Youtube Channels For Media Junkies

Loathe as I am to admit it, I'm spending a lot more of my time on Youtube these days.  There are several channels and creators who are reliably producing good work, and I wanted to share a couple of my favorites today.  These are specifically channels geared toward media fans, and I've purposefully left out reviewers and essayists in favor of information and interview-based programming.  Find my picks unranked below.  

Charts With Dan - I love a good box office analysis show, and since my last podcast alternative went kaput, I've started checking in with Dan Murrell whenever he pops up on my feed.  Monday mornings have always meant checking on box office numbers since I was a kid, and it's nice to have someone who just focuses on the numbers and the stats without too many digressions.  Murrell does his homework, offering historical comparison, overseas numbers, projections, and more.  He also does the typical review and ranking videos, but is good about keeping those separate, and not crossing the streams. 

Criterion Collection Closet Picks and Konbini Video Club - I love listening to people who make movies talk about other people's movies.  And the most reliable way to do that is to put them in front of a lot of DVDs and Blu-Rays that they can browse through.  The Criterion folks put some of our most beloved filmmakers in a closet with all the Criterions, and film them making picks to be shared with the rest of the world.  I've also recently stumbled upon the Konbini channel, which has a "Video Club" series showing filmmakers visiting JM Video, one of the last video stories operating in Paris.  It's a French channel, but many of the visitors like David Cronenberg and Christopher Nolan are English speakers.    

Corridor Crew - Corridor Digital is a VFX company that started out posting tutorials, breakdown, and "making of" videos of their projects.  And then around four years ago, they put out a reaction video to the original "Sonic the Hedgehog" movie trailer, and their popularity exploded.  What sets "Corridor Crew" apart from most reaction shows is that the three hosts are VFX professionals who break down and discuss the technology and techniques being used, helping to shine a light on the vast amount of work it took to achieve some of the end results.  It's fun to watch them talk through and figure out how certain effects were achieved, and lately they've been bringing on some pretty big name effects folks to show off their work.  I especially enjoy whenever they look at older movies and practical effects.

Tested - Adam Savage is still going strong post-"Mythbusters."  His channel features a lot of maker and hobbyist content, but it's always had a strong pop culture component.  Over the last year he's visited a bunch of famous effects houses, tracked down old props and costumes from popular movies, and reacted to a bunch of new products and technologies.   I've never been one for collectibles, but it's still fun to watch him goggle over the latest superhero figurines and prop replicas.  And then there was the video where he showed what had become of Tik-Tok from "Return to Oz," which gave me a nostalgia rush like nothing else in ages.  

Gold Derby - Finally, there are so many interviews out there that nobody seems to be aware exist, especially for below the line creative folks.  The Gold Derby channel is a goldmine for these, talking to writers, cinematographers, costumers, sound editors, composers, production designers, hair and makeup, and more.  Usually these are part of FYC campaigns, so the interviews are specifically about one project.  If you really want to deep dive on the production of a particular series or film, however, this is the perfect place to start.  The interviews themselves aren't very polished, and most of the recently posted ones were over Zoom, but everyone is clearly happy to be there.      

---

"Ozark" Year Four

Minor spoilers ahead.

The last season of "Ozark" feels like two shorter seasons, especially since they were released in two batches and there are some significant cast changes between one and the other.  In any case, they're both a step down from the third season, going back to some of the same bad habits as the earlier parts of the show.  Marty and Wendy are back to being a united front, even as Wendy becomes more unhinged in the wake of Ben's departure.  The big fissure in the Byrde family this year is that it's Jonah's turn for rebellion, kicked off by the whole messy situation involving Ben.

The first half of the season is stronger because the villains are stronger.  Darlene is at the height of her powers, joining forces with several parties who the Byrdes have alienated or ticked off.  We're introduced to Navarro's nephew Javi (Alonso Herrera), a violent, ambitious, well-educated criminal who is the presumptive heir to the cartel.  He shows up at the Ozarks at around the same time as Mel Sattem (Adam Rothburg), a nosy private investigator who was hired to track down Helen.  The second half of the season introduces Wendy's father Nathan (Richard Thomas) and Javi's mother Camilla (Veronica Falcon), who are both not quite what they seem.

