I agree. Concerning the Kanzenban-ending: without the events of Super, the original ending would have been better. During Super, Goku's and Vegeta's rivalry to be the strongest, continues and will probably continue in the second part towards the ending of Z and thereafter. Toriyama probably did the Kanzenban ending with in the back of his mind leaving space for more story to be accomplished. A new story without the tension and rivalry between those two, which pushes them both forward as fighters, doesn't make much sense IMHO if it wasn't meant to be a real ending.sintzu wrote:I agree that finished products should stay as is but Toriyama was burned out during the Buu arc so the Kanzenban's ending gave him the chance to expanded on what he was trying to do, it didn't change anything established. Vegeta's panel was to show that although he changed, he didn't give up his way as a warrior which makes sense. The expanded panels with Goku and Uub put more emphases on the passing of the mantle down to the new generation. The last thing was when Buu was defeated which showed a close up of the spirit bomb destroying him to give more of an impact on his death. These changes are small and Toriyama didn't have to make them but thankfully he did as they helped improve the overall feel of the ending. There are also the great covers we got from Toriyama which put the original Tankobon ones to shame so that's another plus for the release.OhHiRenan wrote:I don’t see your point. The Kanzenban ending does bad by Vegeta’s character too and is a great example of why completed works should be left untouched.
Which did it better, GT or Super?
Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff
- Mister_Popo
- Advanced Regular
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:12 pm
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
- Mister_Popo
- Advanced Regular
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:12 pm
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
If i were to write an alternative anime continuation to the original DB-series and ask the question: which story is better, mine or Toriyamas? I don't think i would get 26 pages of attention.
First of all, i think Super is a lot better dan GT, moreover it's the only official continuation of the story. GT has the same level of meaning storywise as the better fanfiction-writer as far as i'm concerned. The question can be posed, but it's somehow irrelevant.
Some guys can still not get over the fact GT is over-written, although it has been since 2013, i feel sorry for them. Just knowing GT is a dead-end street, it has no meaning whatsoever in the bigger continuation. Maybe some elements could be re-used, Brolywise, as fanservice in the future, although i think Toriyama will get his inspiration from the older movies rather than from GT.
First of all, i think Super is a lot better dan GT, moreover it's the only official continuation of the story. GT has the same level of meaning storywise as the better fanfiction-writer as far as i'm concerned. The question can be posed, but it's somehow irrelevant.
Some guys can still not get over the fact GT is over-written, although it has been since 2013, i feel sorry for them. Just knowing GT is a dead-end street, it has no meaning whatsoever in the bigger continuation. Maybe some elements could be re-used, Brolywise, as fanservice in the future, although i think Toriyama will get his inspiration from the older movies rather than from GT.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
My point is, this is Toriyama's vision, and he alone knows best what's in character for his characters. Therefore, I'm going to roll with it rather than the version of Vegeta made by people who had Uub survive unscathed being turned into a candy and fucking chewed up by Baby. The writers of GT have clearly only skimmed over the manga in the best case scenario, I wouldn't trust them with developing the finer points of the characters' personalities, ever.OhHiRenan wrote:I don’t see your point. The Kanzenban ending does bad by Vegeta’s character too and is a great example of why completed works should be left untouched.
-
- Beyond Newbie
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:53 am
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
That kind of blind support for the writer is what Toei is banking on. They know hardcore fans will buy into anything they attach Toriyama's name into, regardless of his involvement or how great or poor the writing is. It's the canon vs non-canon debate all over again. Clearly, not everything Toriyama writes turns to gold and not everything he decides on is the best way to write "his" characters. Toriyama started off as a gag writer and was never known to be a strong writer. I'm sure many of Toei's writers remember more character details than he does, which is why Toriyama's happily taking a back seat while they're basically writing DBS.Saturnine wrote:My point is, this is Toriyama's vision, and he alone knows best what's in character for his characters. Therefore, I'm going to roll with it rather than the version of Vegeta made by people who had Uub survive unscathed being turned into a candy and fucking chewed up by Baby. The writers of GT have clearly only skimmed over the manga in the best case scenario, I wouldn't trust them with developing the finer points of the characters' personalities, ever.OhHiRenan wrote:I don’t see your point. The Kanzenban ending does bad by Vegeta’s character too and is a great example of why completed works should be left untouched.
