics-derived villains depicted on this show, isn’t allowed to be a true rival to Super Scrooge, even though “rivalry” is pretty much the single word that best defines the essence of the McDuck-Rockerduck relationship in the comics. The comical petty squabbling and bouts of one-upmanship between Scrooge and John D., which marked Rockerduck’s brief original appearance in “Boat Buster” and have been the hallmark of their interactions in comics ever since, is absent here—since this Scrooge isn’t allowed to ever really be one-upped by anyone or feel challenged enough to descend to childish bickering.
This Rockerduck is only a threat to Scrooge in “The Outlaw Scrooge McDuck” because he has more money than Scrooge at this point in time, and because the people he manipulates—the “weathered, sunburned” townsfolk of Gumption—are mindless idiots (more "hillbilly/redneck" steroetyping, incidentally). In his subsequent appearances, he’s only nominally dangerous because of his (inexplicable) FOWL affiliations; there’s never even a suggestion that he’s a worthy personal rival for Scrooge in the financial arena (his dialogue in “Sword of Swanstantine” even goes out of its way to indicate that his wealth was inherited, to dispel the idea that he could be at all equal to Scrooge when it comes to making money).
The comics John D., by contrast, is a formidable tycoon in his own right despite (and sometimes because of) the fact that he’s much more willing to spend money than Scrooge is. The character works best when he’s depicted as someone who threatens and irritates Scrooge both because he’s a serious competitor and because his flashy lifestyle is an affront to McDuck’s outrageously frugal and reclusive lifestyle. Since the New Ducktales Scrooge cannot be seriously threatened or irritated, and since the showboating New Ducktales Scrooge is flashy himself, this dynamic is lost, and all we’re left with is another weak villain who’s out of Scrooge’s league-- a foppish, preening poseur who’s reduced to cringing on the ground in fear after a few seconds’ worth of pummeling by Scrooge, and who is utterly dependent (sometimes to a literally infantile extent) on his butler/henchman.
The whole “Frankenjeeves” business, incidentally, was offputtingly weird and disturbing, like so much else on this series; the idea that “Jeeves” was forced to become, apparently, an undead zombie/robot/monster in order to keep on taking care of the life-extended Rockerduck for eternity is yet another example of an idea that should either be played for horror or dropped, not used as a “humorous” toss-off.
Rockerduck’s function as the more ostentatious counterpoint to Scrooge was also usurped before he even made his appearance, due to the introduction of Mark Beaks. I like the idea of Beaks a lot more than I like the actual execution of the idea. If Barks was still writing today, I’m sure he would have done a story pitting Scrooge against a modern tech billionaire like Beaks; Zuckerberg, Gates, and their ilk are ripe for satire, and Barks was no slouch at satire. However, Barks would have played on the differences between Beaks’ tech-assisted, marketing-driven success and Scrooge’s tougher, less glitzy, and more personal way of making his fortune, and would probably have had Scrooge undergo a few crises of concern as to whether he was a “has-been,” before finally winning out. Angones, on the other hand, barely has Scrooge and Beaks interact at all, even though the ultra-modern billionaire would seem to be an ideal foil for the old-fashioned billionaire.
Instead, Beaks was used primarily as an antagonist for Fenton/Gizmoduck, making him essentially Lex Luthor—only without any of Luthor’s intimidating qualities. I would have preferred the character to be presented as an obnoxious but non-villainous foil for Scrooge, but since Angones decided to designate him as a “villain”, he should have at least tried to make him a legitimate threat. This could have been done without sacrificing the character’s humorous aspects--just make him a genuinely competent businessman and scientist (instead of a lazy fraud and pilferer of other people’s work), and have him genuinely interested in acquiring and wielding power through technology (instead of just obsessed with gaining power in order to generate “buzz”). Humor could still have been mined out of his flippancy and his desire for social media “likes,” but he would have come off as a more worthy antagonist and a much less one-dimensional character.
It’s quite true that Beaks, unlike some of the supposedly “likable” characters who failed to be likable, succeeded at what he was supposed to do—i.e., be obnoxious, and to provide a vehicle for some fairly obvious spoofery of modern billionaires. However, so much more could have been done with the character—whether as a satiric rival or a villain—that I don’t think Angones deserves any great praise for his handling of Beaks.
Honestly, I'd have very little to say on Rockerduck myself - you've said everything I could, and done a fantastic job on it.
Personally, I really enjoyed Beaks - even if he was mishandled in some places. Like you say, he could have been a very interesting rival to Scrooge - he's probably the single most dangerous villain on the show on a personal level. With his technology, he could do so much damage to Scrooge. He could destroy Scrooge's reputation with a few clicks. He could use his social media presence to pressure Scrooge into partnering with him on his projects - and make Scrooge look like the bad guy if he doesn't. Plus, with the amount of information that he's privy to, he could probably find out some of Scrooge's deeply personal secrets if he cared to. He even points it out himself in 'Glomtales!': "I can wipe out your past, your future, your entire existence, with a swipe of my finger! Because I am the future!" Or in 'Dangerous Chemistry of Gandra Dee':
He manages to break past extremely high-tech security measures in seconds - and could have done so quicker. He only went in on a whim, and didn't plan it out very thoroughly - imagine what he could have done if he wasn't acting on impulse? And yet, he's held back by his signature flaw - the only thing that he really cares about is being popular. He's so obsessed with his social media presence that he ignores all of the power sitting at his fingertips. Doing the above would never even occur to him because destroying his rivals would be a lot of effort for something that wouldn't really get him any of the clout that he chases. The character has a lot of potential, and I honestly wouldn't be opposed to seeing him come back in other media - I feel like he was dreadfully underutilized, and a lot could be done with him in different circumstances.
The whole Lex Luthor business was definitely where they went wrong with him the most, though. Seeing him 'hulk out' in 'Dangerous Chemistry of Gandra Dee' was just as awful as it was when Joker did it in Batman: Arkham Asylum; in making him a 'supervillain', they missed what was actually interesting about his character. The notion of him having stolen all of his projects is another annoying one - I don't mind him doing that with the Gizmoduck suit, but the implication in 'Astro BOYD' that he does that with all of his projects just ruins him as a character - it takes his areas of genuine competence and spits on them for the sake of a gag.