No matter what gets thrown at the Byrdes this year, however, they're like Teflon.  They always manage to make a deal at the last moment, figure out some string to pull, and maintain the status quo.  Again, the show is driven primarily by plot and not enough by character.  I appreciate that "Ozark" is built for melodrama, and the impossibly compressed timelines and people changing allegiances at the drop of a hat are par for the course, but the Byrdes being so untouchable robs the show of any tension.  The twists and turns get even more unbelievable this year, with the Byrdes brokering deals between the cartel and the FBI, Wendy getting into national politics, and lots of business involving a disgraced pharmaceutical company.  I confess I lost track of what was going on more than once.  Even worse, the season starts with a flash-forward of the whole family in a van together getting into a major accident, so we know they're going to survive and stay together until that point.  

This isn't to say that this run of episodes isn't still enjoyable.  Wendy becomes a power-hungry monster for a good stretch, and the biggest villain of the fourth season might be her.  Laura Linney is alternately terrifying and infuriating, and I'm glad I finished the series for her performance if nothing else.  Marty, by contrast, ends up fading into the background more often, mostly serving as the voice of reason.  Even when he does get the spotlight, his actions don't have nearly as much consequence.  Ruth is more compelling, striking out on her own and fighting to stay in the game, even as her personal misfortunes keep compounding.  "Ozark" from her POV turns out to be a tragedy, and often more rewarding than rooting for the Byrdes.

There's been some controversy about where "Ozark" chose to end.  I think the trouble comes from the finale not having a real sense of finality to it for some of the characters, and certain events being very rushed.  That car crash I mentioned earlier turns out to be a red herring that barely has any impact on any of the ongoing storylines.  I think the more pressing issue is that the Byrdes stopped feeling like real people for too much of the final season.  I loved season three because when Wendy and Marty were in crisis, we got to see them really grappling with their pasts and their personal issues.  There's a little of that this year, mostly involving Wendy and her father, but not nearly enough.     

And that lack of character work keeps this from being one of the television greats.  I thoroughly enjoyed "Ozark," and I love that it gave Linney and Garner the chance to tackle some magnificently complex characters, but the show is not all that it could have been.  I can't help hoping for more, though, and I'm glad that the door was left open in case the show's creators ever feel like taking another dip.  For now, I'll say my goodbyes to the show, and you can expect a Top Ten episodes list in the near future.

 

---

"The Last Voyage of the Demeter" and "The Boogeyman"

Let's look at two summer horror movies that happen to both feature David Dastmalchian in a supporting role today.

"The Last Voyage of the Demeter" has a promising premise - it's based on the section of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" describing the vampire's sea voyage to London on a ship called the Demeter.  I wonder why no one has tried to make this film before - a ship is a great setting for a classic haunted house or monster scenario, because the characters are all trapped there with nowhere to go.  However, the long period this film spent in development hell points to a lot of complications behind the scenes.   

André Øvredal, best known for "Trollhunters" and "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" takes up the challenge with a mostly Scandinavian creative team and a very diverse cast.  The crew of the Demeter includes Captain Elliot (Liam Cunningham), his young grandson Toby (Woody Norman) as cabin boy, first mate Wojcheck (David Dastmalchian), and Joseph (Jon Jon Biones) the cook.  Our main protagonists are Clemens (Corey Hawkins), a black doctor who has signed on as a sailor, and Anna (Aisling Franciosi), a stowaway discovered a few days into the voyage.  The film's version of Dracula (Javier Botet) is barely humanoid, and very much in monster mode.

The result is a very predictable, but very watchable period monster movie.  The premise is played straight, to the point where the first act could have come from a completely non-supernatural maritime adventure movie.  I appreciate that the film lets the crew be memorable personalities, even if we don't have the time to get to know them all, upping the stakes and the tragedy of the situation.  The horror is also genuinely horrific, with scenes of immolation and gruesome kills that may be upsetting for sensitive viewers.  All the creature work with Botet as Dracula is a treat, and the atmosphere of dread is excellent.