- Mister_Popo
- Advanced Regular
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:12 pm
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Timetraveller wrote:That kind of blind support for the writer is what Toei is banking on. They know hardcore fans will buy into anything they attach Toriyama's name into, regardless of his involvement or how great or poor the writing is. It's the canon vs non-canon debate all over again. Clearly, not everything Toriyama writes turns to gold and not everything he decides on is the best way to write "his" characters. Toriyama started off as a gag writer and was never known to be a strong writer. I'm sure many of Toei's writers remember more character details than he does, which is why Toriyama's happily taking a back seat while they're basically writing DBS.Saturnine wrote:My point is, this is Toriyama's vision, and he alone knows best what's in character for his characters. Therefore, I'm going to roll with it rather than the version of Vegeta made by people who had Uub survive unscathed being turned into a candy and fucking chewed up by Baby. The writers of GT have clearly only skimmed over the manga in the best case scenario, I wouldn't trust them with developing the finer points of the characters' personalities, ever.OhHiRenan wrote:I don’t see your point. The Kanzenban ending does bad by Vegeta’s character too and is a great example of why completed works should be left untouched.
The main anime continuity is still the main product of the franchise. GT was a side product, a fossile of a time Toriyama was burned out and they wanted to carry on with the franchise without him. They didn't succeed at all.
Merchandise or video games are sideproducts of the franchise too. So the question 'Do you prefer GT over Super?' has the same relativity as 'Do you prefer the video games or merchandise over the story itself?'.
If i were to make a choice ... I even prefer some of the non-canon movies and DBZ-filler TOEI produced over GT. I just don't think it's their strongest sideproduct ever.
-
- Beyond Newbie
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:53 am
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
In what way did GT not succeed? Because popularity doesn't directly correlate to quality. GT was released after DBZ and many fans had Dragon ball fatigue while DBS had close to a two decade long gap. Nostalgia and the age of the internet and social media undeniably helped it be a financial success. I'm not going to argue preference because people have their own tastes (some may even enjoy DB Evolution) but in terms of creativity, originality and the overall writing, I'd argue that GT is a better product to Super. Honestly the biggest difference to me was GT's willingness to take risks. It wasn't arcs with fan-service thrown at you as if Toei were saying "remember how you guys liked Trunks, Frieza, Vegeta and Broly?". "Well, here they are". It felt like there was actual plot progression within each arc, building the villain up for a final showdown instead of them just appearing out of nowhere and wanting to fight like Beerus, Golden Freeza or any of the ToP fighters. Zamasu is the only exception and he's more like a DBZ and GT villain in that aspect. I also prefer SS4 to recolors but that's another argumentMister_Popo wrote:Timetraveller wrote:That kind of blind support for the writer is what Toei is banking on. They know hardcore fans will buy into anything they attach Toriyama's name into, regardless of his involvement or how great or poor the writing is. It's the canon vs non-canon debate all over again. Clearly, not everything Toriyama writes turns to gold and not everything he decides on is the best way to write "his" characters. Toriyama started off as a gag writer and was never known to be a strong writer. I'm sure many of Toei's writers remember more character details than he does, which is why Toriyama's happily taking a back seat while they're basically writing DBS.Saturnine wrote:
My point is, this is Toriyama's vision, and he alone knows best what's in character for his characters. Therefore, I'm going to roll with it rather than the version of Vegeta made by people who had Uub survive unscathed being turned into a candy and fucking chewed up by Baby. The writers of GT have clearly only skimmed over the manga in the best case scenario, I wouldn't trust them with developing the finer points of the characters' personalities, ever.
The main anime continuity is still the main product of the franchise. GT was a side product, a fossile of a time Toriyama was burned out and they wanted to carry on with the franchise without him. They didn't succeed at all.
Merchandise or video games are sideproducts of the franchise too. So the question 'Do you prefer GT over Super?' has the same relativity as 'Do you prefer the video games or merchandise over the story itself?'.
If i were to make a choice ... I even prefer some of the non-canon movies and DBZ-filler TOEI produced over GT. I just don't think it's their strongest sideproduct ever.