Also, for the record, I'd imagine that this is an unpopular opinion, but I loved how heavily they leaned into cringe humour with this character. The techno remix (complete with airhorns), his constant references to social media and meme culture, the inappropriate selfies, "#YOLO", dabbing... Regardless of how it was handled, he feels to me like the crew were just having fun with the character. Since he's built as a joke, they don't really try to push any sob stories, complicated backstories or lousy adaptations on you with him - he's just there because the team had fun with the idea.
Sure, he (like Glomgold) sucks if you don't find the joke funny - but if you do, he's usually a pretty fun character. He was underutilized and there are points where they mishandle him, but I'd honestly say he was one of my favourite characters in the show.
On the issue of Cultural Authenticity of Voice Actors: I think that this is a case of worrying about historically marginalized communities. No one worries in the same way about the cultural authenticity of actors playing characters who are European or North American. This difference is fairly defensible, in my opinion. The problem we're addressing is the way characters of historically colonized cultures have been played by actors of historically colonizing cultures. It's both a form of cultural appropriation, which is based on a power differential, and an instance of denial of representation to persons (and opportunity to actors) of the marginalized group. At its worst, this sort of casting involved stereotypical performance of the marginalized folks, including blackface and stupid, fake accents.
The issue is just not the same when you're talking about Italian or Scottish or White South African (Boer? British?) characters. Admittedly, people from some of these groups have been oppressed in certain circumstances, but there's not the power differential there is between the colonizers and the colonized (those are rough categories, but you get my drift). Yes, it was really obviously stupid when the movie Camelot cast the Italian actor Franco Nero as Lancelot du Lac. People joked, to Hollywood they're all just "European." But no one was worried, then or since, about this casting as perpetuating historic injustice towards the French people or French (or French-American) actors. Because the French are not in serious danger of being wrongly represented and passed over for acting jobs as a class.
You make a very important point - and for clarity's sake, I'd just like to make it clear that I have no objection to characters of historically marginalized communities being played by accurate VAs.
I can definitely agree that there's a certain historical power imbalance at play - not to mention the fact that it's still a bizarrely divisive topic even in more recent years. Like the controversy around Apu from 'The Simpsons' - there are certain elements of the character that are undeniably racist, and the amount of people who refused to acknowledge that was shocking.
I'd argue that 'European' is a bit too broad of a category as far as power imbalances go, I do agree with your overall point that North America and a significant chunk of Europe are on the winning side of a power imbalance, which impacts the importance of depictions by and of them.
As far as the issue goes in relation to Ducktales, I think part of my issue is the amount of attention drawn to the accurate casting in relation to the presence of the actual characters.
It was supposedly a big, big deal that Panchito, José and Don Karnage had accurate voice actors - yet the Caballeros only appear in a few episodes, and Don Karnage never even had a specific race to begin with.
Though I do find the VA situations with Magica and Glomgold questionable, a significant element of the problem is presence - though I can understand the idea that representation is more important for some groups than others, I feel like part of that involves the actual amount of appearances for each character.
Panchito, José and Don Karnage had a big deal made about their accurate casting and the importance of their representative qualities - I'd agree on a surface level, but... Panchito and José only have voice credits in 3 episodes, and Don Karnage is in 4.
Meanwhile, the inaccurate Magica is in 9 episodes, and the inaccurate Glomgold is in 19 (Pulled from IMDB, so my numbers could be slightly off).
I'm not at all disagreeing that accurate representation is important, but a bigger deal was made about them than was honestly warranted - most characters who are lauded as being 'accurate representation' don't appear in more than 4 episodes.
Plus, there's the question of why certain characters needed to be used for that purpose - the biggest one in my mind is Faris D'jinn.
I doubt anyone will disagree that the original Dijon was a racist caricature - but why not just... leave him in the past?
When Rosa went back to look at Foola Zoola, many details were changed - this was because, despite offensive elements, Rosa felt that the character had an integral place in Scrooge's history. Whether or not one agrees, his point makes sense.
Dijon doesn't really warrant that - he wasn't an important character, I don't think he's too fondly remembered (could be wrong on that)... even if one wanted to say that he represents the movie, we already have the Jaleel White Genie. Dijon/D'jinn is an unnecessary character - but again, attention was drawn to him as being accurate representation, even though he's not important to the show in any context.
I'm rambling a little, so I'll try to be a bit more concise with my point:
While accurate representation is absolutely a good thing, and is important, it gets a little murky in my view when it comes from certain viewpoints.
Like with so many of the characters, a lot of this feels like they just wanted to say "Look, we fixed this!" or "Look at how diverse our cast is!"
It's not the biggest issue - I can at least agree that efforts seem to have been made to keep the casting accurate - but it comes back to this idea that it feels like it's being done for publicity, rather than out of actually caring about the issues involved.
Then again, I will concede that I've just become very jaded about the sincerity of this show in general - between the bungled messages, disrespect of Tony Anselmo, blatant double-standards and lack of understanding of the source material, I've gotten to a point where it's difficult to give this show the benefit of the doubt.
I'd like to think that representation mattered, but the points above, mixed with attitudes I've seen from Angones, make it come across as trying to look 'woke'. I referred in a previous post to his misuse of the term 'Latinx', or the uncomfortable way he spoke about Gosalyn being Latina - that sort of commentary makes it look less like the team cared about representation and more like they sought to be seen as caring.
(Oh, and an unrelated point on the topic of authenticity - Disney Plus has 'The Cleveland Show' listed under "Celebrate Black Stories". You know, Cleveland Brown, who was voiced by a white man in it. Truth really is stranger than fiction...)