Clemons as a POV character, unfortunately, is a major problem.  I think the character as written is pretty decent, but something about Corey Hawkins' performance kept taking me out of the movie.  I didn't believe for a second that he was in any danger, despite the movie repeatedly proving that no one was safe from Dracula, and his final confrontation with the fiend is positively dire.  He shouts that he's not afraid of Dracula, but displayed no sign of being afraid of Dracula at any previous point in the movie.  And it's a shame, because we get some strong performances from the rest of the cast, especially Cunningham, Franciosi, Dastmalchian, and Norman.  I think the film is still worth the watch, but this could have been significantly better.

I probably would have skipped "The Boogeyman," except it's based on a Stephen King short story that I read many years ago and have not been able to forget.   It was about a man named Lester Billings whose three children are systematically targeted and killed by a classic bedroom closet monster.  I thought it worked as a great allegory for child abuse and trauma, as Lester grappled with his guilt and cowardice with the help of a therapist.  It also worked great as just pulpy entertainment, with a nasty twist ending. 

So I'm sad to relay that the film version of "The Boogeyman" has the dullest possible take on this story.  The focus is not on Lester Billings (David Dastmalchian), but his therapist Will Harper (Chris Messina), who is struggling with the recent loss of his wife.  Harper's teen daughter Sadie (Sophie Thatcher) and younger daughter Sawyer (Vivien Lyra Blair) are both grieving and vulnerable, which draws the attention of the supernatural boogeyman.  The film plays out like a standard monster movie, with the girls having various nocturnal encounters with a creature they keep glimpsing in the shadows.  Will Harper is very much a secondary character, and Lester is really only there for some exposition.  None of the thornier themes about parenthood and abuse are present at all.  Instead, it's just your average, basic monster schlock with jump scares and fake outs you'll see coming from a mile away.

This is a shame because the caliber of the cast is pretty good, the monster doesn't look too shabby, and the source material has a lot going for it.  Sophie Thatcher does a fine job of carrying the film, while Messina is stuck with the blandest role I've seen him in all year.  There's just nothing interesting here after the opening scene, where we watch the Boogeyman sneak up on a baby while using a deceptive human voice to distract it.  Does this unnerving ability come into play at all in the rest of the film?  It does not.  Would anyone have noticed if they replaced the boogeyman with a large dog in the last act of the film?  Yes, but only because it probably would have been scarier. 

 

---

"One Piece," Year One (For Fans)

Mild spoilers ahead.

I got to know "One Piece" through the anime series.  I watched over 300 episodes, up to the end of "Thriller Bark," before I decided to take a break and never got back to the show.  When I heard that Netflix was going to make a live-action adaptation, I was expecting the worst.  If they couldn't adapt more accessible IP like "Death Note" and  "Cowboy Bebop" right, surely "One Piece" was going to be a mess.  I'd followed all the drama around the terrible localization of the "One Piece" anime that FOX Kids put out in 2004.  "One Piece" is a smash hit just about everywhere besides the U.S. because American studios kept fumbling the franchise.

Fortunately, this time they got it right.  Netflix put a significant budget behind the show, let a couple of die-hard fans and "One Piece" creator Eiichiro Oda have major input, and committed to giving the fans what they wanted.  The Netflix series loses some characters and condenses many events, but this is a far more faithful adaptation of "One Piece" than I thought we were ever going to see.  We don't just get a perfectly cast Luffy (Iñaki Godoy), Zoro (Mackenyu), Nami (Emily Rudd), Usopp (Jacob Romero Gibson), and Sanji (Taz Skyler), but a slew of familiar side characters and villains brought to screen with the same amount of care.  The highlights include a lovable Shanks (Peter Gadiot), a gruff Zeff (Craig Fairbass), a chaotic Buggy (Jeff Ward), and a very intimidating Garp (Vincent Regan).   