- Mister_Popo
- Advanced Regular
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:12 pm
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
You can call me a fan boy but for me me fucking Toriyama is still the man. I am not intrested further in what you you've got to say.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Between the black star dragon ball arc (which was essentially "classic" dragon ball), the baby arc (which was essentially plan to eradicate the saiyans, bigger and better), and Super 17 arc (fusion reborn in particular). What "risk" did they take besides the Shadow Dragon Arc?Timetraveller wrote:In what way did GT not succeed? Because popularity doesn't directly correlate to quality. GT was released after DBZ and many fans had Dragon ball fatigue while DBS had close to a two decade long gap. Nostalgia and the age of the internet and social media undeniably helped it be a financial success. I'm not going to argue preference because people have their own tastes (some may even enjoy DB Evolution) but in terms of creativity, originality and the overall writing, I'd argue that GT is a better product to Super. Honestly the biggest difference to me was GT's willingness to take risks. It wasn't arcs with fan-service thrown at you as if Toei were saying "remember how you guys liked Trunks, Frieza, Vegeta and Broly?". "Well, here they are". It felt like there was actual plot progression within each arc, building the villain up for a final showdown instead of them just appearing out of nowhere and wanting to fight like Beerus, Golden Freeza or any of the ToP fighters. Zamasu is the only exception and he's more like a DBZ and GT villain in that aspect. I also prefer SS4 to recolors but that's another argumentMister_Popo wrote:Timetraveller wrote:
That kind of blind support for the writer is what Toei is banking on. They know hardcore fans will buy into anything they attach Toriyama's name into, regardless of his involvement or how great or poor the writing is. It's the canon vs non-canon debate all over again. Clearly, not everything Toriyama writes turns to gold and not everything he decides on is the best way to write "his" characters. Toriyama started off as a gag writer and was never known to be a strong writer. I'm sure many of Toei's writers remember more character details than he does, which is why Toriyama's happily taking a back seat while they're basically writing DBS.
The main anime continuity is still the main product of the franchise. GT was a side product, a fossile of a time Toriyama was burned out and they wanted to carry on with the franchise without him. They didn't succeed at all.
Merchandise or video games are sideproducts of the franchise too. So the question 'Do you prefer GT over Super?' has the same relativity as 'Do you prefer the video games or merchandise over the story itself?'.
If i were to make a choice ... I even prefer some of the non-canon movies and DBZ-filler TOEI produced over GT. I just don't think it's their strongest sideproduct ever.
-
- Beyond Newbie
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:53 am
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Black star arc was an homage/tribute to classic DB. Planet exploration means entire worlds needs to be created from scratch. New characters (including character designs, character personalities, social hierarchies, etc), new backgrounds (which includes how the planet looks and feels). There was huge excitement from the fans when it was revealed that the Broly Super movie would have "at least one more planet". GT introduced multiple planets.Dbzk1999 wrote: Between the black star dragon ball arc (which was essentially "classic" dragon ball), the baby arc (which was essentially plan to eradicate the saiyans, bigger and better), and Super 17 arc (fusion reborn in particular). What "risk" did they take besides the Shadow Dragon Arc?
Baby arc took concepts from an obscure Japanese-only special that many people never watched and used them as the foundation for a new story. That's different to straight ripping out fan favorites from DBZ for fan-service. I feel like that's what GT tried to do. Build of old concepts and lore that were introduced a long time ago and fans might've forgotten by the time GT came along.
Super 17, I'd compare to RoF. Not a great arc and a bit of fan service. Better animation though and they did try to write a bit of tension into it with the 18 and Krillin vs 17 conflict.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
An homage minus all the humor, all the quality writing and with galaxy-level characters unjustifiably struggling with the easy situations they found themselves in. Also, creating a new planet isn't that big of a deal, really. Z filler did that every few episodes back in the pre Android days. Super did that on a week's notice with Potaufeu and the planet Hit took out his mark on, could have been much more if the writing demanded it. Oh, and all the environments from the other universes too, where we are shown the ToP cast doing their thing. Forgot about that too?Timetraveller wrote:
Black star arc was an homage/tribute to classic DB. Planet exploration means entire worlds needs to be created from scratch.
Also, you're not bothered by "homages" here, but stuff from Super like Kale or the other numerous fighters from the ToP are suddenly unoriginal fanservice coming at the expense of the writing quality? Yeah, right.
Yeah, and as above - Super proved that this isn't really hard to pull off and is more a matter of story direction, really.New characters (including character designs, character personalities, social hierarchies, etc), new backgrounds (which includes how the planet looks and feels). There was huge excitement from the fans when it was revealed that the Broly Super movie would have "at least one more planet". GT introduced multiple planets.