I fully agree about the ridiculously selective nature of being progressive, in many cases. I also have type 1 diabetes - as far as most popular culture goes, all that means is I'm a sugar-munching fatty who's going to lose a leg by the time I'm 40. As someone who has spent the majority of their life struggling with being underweight, you can imagine that I don't find those jokes funny - even though they're pretty much the only mention of diabetes in popular media. Seeing as diabetes is pretty much universally treated as a joke (It's either the aforementioned jokes or the constant "This is so sweet it gave me diabetes" nonsense), I've quickly grown used to the fact that very few people care to learn about what diabetes actually is. Even on the few occasions that I've seen it be taken seriously, it was absurdly inaccurate. Like, the closest thing I have to reasonable, accurate representation on that front is Paul Blart: Mall Cop. As such, I can definitely get where you're coming from - it sucks to know that 'your group' isn't one of the ones that needs to be respected. I can't comment on America specifically, but it is sad to see how quickly people from certain backgrounds are dismissed out of hand - and how certain stereotypes are allowed to continue, even though they're insulting, low-effort and rarely ever have any purpose beyond picking an easy target.
I totally agree that people are willingly blind on these issues. It's honestly shocking - rather than just accept a welcoming stance, or even a neutral one, there's this bizarre need to bend over backwards and justify why hating certain groups is wrong. Like you say, it comes back to people defining themselves in opposition to others. I suppose there's not much more I can say on it (Especially about America), beyond "Hate begets hate". Obviously, it's not nearly that simple, but recurring, pervasive stereotypes like the ones that the Beagles represent certainly don't help anything.
You have as much of a right to be outraged about depictions of diabetes than about neurodivergence in that respect.
As for "people define themselves in opposition to others", that's related to this idea of "perfect representation". There will always be subgroups who define themselves as oppressed, even when the main group has become broadly accepted. You can see it on the fringes of the LGBT spectrum, for instance. I actually saw some good work about this dynamic the other day, in Disney's very own The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It's surprisingly good when it comes to the nuances of politics and identity, especially given Marvel's track record. Of course, you could never have a conversation like that in a DuckTales. It's not easy.
On the subject of a lack of sincerity, I might be picking you up wrong, so apologies if that's the case. To me, sincerity (in this context) is the idea of wanting to do right by people who haven't been given a reasonable showing by the media in general. It's not necessarily about perfect representation - but the idea that the people involved genuinely believed in what they were doing. They were aware that a certain group is either not given a voice or is usually portrayed inaccurately, and wanted to show things from the perspective of that group. One of the main points of Steven Universe was to tackle the idea that homosexual relationships should be hidden from children, or that they are in some way 'inappropriate'. Wander Over Yonder carries the message that everyone is a person in their own right - it's not as simple as 'good guy' or 'bad guy', no matter how easy it is to lump people into those categories. Star VS the Forces of Evil, before it devolved into shipping nonsense, showed the dangers of historical revisionism, and how seriously prejudice can affect certain groups - it's easy to look at certain events and attribute them to someone's race or group, but the background to these things is extremely complex. There were flaws in the ways each show handled their issues, but it was apparent that they wanted to draw attention to these issues - they may not have been perfect, but they put the effort in to communicate their messages carefully. Ducktales may have many examples of lazy writing, but if one sincerely cares about handling certain issues properly, lazy writing shouldn't be an issue. Maybe the hatred towards Doofus or the unfortunate implications with Huey are lazy writing - but these examples of lazy writing aren't just lazy, they're harmful; they carry the implication that the neurodivergent or those with conditions outside of the typical are worthy of mockery. Maybe the Beagles are just an example of lazy writing, but the setting causes severe issues - it's not just a stereotype, it's an outright mockery of the underprivileged. Because the protagonists come from an explicitly wealthy family, the show carries a classist tone that implies that the poor are worthy of being laughed at. Maybe their poor handling of Della's return is just lazy writing - but when the show's main theme is that of family, it has some outright dangerous implications. Louie is shown to have reservations about Della, but he's expected to get over them because she, as their mother, has the right to be in his life. She asserts authority in ways that are completely unearned, and Louie just has to accept that because she's his mother. You cannot be lazy when handling dynamics like these - this implies that one's biological parents deserve the final say in their children's welfare, regardless of parenting ability, presence in the child's life or how the child actually feels. The examples of poor or lazy writing like these ones are what make me doubt the show's sincerity with its messages - why should I believe that the show actually cares about marginalized groups when it so readily and viciously mocks the neurodivergent or the underprivileged? Why should I believe that the show is making an honest attempt to discuss the importance of healthy family dynamics when the show is filled with and supportive of several unhealthy ones? Even on the off-chance that it does come down solely to lazy writing, there are certain situations where lazy writing is unacceptable - and Ducktales showcases several of them.
I think we understand one another perfectly on the subject of family and sincerity. The question I'm wondering is this: does DuckTales 2017 have a core message about the importance of extended family, or does it only pretend to have one? Was the prevailing thought "we should capitalize on nostalgia", or was it "we have a story to tell". Because all of these mistakes make me think that it's more likely to be the former. Of course, the crew can pretend to have some sincere artistic message about family, but their actions speak otherwise. At some point, it becomes less of an incident and more of a pattern. That's why I called it lazy writing -- maybe hack writing would be a better term.
Either you care about your artistic message, like Rebecca Sugar or Konietzko/DeMartino, and you fight for your story. Or you don't, and you make a mess of your emotional story arcs because we have to stay cool and funny. What is this, Family Guy? Either there was an unprecedented level of executive meddling, or Angones and crew just didn't have the right priorities.
I won't delve too deeply into the idea, seeing as it's probably going off-topic, but I can understand it as far as the LGBTQ+ community goes. It goes into the idea of opposition - if you weren't cis, heterosexual and conforming to a specific gender identity, you were lumped into this 'other' group. We've reached a point where that's not necessarily the case; a greater understanding of differing identities and orientations is being achieved - we've reached a stage where people are willing to look at bisexual issues being different to homosexual issues, or asexuality being properly recognized. Plus, the understanding that trans issues are entirely their own thing - and not as closely linked to issues of sexuality as they're often treated as (In the sense that people would treat issues of homosexuality and issues of being trans as interchangeable).
I also thought that 'Falcon and the Winter Soldier' handled these issues surprisingly well - far above what I'd have expected from Marvel, at least. I wouldn't expect Ducktales to handle things in the same way, but I want to believe that they actually care - however, everything that's been discussed so far makes that difficult to believe.