Even better is the look and the feel of the show, which leans into how wacky and exaggerated the "One Piece" universe is.  We get all the crazy costuming, fluorescent hair colors, animal-human hybrids, and walking sight gags you could ever hope for.  The Den Den Mushi not only show up, but the production designers came up with megaphone and earbud variations.  Nobody ever explains what they are, and nobody ever needs to.  I love that the show is so action-heavy, and all manner of crazy stunts and effects sequences are brought to life.  And a lot of it is done practically, which makes a big difference.  We get to watch Luffy do all the Gum Gum attacks.  We get to watch Mihawk (Steven Ward) literally cut a ship in half.  There are so many fun little nods for the fans, like the villains' character introductions being done with their wanted posters, and "We Are!" playing when the Going Merry sets sail at last.  

One thing I felt was a little rough was the cinematography, full of low-angle shots and close-ups, maybe intended to mimic the original manga panels.  However, I got used to it quickly.  The show's pacing was harder to deal with, since the writers stuffed everyone's backstories into the show and let some of them run longer than they should have.  The biggest departure from the manga is Garp showing up so early, and making appearances in most episodes with Koby (Morgan Davies) and Helmeppo (Aidan Scott).  The extra material works because the characters are genuinely fun to watch, and it helps to fill in narrative gaps in the Straw Hats' story.  It's nice to see Koby and Helmeppo becoming friends, and Garp reminiscing about the old days with Zeff, while laying the groundwork for some of the big clashes coming in future storylines.  However, I think some of that time would have been better spent fleshing out some of the antagonists.  Why not give Buggy a few flashbacks?  

In short, as much as I enjoy the show, there's plenty of room for improvement.  You can tell that they're still working some of the kinks out, and hopefully the success of this season will inspire some improvements in the second.  There are some characters and concepts that honestly work better in live action, like a surprisingly nuanced Helmeppo, while others just end up looking like the CGI nightmares from Disney's worst animation-turned-live-action dreck.  Hatchan, the octopus guy from Arlong's crew, is one of the characters who got cut, and I'm glad.  There's a good chance he would have come out badly, and I still have no idea how they're going to handle Chopper or Brooke down the line.  The cast, however, has turned out to be the show's biggest asset - the wonderfully diverse performers do a lot to flesh out their characters, and have helped distract from some of the weaker parts of the production.    

I think that fans should be satisfied with the live action adaptation overall, but its real value is in providing a gateway for newcomers to "One Piece" who might balk at the anime and manga versions.  It also proves that live action adaptations of manga and anime can be successful, no matter how wild or unlikely they are, provided they have the right creative talent involved.  I doubt we'll see too many more shows in this vein, however, because "One Piece" was an extremely risky venture, and so easily could have turned out badly.  But if this does turn out to be the exception that proves the rule, it couldn't have happened to a nicer franchise.

---

"One Piece," Year One (For Newcomers)

Netflix's adaptation of the long-running "One Piece" manga is a goofy, melodramatic pirate action show that takes place in a cartoon universe, but might end up tugging your heartstrings.  It's got a big budget, a cast of fresh-faced newcomers, and an admirable willingness to embrace the bizarre.  The "One Piece" universe is not only filled with pirates, but lots of people have superpowers, there are animal-human hybrids, some of the regular animals are sentient, and everybody gets into beautifully choreographed fights at the drop of a hat.  Be warned there are some intense scenes and mild swearing, so this isn't for younger kids, but it's not such a big deal if they sneak a look anyway.

Our hero is Monkey D. Luffy (Iñaki Godoy), an optimistic young man in a straw hat, who declares that he will become King of the Pirates.  He's one of the many hopefuls who is sailing to a treacherous stretch of ocean known as the Grand Line, to search for a legendary treasure, the One Piece.  Unfortunately, Luffy doesn't have a ship or a crew and can't even swim.  However, he does have the advantage of having consumed a Devil Fruit, which gives him a superpower - his body acts like it's made of rubber, and can stretch and distort in all kinds of fun ways.  He spends the first season befriending and gathering crewmates - a pirate hunter, Zoro (Mackenyu), who wields three swords at once, a clever thief, Nami (Emily Rudd), a sharpshooter braggart, Usopp (Jacob Romero Gibson), and a charming cook, Sanji (Taz Skyler).  