Yeah, that's different alright. Taking a character and putting them in a whole new environment, situation and story is different than taking an already told story and telling it again while calling it new. Not to mention Toei ripped themselves off to the tiniest detail in GT (Baby's death in the sun: straight from the Cooler and Broly 2 movies), and more often then not based both the writing and the execution on their own original material (in other words filler), rather than Toriyama's manga. I mean, why tell Fusion Reborn again if it's already been told? This is the opposite of originality or creativity.Baby arc took concepts from an obscure Japanese-only special that many people never watched and used them as the foundation for a new story. That's different to straight ripping out fan favorites from DBZ for fan-service.
Super never based anything on filler stories or concepts, and it reused characters rather than stories. It's apparently easy to confuse and the same thing to a lot of people, but oh trust me, it's different.
You misspelled "Toei forcibly trying to put their old, original stories riddled with inconsistencies back into the spotlight". To be fair though, the Baby arc was decent, in concept at least.I feel like that's what GT tried to do. Build of old concepts and lore that were introduced a long time ago and fans might've forgotten by the time GT came along.
While completely copying what happened in Fusion Reborn in the meantime! Also, Gero getting killed again just because? Yeah, because why not. Also, how did he and Myu keep their physical bodies in hell in the first place? How did EVERYONE keep their physical bodies in hell?Super 17, I'd compare to RoF. Not a great arc and a bit of fan service. Better animation though and they did try to write a bit of tension into it with the 18 and Krillin vs 17 conflict.
Oh, and Super 17 was a recook of Cell too.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
It was cancelled after 64 episodes and killed the franchise.Timetraveller wrote:In what way did GT not succeed?
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
GT was terrible and boring but it didn't kill the franchise any more than ending the series at the Tournament would've. The only reason it existed at all was to delay that fate for another couple years. I wouldn't say the series "died" at all so much as stopped producing new stories until it started getting it's resurgence with Heroes in Japan, and Battle of Gods globally.
-
- Beyond Newbie
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:53 am
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
The writing's more aimed at adults and isn't Goku pat-pat jokes, Beerus swooning over food every episode or Pilaf hijinks that very few people cared about. Creating a planet is a huge deal. In DBZ, we had heard so much about the other quadrants of the universe and there was even a filler tournament dedicated to showcasing power fighters not from Earth. Super reduces the sense of scale by reducing the number of planets with life to 28 and all ten of the strongest fighters just happened to be on Earth (and included an old man who hasn't been relevant for decades). If it were that easy, Super would've done it. Instead we got gag (another wasteland) planet Potaufeu. I wouldn't compare the few minutes of that planet Hit was on to the fully developed planets from GT but that's a step in the right direction. We can chalk the galaxy-level characters struggling with easy situations up to Goku holding back like we do for every situation in Super.Saturnine wrote:
An homage minus all the humor, all the quality writing and with galaxy-level characters unjustifiably struggling with the easy situations they found themselves in. Also, creating a new planet isn't that big of a deal, really. Z filler did that every few episodes back in the pre Android days. Super did that on a week's notice with Potaufeu and the planet Hit took out his mark on, could have been much more if the writing demanded it. Oh, and all the environments from the other universes too, where we are shown the ToP cast doing their thing. Forgot about that too?
Also, you're not bothered by "homages" here, but stuff from Super like Kale or the other numerous fighters from the ToP are suddenly unoriginal fanservice coming at the expense of the writing quality? Yeah, right.[
You'd have a point there if that was actually true. Double the length of GT and the only original arc was the Zamasu arc which also faltered at the end. The other arcs have generic plots like Golden Frieza reappearing out of nowhere and wanting to fight Goku or a bunch of random fighters fighting in a tournament There's no real villain build-up and very little actual plot, unless you call Frieza's 3 months off screen training to become god level or Jiren's 30 episodes of standing still arms folded and silent some great storytelling.Saturnine wrote: Yeah, that's different alright. Taking a character and putting them in a whole new environment, situation and story is different than taking an already told story and telling it again while calling it new. Not to mention Toei ripped themselves off to the tiniest detail in GT (Baby's death in the sun: straight from the Cooler and Broly 2 movies), and more often then not based both the writing and the execution on their own original material (in other words filler), rather than Toriyama's manga. I mean, why tell Fusion Reborn again if it's already been told? This is the opposite of originality or creativity.
Super never based anything on filler stories or concepts, and it reused characters rather than stories. It's apparently easy to confuse and the same thing to a lot of people, but oh trust me, it's different.