Ah, yeah, I get you now. I fully agree with what you're saying about sincerity. The nostalgia bait and marketability were definitely the most prominent - when you look at characters like the extended Disney Afternooniverse characters being considered as Scrooge's 'family', or the pandering to Dr. Who fans over accurate casting, it does become pretty blatant.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some significant executive meddling - Disney are known for it, after all. However, I'd definitely place it down to priorities - they were so wrapped up in the end points that they didn't really consider the journeys. They wanted to show Scrooge beating FOWL, but failed to establish them as the threat that they were in Darkwing Duck. They wanted to have all of these Disney Afternoon crossovers, but failed to weave them into the story in a way that made their inclusion feel warranted. They go on about the importance of family, but prioritized 'comedy' and happy resolutions over giving issues like parental abandonment or found family the gravity that they deserve. I'm sure that corporate interfered with some decisions, but the majority definitely comes down to the team.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Regarding Rockerduck being inexplicably tied to FOWL- it's just clocked to me, I'm pretty sure in the Boom/Joe Books Darkwing Duck sequel comics, there WAS a plot point at one point that Rockerduck was financing FOWL, or at least some villain. Wonder if the staff just had happened to read that.
Good catch; I read that Darkwing comic a while back, but had forgotten Rockerduck was lurking in silhouette there (James Silvani loves to include those cameos). The way the panel is drawn and worded, it's a little unclear whether Rockerduck, Glomgold, and FOWL (represented by Steelbeak) are each independently funding Dean Tightbill (the read-headed bad guy) or whether the three "investors" are supposed to be working together, but I can see how it might have given Angones the idea to put Rockerduck in FOWL. Still, there's a big difference between bankrolling a spy organization and being an active agent, as Rockerduck absurdly is in New Ducktales. Just like Scrooge being an agent for SHUSH, it felt contrived and unbelievable to have a billionaire--someone who's used to being in control and giving orders--putting himself at the disposal of a spy organization. It really felt like Angones didn't know what to do with Rockerduck after his introductory episode, so he stuck him in FOWL as an afterthought--where he hardly did enough to justify the pains taken to have him survive into the present day.
The DWD Boom! comics had Steelbeak turn against F.O.W.L. High Command after the Duckthulu incident. By the time he was shown with Glomgold and Rockerduck I'm sure he wasn't in F.O.W.L. anymore.
Personally, I really enjoyed Beaks - even if he was mishandled in some places. Like you say, he could have been a very interesting rival to Scrooge - he's probably the single most dangerous villain on the show on a personal level. With his technology, he could do so much damage to Scrooge. He could destroy Scrooge's reputation with a few clicks. He could use his social media presence to pressure Scrooge into partnering with him on his projects - and make Scrooge look like the bad guy if he doesn't. Plus, with the amount of information that he's privy to, he could probably find out some of Scrooge's deeply personal secrets if he cared to.
Yes, that's what I would have liked to have seen more of with Beaks. The character wouldn't even have had to be a villain, just an obnoxious rival whose dynamic with Scrooge is similar to Donald's dynamic with Gladstone. I can picture Barks doing hilarious things (and engaging in some telling satire) with an antagonist who uses social media and other technology to embarrass and annoy Scrooge. Of course, that dynamic would only work with Barks' more harried, eccentrically naïve, and irritable Scrooge, not the unflappable all-knowing Scrooge of this series.
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
E. The Loony Lunar General
Lunaris, like Penumbra, basically felt like he came in from another franchise--any number of superhero franchises, really; the grim, ruthless, cunning interplanetary military tyrant is a well-worn comic-book type. He echoed Thanos, Ronan (of Guardians of the Galaxy), and Zod at different moments, but he especially had a lot in common with Darkseid, as depicted on the 1990s Superman animated series (as noted with Scrooge/Batman, Goldie/Catwoman, and Beaks/Luthor, Angones is particularly fond of imitating Bruce Timm's several DC animated series). Lunaris, of course, was not scarily murderous like Darkseid, but they have too many points in common to overlook. Both characters were fond of striking a dramatic brooding-but-military pose, standing stiffly with their arms folded behind them; both characters rule over a population that misguidedly reveres them, and, most tellingly, both characters staged an all-out invasion of earth to bring the second seasons of their respective shows to a big multi-part climax, after being teased as a lurking off-planet threat in prior episodes.
Angones obviously took Lunaris much more seriously as a villain than any of the comics-derived bad guys, probably because he was his own original creation; rushing through the "Glomtales" villain teamup in the space of a single episode, then making "Moonvasion" the big second-season finale, felt like the showrunners saying "Let's clear these clowns out of the way so our way cooler character can take over." The same was true, of course, of Bradford and FOWL in the last season--the classic comics villains were reduced to literally mindless punching bags for the heroes in the FOWL arena, while Scrooge had his big showdown with Bradford. That said, Lunaris did come off as a more consistent and coherent villain than Bradford did; his vengeful/power-hungry motivations, banal and cliched as they were, were not all over the map in the way Bradford's evil schemes were.
Being consistent didn't make Lunaris interesting, however; again, he was simply a one-note, standard-issue Space Tyrant from Superheroville. Having Lunaris and Scrooge square off as opposite numbers in the Moonvasion finale was also contrived even by the standards of the superhero stuff that Angones was imitating; on the aforementioned Superman show, Superman and Darkseid clashed with each other on occasions before Darkseid's big climactic invasion, and in any case it made sense that Darkseid would be fixated on defeating an all-powerful good guy like Kal-El. Having Lunaris fixate on Scrooge as his primary antagonist, when he had never even met him before coming to Earth, only made narrative sense if you accept Scrooge as a planetary champion on the level of Superman himself. The fact that Angones thought that such a stock superhero-comic type needed to be imported into the Ducks' world in order to give Scrooge a worthy challenge shows how badly he and his production crew misunderstood both Scrooge and his comic-book universe.