And it's a good thing he's making friends, because Luffy soon gets on the wrong side of all kinds of enemies, including Buggy the Clown (Jeff Ward), the fishman gangster Arlong (McKinley Belcher III), and the claw-handed Kuro (Alexander Maniatis) - yes, all of them are pirates.  The main policing force in this world is the Marines, and they're after Luffy too, after he steals a map to the Grand Line.  We spend a scene or two with Vice Admiral Garp (Vincent Regan), and his cadet mentees Koby (Morgan Davies) and Helmeppo (Aidan Scott) in most episodes as they chase Luffy and friends from island to island, often cleaning up the aftermath of their adventures.  

There have been a couple of attempts at adapting anime and manga stories to live action, and none of them have been very successful.  "One Piece" is not a franchise I thought would have any chance of turning out well in live action, because the original has such an exaggerated visual style, and the characters are so extreme.  However, you can tell that everyone involved with this adaptation was careful to stay as faithful as possible to the original, and were wholly committed to its outlandish concepts and design aesthetic.  Nobody bats an eye at Zoro having green hair or meeting a pirate captain who is also a circus clown.  Nobody questions why seagulls are delivering the mail, and why the telephones are funky looking giant snails.  The MVPs of the production were definitely the art direction team that was able to figure out how to get all of this to make sense onscreen.

I like the cast, who are pretty much all unknowns except Mackenyu.  What they lack in finesse they more than make up for in enthusiasm and commitment to their roles.  I suspect most of them were chosen based on martial arts or stunt backgrounds, because there's so much fighting in the show.  The stunt work is fabulous, and it's really satisfying to see some of the clashes play out.  However, there's also a sneakily effective found family story at the heart of "One Piece" - several of them, actually.  I was pleasantly surprised that the creators got the worldbuilding and the action sensibilities of the series right, but I was completely bowled over by how well they handled the characters and story.     

   

I don't expect that this will be a series for everyone - the level of unreality is bound to turn off less adventurous viewers.  However, for action-adventure fans, this should be an easy watch.  It's simple, uncomplicated action and hijinks for those of us who still sneak the occasional Saturday morning cartoon and feel like cheering on some likable heroes.          

---

Baffling, Beautiful, "Barbie"

I admit that I let myself get overhyped for "Barbie."  By the time I actually sat down and watched the movie, I'd had most of the better gags and laugh lines spoiled for me.  And after wading through all the different takes and analysis on the movie's messaging, I was expecting something a lot more assertive about being a feminist, progressive, forward-thinking satire on consumer culture and gender dynamics.

What we got instead was a very silly, very weird piece of entertainment that is careful to ensure that the audience is having a good time.  Rest assured that "Barbie" is about breaking down the idealized image of the Barbie doll and pointing out the impossibility of living up to that standard.  However, it does so in very gentle terms, making room for plenty of nostalgia, musical numbers, and feel-good girl-power moments.  "Barbie" was  also made with the full cooperation of Mattel, using all of their branding and intellectual property, so don't expect anything too critical when it comes to their corporate practices.  "Barbie" keeps its focus almost solely on the gender divide, and all the messages are very familiar and very safe. 

Writer/director Greta Gerwig and her co-writer Noah Baumbach have constructed a life-sized universe for Barbie based on the toy lines and all of those commercials for Barbie dolls we saw as a kid.  The worldbuilding here is not very sturdy, because Barbie only had the sketchiest outlines of a backstory, based mostly around bright, girlish, aesthetics.  And wow, those aesthetics look great on the big screen.  Everything in Barbieland is bright and cheerful and surely there's never been so much pink in one movie before.  The laws of matter and physics conform to how children play with their Barbie dolls, so Barbie floats down from her Dreamhouse to her car instead of walking down the steps.  There's no real water anywhere, hair length can change from moment to moment, and Barbie herself is always permanently on tiptoe to accommodate high-heel shoes.  