Personally, I really enjoyed Beaks - even if he was mishandled in some places. Like you say, he could have been a very interesting rival to Scrooge - he's probably the single most dangerous villain on the show on a personal level. With his technology, he could do so much damage to Scrooge. He could destroy Scrooge's reputation with a few clicks. He could use his social media presence to pressure Scrooge into partnering with him on his projects - and make Scrooge look like the bad guy if he doesn't. Plus, with the amount of information that he's privy to, he could probably find out some of Scrooge's deeply personal secrets if he cared to.
Yes, that's what I would have liked to have seen more of with Beaks. The character wouldn't even have had to be a villain, just an obnoxious rival whose dynamic with Scrooge is similar to Donald's dynamic with Gladstone. I can picture Barks doing hilarious things (and engaging in some telling satire) with an antagonist who uses social media and other technology to embarrass and annoy Scrooge. Of course, that dynamic would only work with Barks' more harried, eccentrically naïve, and irritable Scrooge, not the unflappable all-knowing Scrooge of this series.
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
E. The Loony Lunar General
Lunaris, like Penumbra, basically felt like he came in from another franchise--any number of superhero franchises, really; the grim, ruthless, cunning interplanetary military tyrant is a well-worn comic-book type. He echoed Thanos, Ronan (of Guardians of the Galaxy), and Zod at different moments, but he especially had a lot in common with Darkseid, as depicted on the 1990s Superman animated series (as noted with Scrooge/Batman, Goldie/Catwoman, and Beaks/Luthor, Angones is particularly fond of imitating Bruce Timm's several DC animated series). Lunaris, of course, was not scarily murderous like Darkseid, but they have too many points in common to overlook. Both characters were fond of striking a dramatic brooding-but-military pose, standing stiffly with their arms folded behind them; both characters rule over a population that misguidedly reveres them, and, most tellingly, both characters staged an all-out invasion of earth to bring the second seasons of their respective shows to a big multi-part climax, after being teased as a lurking off-planet threat in prior episodes.
Angones obviously took Lunaris much more seriously as a villain than any of the comics-derived bad guys, probably because he was his own original creation; rushing through the "Glomtales" villain teamup in the space of a single episode, then making "Moonvasion" the big second-season finale, felt like the showrunners saying "Let's clear these clowns out of the way so our way cooler character can take over." The same was true, of course, of Bradford and FOWL in the last season--the classic comics villains were reduced to literally mindless punching bags for the heroes in the FOWL arena, while Scrooge had his big showdown with Bradford. That said, Lunaris did come off as a more consistent and coherent villain than Bradford did; his vengeful/power-hungry motivations, banal and cliched as they were, were not all over the map in the way Bradford's evil schemes were.
Being consistent didn't make Lunaris interesting, however; again, he was simply a one-note, standard-issue Space Tyrant from Superheroville. Having Lunaris and Scrooge square off as opposite numbers in the Moonvasion finale was also contrived even by the standards of the superhero stuff that Angones was imitating; on the aforementioned Superman show, Superman and Darkseid clashed with each other on occasions before Darkseid's big climactic invasion, and in any case it made sense that Darkseid would be fixated on defeating an all-powerful good guy like Kal-El. Having Lunaris fixate on Scrooge as his primary antagonist, when he had never even met him before coming to Earth, only made narrative sense if you accept Scrooge as a planetary champion on the level of Superman himself. The fact that Angones thought that such a stock superhero-comic type needed to be imported into the Ducks' world in order to give Scrooge a worthy challenge shows how badly he and his production crew misunderstood both Scrooge and his comic-book universe.
I'd agree that Beaks has a lot of potential - he could easily be used to great effect. Honestly, the biggest issue with him chasing the Gizmosuit was that it became his arc, when there could have been so many better ones. Like, imagine he's doing his usual social media pandering, and is either exposed or humiliated by Scrooge. That puts Scrooge on his radar, and he decides to use his full power to his advantage - exposing Scrooge's secrets, maybe helping the Beagle Boys to rob him by giving them the tech to get past his security... they could get topical and have something like "#CancelScrooge". There are so many interesting ways the character could be used to explore social media and modern technology. Personally, I think he'd be at his best as a villain-leaning neutral; not like, say, Glomgold or Magica, who are basically characterized by villainy in this show, but more in the sense that he'd either be very subtle/insidious with his villainy, or he'd be a relatively decent guy for the most part, but is willing to resort to villainy if it helps his end goal. As you say, though, it's a moot point - given how '17 Scrooge was scrubbed of most of his typical negative qualities, a lot of the things he could be "exposed" for just straight-up didn't happen. Even as far as comedy goes, the likelihood of anything happening beyond Scrooge being mildly exasperated and proving that Beaks is wrong is low.
Lunaris is a character that I didn't mind too much either - it's just that a few specific missteps dragged him down a lot. I can't comment much on him in relation to Darkseid (Never watched the Superman series), but the general tropes around him were pretty recognizable.
Lunaris has a few interesting angles that are explored, but ultimately discarded. For one, having him be wary of earth was an interesting idea - stuff like his fearful reaction to the slap bracelet. It could easily have been developed in a way that his fear of the unknown was what led to the invasion, rather than the "We're better than them!" mindset. Rather than him being evil all along, it would have been interesting to have Della and Donald accidentally do things that make him more wary and suspicious of Earth; they could even bring Scrooge up in these contexts, which might actually make sense of Lunaris considering him to be a serious threat. He might, over time with Della, come to the conclusion that he's right to fear earth - with so many things being weaponized, the frequent warring... seeing as Della was able to reach the moon and was able to adapt, he could think "It's only a matter of time before the more hostile ones come for us!" and decide to get them before they got him. Having him be evil all along, and manipulating everyone... it takes away a lot from his character. I get that they were going for a twist/fake-out, but they put too much sincerity in his kindness before that. They have him constantly explaining to Penumbra that Della isn't to be feared, and that the earth isn't something to be feared... and then he explains to her that his actual plan was to manipulate the Moonlanders by using Della as a scapegoat. It's so framed around the 'twist' that his actions really don't make much sense. Why is he so insistent that Penumbra trust Della, only to then tell her that he was manipulating everyone? His excuse of getting her to move there didn't make much sense because, again, he was so insistent on Penumbra being a friend to Della - if he failed, there was no point in doing that. If he succeeded, he shouldn't then expect that she'll happily invade Earth.
I also take issue with Lunaris' seriousness - like Magica, it fails because it's constantly undercut by jokes. The thing is, you can actually make that work. I actually really like the scene where he's distracted by Glomgold - despite the nonsense going on around him, he managaes to stay a serious threat through it. In fact, I'd even say that Lunaris was the perfect character for this type of humour - it doesn't come from him dropping the seriousness for a joke. The joke itself is his inability to comprehend the nonsense going on around him. Stuff like that works because, despite a serious character being the subject of the joke, he never stops being serious. Like, compare that to his final scene - having him scream "AW PHOOEY!" utterly killed what was otherwise a solid ending scene for the character. At his core, Lunaris has some interesting concepts: he has a prejudice against Earthers because that's how he was raised. He follows his beliefs through, even when the evidence starts to suggest that those beliefs may not be accurate. He has a complex about the Moon, and is obsessive about "proving" that it's a planet. Given the current climate a lot could be done with that - whether or not he needs to be kept as a villain is up for debate, but Lunaris could have been used to make some interesting insights into prejudice and how it operates.
And yes, having him view Scrooge as his 'ultimate threat' is a complete joke. As you say, it literally means that he views Scrooge as the most competent and worthwhile threat on earth. It's just so pointless - him specifically targeting Scrooge makes no sense outside of the meta "Super Scrooge" narrative.
All in all, Lunaris is more wasted potential. He could have been used for some social commentary, or to make a point. He could have been a worthwhile antagonist. He could have been a legitimate threatening villain. But it's all thrown away for jokes and to show that Scrooge is the best.
It's a shame, because I actually really like his design. I know a lot of people don't like them in that regard, but I think that having the Moonlanders look out of place kind of worked? Like, it serves the purpose of having them feel 'alien'. Plus, he's actually pretty expressive (without feeling exaggerated) for having such simple features - he really stood out to me in that regard.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Like I said, Lunaris would've been better as strictly Donald (he got sent to the moon) and Della's nemesis rather than shoehorned into being another villain for Scrooge and his band of sidekicks to beat. Especially if it's the above scenario where there's some exploration of distrust and hate of the other.
Actually, in regards to the point of the show not doing anything serious with relations between the worlds part of the problem is they insisted on characterizing the Moonmen as hapless yet friendly surbanites with only Lunaris and Penumbra as the exceptions. It's actually rather odd that the two are the only ones who are presented as remotely "alien." It's among the wider trend of how the show handles the magical/space opera/horror/other elements (monsters are friendly or toothless, villains ineffectual until they're not then it's not taken seriously enough etc.). For the scenario to work, the showrunners would've needed to present the Moon's inhabitants as notably more contrary to Earth norms and culture to better sell how Lunaris could rile them for war and Earthlings being notably hostile to them.
For one, having him be wary of earth was an interesting idea - stuff like his fearful reaction to the slap bracelet. It could easily have been developed in a way that his fear of the unknown was what led to the invasion, rather than the "We're better than them!" mindset. Rather than him being evil all along, it would have been interesting to have Della and Donald accidentally do things that make him more wary and suspicious of Earth; they could even bring Scrooge up in these contexts, which might actually make sense of Lunaris considering him to be a serious threat. He might, over time with Della, come to the conclusion that he's right to fear earth - with so many things being weaponized, the frequent warring... seeing as Della was able to reach the moon and was able to adapt, he could think "It's only a matter of time before the more hostile ones come for us!" and decide to get them before they got him. Having him be evil all along, and manipulating everyone... it takes away a lot from his character. I get that they were going for a twist/fake-out, but they put too much sincerity in his kindness before that. They have him constantly explaining to Penumbra that Della isn't to be feared, and that the earth isn't something to be feared... and then he explains to her that his actual plan was to manipulate the Moonlanders by using Della as a scapegoat. It's so framed around the 'twist' that his actions really don't make much sense. Why is he so insistent that Penumbra trust Della, only to then tell her that he was manipulating everyone? His excuse of getting her to move there didn't make much sense because, again, he was so insistent on Penumbra being a friend to Della - if he failed, there was no point in doing that. If he succeeded, he shouldn't then expect that she'll happily invade Earth.
Since Frozen, twist villains have become almost a cliché in Disney animation--which is not a good trend, since it calls for a delicate balancing act that many writers can't really pull off; even Agatha Christie in her prime wasn't always able to make her murderer reveals credible. If you make the twist villain's likable traits too convincing, the reveal will be hard to accept, while if you try to foreshadow the twist by hinting at the character's sinister side, you run the risk of making the "twist" so predictable that it becomes pointless. I think the showrunners fell into both traps with Lunaris; his dialogue came off as convincingly wise and kindly, making his sharp turn into evildoing feel jarringly arbitrary, but at the same time his militaristic appearance, forceful gestures, and commanding voice are all so evocative of the Evil Space Tyrant stereotype that they telegraph his "hidden" evilness and make his turn as predictable as jarring. Frankly, twist villains in general and the secretly corrupt authority figure in particular have become so hackneyed in popular culture that it would really have been much more of a twist to have his character not turn out to be evil.
As to Lunaris being motivated by fear of Earthlings' warlike nature instead of more banal ambitions of conquest, that's definitely an idea that a more Barks-based show might have gone with. I can see Barks, in one of his more darkly cynical moods, doing a good story in which the Ducks go to outer space and the flaws and foibles of Donald (if it's a ten-pager) or Scrooge (if it's a long adventure story) make such a negative impression on the people of some other planet that they decide to invade Earth in self-defense. After all, Barks, in his few space-alien stories ("Island in the Sky," "Micro-Ducks," and the later "Officer for a Day") liked to use human interactions with space aliens as a means of commenting on human shortcomings, much as C. S. Lewis did in Out of the Silent Planet or H.G. Wells in First Men in the Moon.