Pointedly, the Barbies occupy all the important roles in their society, including presidents, doctors, scientists, and judges, while the Kens are essentially accessories.  In keeping with Mattel's own diversity efforts, there are Barbies and Kens of all colors and body types.  So we have Barbies played by Issa Rae, Alexandra Shipp, Hari Nef, Dua Lipa, Emma Mackey, and Sharon Rooney, while the Ken actors include Simu Liu, Kingsley Ben-Adir, and Ncuti Gatwa.  Everything looks like plastic perfection in Barbieland, and if you've ever played with Barbies you'll probably be able to spot something familiar among the sets or wardrobe choices.  There's a ton of Barbie paraphernalia recreated for the film, and even obscure side characters like Pregnant Midge (Emerald Fennell) and Ken's Buddy Alan (Michael Cera) show up.

The story of "Barbie" is about one Barbie, a Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie), who starts having very un-Barbielike thoughts of death one day, and starts losing her Barbieness.  Her feet go flat and she can't float anymore.  After consulting with the local guru, Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon), our heroine learns she must go to the Real World to find out who's been playing with her, and try to resolve this existential crisis.  She's joined by the Ken (Ryan Gosling) who is infatuated with her, and they soon meet the mother/daughter pair of Gloria (America Ferrera) and Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt), who help to clue the dolls in on how the Real World operates.         

If you haven't worked it out by now, the "Barbie" movie is aimed at adults, and contains some instances of adult humor - nothing explicit, but plenty that touches on mature subjects.  While you can definitely call the entire movie an extended commercial for the Barbie brand, I like that it's honestly less about the doll and more about the complicated relationships that multiple generations of women and girls have had with the doll.  Gerwig seems to be honestly trying to reconcile all the competing ideas and criticisms about Barbie that have been around since her inception, and acknowledging everyone's POV.  Gloria is nostalgic and positive about Barbie.  Sasha dismisses her outdated and lame.  The Mattel execs talk the talk, but are shown to be massive hypocrites.  Even the creator of Barbie, Ruth Handler (Rhea Perlman) gets to put in her two cents.  

This doesn't result in a very cohesive narrative, however.  "Barbie" has a lot of great ideas and notions, but feels very piecemeal and underdeveloped, with everything sort of thrown together.  The one part of the movie that absolutely works is Ryan Gosling's Ken discovering the patriarchy, bringing it back to Barbieland, and turning the place on its head, revealing its systemic problems in the process.  Gosling's performance is already iconic.  His Ken is a himbo manchild who flirts with toxic masculinity, but really just needs to learn to love himself.  Margot Robbie is even more perfect as Barbie, the harder role to embody, and it's a shame that Barbie's existential crisis just doesn't pack as much of a punch as I wanted it to.  There are bits that don't go anywhere, like the Mattel executives, led by a blundering CEO (Will Ferrell), who really don't need to be in this movie, and way too many distracting little references and product spotlights.

The filmmaking itself is lovely.  Gerwig's work is very playful, zipping between a "2001: A Space Odyssey" homage for the opener, to explorations of Barbieland and the real world, beautifully choreographed musical numbers, chase sequences, travel montages, and spoofs on the familiar Barbie commercial format.  Some of the one liners and sly asides are all-timers, and I so appreciate that Gerwig isn't afraid to get sentimental and lean into the fuzzy feelings.  Despite all the emphasis on how impossible it is to be a woman in the real world, there's no question why Barbie would still choose to be one.  I'm also impressed that Mattel was willing to poke this much fun at itself, though "Barbie" still looks very tame next to projects like the recent "Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers" movie. 

However, it's hard to get away from how half-finished the movie feels.  The mother-daughter story and Barbie's progression into a real girl are both awfully thin, and so much of that fantastic cast ends up stuck in the background.  I'm happy that "Barbie" is doing so well financially, but as a movie it leaves a lot on the table, and the audience has to do way too much of the heavy lifting.  I'd still recommend seeing it, because "Barbie" is so uniquely a cinematic spectacle from a female POV that nobody else has ever attempted on this level.  And it could very well be that I set my own expectations too high.  If I'd have gone in pre-hype, without knowing anything except that the movie was about Barbie, I probably would have loved it.         