Angones eschews any attempt at commentary on humanity with his Moon plot thread, and instead opts for a standard Space Invasion, since that's what's typically used as a Big Climactic Event in superhero movies and TV shows. Such invasions can be entertaining enough if handled with proper panache, but, as Aldwayne points out, since Angones depicted virtually all of the Moonlanders as good-natured and hapless figures indistinguishable from Earthlings, he couldn't even manage to make the "Moonvasion" seem like an actual superhero-comic-style threat/event. There's nothing really dramatic or climactic about being invaded by sitcom suburbanites, no matter how grim and sinister their leader is.
"I come to bury Ducktales 2017, not to praise it."
#4.—The Villains
F. Blotted Out
The Phantom Blot has no one established persona; the original Gottfredson Blot was a cool, calculating and murderous master spy-for-hire. The Western Publishing Blot of the 1960s was a gloating master criminal ("Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!") with ambitious but somewhat unrealistic and cartoony master plans, a sort of kiddie version of contemporaneous non-Disney comic-book supervillains. The Blot of Martina and Scarpa's "Blot's Double Mystery" was a frighteningly vindictive killer with no other motive than revenge who felt the most like a logical development of the Gottfredson Blot; Byron Erickson has done a good job in carrying on the vengeance-driven Blot in his occasional Mickey stories for Egmont. The Blot on Original Ducktales was an over-the-top supervillain (essentially a development of the Western Publishing Blot); the Blot of modern Italian comics is also a supervillain, but (from what I've seen) can vary widely, from comically conceited and over-theatrical (Cavazzano's "Sound-Blot Plot") to intimidatingly serious and powerful (Casty's "Darkenblot" saga).
The New Ducktales Blot has nothing in common with any of these past depictions of the Blot. Angones claimed that "Our version of the Blot is a new character that takes bits from the original Mickey nemesis, Shadow Blot from Epic Mickey, and Blot from the original DuckTales." The only part of that sentence that's accurate is "Our version of the Blot is a new character"--and, unfortunately, he's not a very interesting or well-constructed one. The New Ducktales Blot isn't out for money (unlike the original character) and isn't out for power (unlike most later versions of the character). It's ironic that, in a show crammed with superhero/supervillain takes on other comics characters, he isn't depicted as a would-be world-conquering supervillain, even though in his case there is actually some precedent for such a depiction. Instead, Angones basically chose to define the new version of the character by a play on words--someone on Tumblr asked Angones if this new Blot was still called the Phantom Blot, and Angones replied "Yes, but because he seeks to blot out phantoms."
True, the New Ducktales Blot is out for revenge, like the Martina/Scarpa/Erickson Blot--but not for twisted, villainous revenge on Mickey, who of course isn't a cast member here. Instead, his vengefulness is tragically motivated by Magica's murder of his family--but this backstory is hurriedly tossed off and wins him less sympathy from the showrunners than the mass-murdering Magica's "tragic" transformation of Poe does. His confrontation with Magica is played largely for laughs, and despite his having a genuine wrong to avenge, we're apparently supposed to regard him as just as bad as Magica--or worse, because he doesn't make "funny" remarks the way Magica does, and since the real unforgivable sin on this show is taking anything too seriously. They have to have him try to kill Lena in order to stack our sympathies against him--but even that doesn't remove the bad taste of having the good guys prevent him from destroying Magica, since Magica herself has been just as nasty to Lena in the past.
Angones has made it clear that he came up with the unpleasant Blot/Magica backstory not because he really wanted to explore its dark and unsettling implications, but because he thought it would be fun to have the characters' two voice actors play off of each other; when asked on Tumblr why he cast Giancarlo Esposito as the Blot, he explained "I was excited to use his still, theatrical menace as a counterpoint to Magica’s chatty unhinged nature." I've beat this point into the ground by now, but it bears repeating yet again: If you are going to use grim and/or horrifying plot points--like the Blot being a survivor of a magically destroyed village--you need to take them seriously; otherwise, there was no point in introducing them in the first place.
In the same Tumblr post, Angones also demonstrated yet again how his work fails even on his own stated terms. Regarding the Blot, he stated that "We loved the notion of treating him a little like the Terminator: menacing and unstoppable." Yes, so unstoppable that he's first thwarted by three little girls and then later by the squabbling, sitcomish McDuck clan and their freakin' emu; so menacing that he's paired with a comedic, constantly babbling sidekick. This Blot is too bombastic and humorless, and has too dark of a backstory, to be amusing, but he's too ineffectual to be menacing, leaving him a truly pointless misfire of a character. When he was first introduced, as a FOWL agent, at the end of Season 2, I remember noting that having the Blot be a spy at least looped back to his Gottfredson roots, but also reflecting that the show would mishandle him as a character somehow. I had no idea they would mishandle him up as badly as they did, however--particularly since they cast a voice actor who, though a celebrity from another Disney property, actually could have done a good suave and sardonic take on the character if he hadn't been instructed to be so relentlessly and humorlessly hammy. They even messed up his wonderfully simple and striking visual design (which has been justifiably praised by generations of cartoonists) in order to give him that clunky, obviously Thanos-inspired magic-destroying glove.
If the showrunners were bound and determined to use the Blot, a much better idea would have been to make him a sort of espionage consultant, a master spy hired by FOWL for really big jobs, much the same way that Darkwing on the original Darkwing Duck show was periodically brought in as a freelancer by SHUSH. Failing that, they could have at least harked back to later Blot comics and to Original Ducktales and made him an ambitious high-tech supervillain out to rule the world. Instead, he became a one-note vengeance-driven monomaniac with no ambitions beyond destroying "magic." This version was so entirely disconnected from any prior version of the Blot, and so poorly developed in his own right, that about the only positive thing I can say about him is that at least they didn't make him an archenemy for Scrooge, unlike most of the other Big Villains.