---

"Disenchantment," Year Five

Minor spoilers ahead.

I lost track of most of the storylines and many of the characters in "Disenchantment" by the time the final season rolled around, even though I've watched every episode.  Compared to the other Matt Groening shows, I've found it difficult to connect to "Disenchantment" for many different reasons.  I don't think the writers ever figured out how to crack the serialized storytelling, and the binge model of release didn't help matters.  I've never rewatched "Disenchantment" the way I've rewatched "The Simpsons" and "Futurama," and I've never gotten remotely as attached to the characters.  Still, having stuck with the show through multiple seasons, I decided I still wanted to see how everything was going to play out. 

After all, multiple cancellations of "Futurama" have proven that Groening and crew know how to deliver a good ending.  I was perfectly satisfied with the "Disenchantment" finale, where every character reaches a happy ending.  There are loose ends everywhere you look, and all kinds of lore left unexplained and unexplored, but this feels like the right place to stop.  Most of this season is spent reuniting everybody and mopping up the fallout from past storylines.  A couple of minor characters become much more important, mostly because they get romantically entangled with our leads - Ursula (Jeny Batten) is Zog's true love, Mop Girl (Lauren Tom) gives Elfo a distraction from Bean, and the Devil (Rich Fulcher) almost immediately becomes a henpecked husband when he gets too close to Dagmar.  There are a couple of interesting reveals that happen, but don't have much impact because the show's storytelling has been so chaotic.  Sure, it's a fun idea that a minor background character ends up being so important to the endgame of the series, but it also ends up feeling a little hollow, because we don't have much time to get to know the Macguffin in question.

  

I don't think that all the storylines were planned out from the beginning, or at least there have been some serious changes along the way.  For one thing, our central trio of Bean, Elfo, and Luci barely interact in the end, despite their friendship being such a big part of the show.  Luci has to hang out in heaven with God (Phil LaMarr) for a good chunk of the season, while Bean is obsessed with taking down Dagmar, and Elfo spends most of his time with Mop Girl.  The old dynamic's just not there anymore, and if this is the point of the story, it's not made very clear.  Instead, love seems to conquer all, rendering every other concern moot, resulting in abrupt endings for several different characters.  The deep bench of minor players enjoyed by "The Simpsons" and "Futurama" feels like it's still a work in progress on "Disenchantment."  Bean and Zog have accumulated a lot of friends and enemies on their travels, but the majority are very one-note and get little development.  Background details for side characters like Vip and Vap are often dropped on the audience out of the blue, while characters  who I thought were pretty major, like Oona and Derek, have been relegated to bit parts since around year three.  

The storyline that wound up working best was Bean's grudge with Dagmar.  Oona is still my favorite "Disenchantment" character, but Dagmar is the year's MVP for being a villain worth rooting against.  She turned out to be an incredibly funny caricature of the oversexed evil sorceress trope, and I loved all her digs at Bean and the Devil.  Bean and Dagmar's troubled relationship has been a major throughline for the show since the first season, and it was very satisfying to see Dagmar finally get her comeuppance.  Zog and Elfo, by contrast, felt a little underserved.  Both of them have earned their happy endings, but at the same time their stories  felt manipulated to have the best outcomes possible.  Luci didn't get to do a lot, but at least his role didn't feel extraneous for once.  

In the end I didn't love "Disenchantment," but I respect it a ton for trying to do something different.  So much effort was put into pulling off ambitious ideas and concepts.  I was constantly hitting the pause button to read the punny signs, and marveling over the interesting bits of worldbuilding.  One example is Bean having to spend so much time carrying Mora the mermaid around on land.  There's no joke or plot reason involved - just a reality of this world that Bean has to deal with, and we have to tough it out with her.  This level of mundanity is odd to see included in an animated show, and I can't say it adds much entertainment value, but at the same time I truly admire the level of commitment.

 

---