G. Destroying Doofus
Alquackskey has already analyzed the many, many problems with this show’s horribly wrong-headed villainous version of Doofus much more thoroughly than I could, but I still want to add some additional thoughts. The Doofus of Original Ducktales really should have been given a better character name (how about “Rufus,” or “Buford” or “Herbert”? Something that had a somewhat comic sound to it but wasn’t as on-the-nose and unimaginative as “Doofus”). However, the original character wasn’t the mere “walking fat joke” that he’s sometimes been described as; he served an important function as a sidekick for Launchpad, someone to cheer him on while also providing him with an occasional reality check. He also was allowed to be resourceful at times in quirky ways; his bonding with the dolphins in “Aqua Ducks”, for example, was genuinely endearing and was a major part of the big rescue/escape in that episode.
Pete Fernbaugh, on his now-defunct “Caught at the Crossroads” blog, pinpointed the key characteristics of Original Doofus perfectly, by quoting Sancho Panza’s introductory song from the Man of La Mancha musical—“I’ll tell all the world, proudly, that I’m his squire—I’m his friend.” This Quixote/Panza relationship between Launchpad and Doofus is what should have built on in any reboot in order to clearly establish Doofus as much more than a questionably-named joke character. His friendship with Huey, Dewey and Louie and his Woodchuck membership also provided traits that a reboot could have built on to good effect—have him be more eccentric, befuddled and timid than the Nephews, but also capable of surprising moments of outside-the-box inspiration.
So, did Angones and company look at the original Doofus, analyze what worked and what didn’t about the original character, and then discuss ways of building on that and improving it? No, that would have required them to actually engage with their supposed source material, which, as we’ve repeatedly seen, Angones couldn’t be bothered to do. Instead, they simply decided that they were going to, in effect, punish him for the fact that they disliked him on the original series. To quote Angones:
In that Twilight Zone ep, part of what made Anthony so scary is that he seems so innocent and enthusiastic until he turns. We thought that would be an interesting way to use what we knew of Doofus and come at it from a new angle. We also settled on Doofus because he was the one character on original DuckTales that we just did not like as kids. For all the great stuff in that show, it did not have the best record with fat shaming, especially when it came to kids. There are whole episodes that hinge on Doofus’ love of pie getting in the way of saving the day. And he was impossibly clumsy to boot. We’d already changed up some other characters to get away from that idea (Beakley as a badass, for example), so we knew we wanted to strip out that element. And trust me, before we made the change, I did a deep dive on the internet to make sure that there wasn’t some passionate “Cult of Doofus” fandom that would be devastated by a change to their favorite character in all of fiction. I literally only found a couple of drawings of him falling down and kissing a hamburger.
First off, the line about “whole episodes” hinging on Doofus’ love of food preventing the good guys from saving the day is sheer misrepresentation; Doofus’ eating habits on the original series were either used for throwaway gags or were used to comically help save the day—like his peanut butter becoming the key instrument of Gyro’s escape plan in “Aqua Ducks” or his spelling out a message to Launchpad with pancake syrup in “Hero for Hire.” This is another example of Angones simply making stuff up in order to flaunt his progressiveness and sensitivity, as with his “Goldie pining for Scrooge” nonsense.
Furthermore, even if Angones’ description of Original Doofus was accurate, he fails to explain why in the WAK he tried to “improve” on a character that he felt was mishandled by making him ten times worse—i.e., by changing him from a clumsy and gluttonous but lovably naïve and good-natured sidekick into an irredeemable, outrageously “creepy”, and off-putting sociopath; even his phonily sentimental reconciliation scene with Louie in “Life and Crimes” takes pains to have Louie preface his forgiveness by referring to Doofus as a “monster.” Angones on his Tumblr even tries to “humorously” imply, repeatedly, that Doofus is some kind of unspeakably horrifying pervert:
Commenter: I still can't figure out what in the world Doofus Drake was gonna use the umbrella and the walnuts for???
Angones: Legally not even allowed to type it in the State of California.
Commenter: What was Doofus Drake going to do with those Walnuts and the Umbrella?
Angones: Unspeakable acts not suitable for television.
Commenter: So what WERE the walnuts and umbrella for?
Angones: Unspeakable things.
The depiction of Doofus on the show, and the disgusting Tumblr “jokes”, don’t come off as “how can we fix this character”, but rather as “how can we utterly dehumanize, demean, and destroy this character as revenge for his offense to our childhood sensibilities.” The fact that, as Alquackskey has pointed out so eloquently, so many of the “weird” and “creepy” aspects of this Doofus are so uncomfortably similar to real-life neurodivergent issues is a particularly clear indicator that Angones, despite his pontification, wasn’t concerned with “getting away from” traits of Original Doofus that he found offensive, but rather unfunnily and despicably mocking the character for his own warped amusement ("Let's see how much more of a weirdo/loser I can make this weirdo/loser"). This last Tumblr quote is graphic evidence of his self-indulgent fondness for his own terrible creation:
Commenter: Is there any character in Ducktales 2017 you love to hate besides Doofus Drake?
Angones: Oh I love 2017 Doofus. I also don’t know what’s good for me.
Sigh. You also don’t know what’s good for character development or story construction, Mr. Angones.
Anthony Fremont's character depended on a juxtaposition between the great power he wields and him ultimately just being a spoiled brat. Doofus has no such, he's just rich in a setting with plenty other rich birds. I fail to see how anyone outside of his ridiculously cowardly parents would care about his wealth enough to be scared of him.
As for the Phantom Blot, his backstory just reflects how the show never found a good way to represent villain threat. Magica is now a mass murderer except no besides the Blot himself really cares (and he's overall treated as just another thug to be beaten).
After doing some thinking, I've concluded that an early mistake the show was both insisting that the show happened "in the present" and also insisted on addressing the questions the show made it have.
Scrooge's character is fluid in that parts of him like how rich he is and how old he is can change for context. You don't need to make him a prospector if that raises too many questions.
The show made Scrooge keep his ties to the Old West. And that could've been fine if they treated the whole backstory as just tall tales while not really confirming the show is in the 2010s. Except they needed to try to "explain." Now Scrooge is a practically immortal mega gajillionaire with only his parents and Goldie getting that perk. This pushes him even harder as some superhero ala Batman or Iron Man with characters like Glomgold and Beaks and Rockerduck not at all respectable rivals.