Have a look at the list of plot holes from DBS for comparison. Unexplained power-ups (also recolors), nonsense power scaling that only headcanon can explain and magic spirit bomb swords that form from the power of friendship. I guess we can disregard that because Toriyama somehow did it.Saturnine wrote: You misspelled "Toei forcibly trying to put their old, original stories riddled with inconsistencies back into the spotlight". To be fair though, the Baby arc was decent, in concept at least.
Nah, can't agree with this one either. Where in Fusion Reborn did a scientist create a super android from hell? They keep their physical bodies in hell like all the other major villains do in DBZ fillter. GT is a continuation of DBZ. If you're wanting a show with completely original stories that borrow nothing from older sagas, you're watching the wrong showSaturnine wrote: 17 was a copy of fusion reborn
-
- Beyond Newbie
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:25 pm
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Z's plots actually had a dynamic sequence of events where new twists and turns were constantly happening. The ToP was just everyone fighting eachother all at once, while the only enemy that actually mattered just stood around waiting most of the time.Professor Freeza wrote:The Patrolman wrote:Professor Freeza wrote:
Not at all. Storytelling, grand spectacle? Epic Transformations.. it has it all.
Storytelling? No
Grand Spectacle? Yeah
Epic Transformation? I mean Ultra Instinct was cool
You sure you saw Z and Super?
The only Super arc that is written like Z is the Zamasu arc, but it was extremely rushed (especially the ending) in comparison.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
maybe it killed the franchise BECAUSE it was terrible and boring?Shaddy wrote:GT was terrible and boring but it didn't kill the franchise any more than ending the series at the Tournament would've. The only reason it existed at all was to delay that fate for another couple years. I wouldn't say the series "died" at all so much as stopped producing new stories until it started getting it's resurgence with Heroes in Japan, and Battle of Gods globally.
Spoiler:
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Well no, because I don't think the franchise really "died" in any way that it wouldn't have if it just ended when it was supposed to. GT's entire effect was just to keep the anime going because it was successful, it was only delaying the inevitable. Can it really be credited for "killing" the series if all it did was end things 64 episodes later than intended? Beyond that, I seem to remember something along the lines of GT being a lot longer than intended anyway.
Can we really say that had GT not existed, Dragon Ball would be any more popular today? I mean I think the show is a waste of time, but obviously it's existence to a lot of people was good as another 64 episodes of Dragon Ball. If the series ended with Uub like the manga, we'd probably just get a long line of no new stories and just some video games and stuff the same way we did in reality, I even think it'd probably get a resurgence with BoG like it did, since obviously Toriyama doesn't care about GT. Stuff like Heroes and Xenoverse just wouldn't have GT stuff to pull from, they'd probably take more from early DB and the less-appreciated Z films or filler.
Can we really say that had GT not existed, Dragon Ball would be any more popular today? I mean I think the show is a waste of time, but obviously it's existence to a lot of people was good as another 64 episodes of Dragon Ball. If the series ended with Uub like the manga, we'd probably just get a long line of no new stories and just some video games and stuff the same way we did in reality, I even think it'd probably get a resurgence with BoG like it did, since obviously Toriyama doesn't care about GT. Stuff like Heroes and Xenoverse just wouldn't have GT stuff to pull from, they'd probably take more from early DB and the less-appreciated Z films or filler.
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
It's hard to say for sure whether DB would be more popular today if GT didn't exist. But don't get me wrong, I think it's existence is justified because even if I'm not a fan myself, there are people that enjoy it and it isn't really fair to them to say that it shouldn't exist. If they enjoy it, power to them. Also, just from the perspective of it's standing within the series, it's Baby Arc alone is enough to warrant it's existence because even if it could have been better, it was a very positive addition to the franchise. That being said, I think it is a clear drop in quality from any the other DB series.Shaddy wrote:Can we really say that had GT not existed, Dragon Ball would be any more popular today? I mean I think the show is a waste of time, but obviously it's existence to a lot of people was good as another 64 episodes of Dragon Ball.
Spoiler:
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
The way the Shadow Dragons were handled was so sloppy. They were supposed to be the final antagonist yet half of them were killed by base Goku, most have ugly designs and all have little personality. Syn/Omega Shenron and Nova were the only ones that stood out in any way.
When someone tells you, "Don't present your opinion as fact," what they're actually saying is, "Don't present your opinion with any conviction. Because I don't like your opinion, and I want to be able to dismiss it as easily as possible." Don't fall for it.
- SupremeKai25
- I Live Here
- Posts: 4047
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
Agreed. Plus Omega Shenron was such a boring villain. He is evil incarnate, basically. Whoop dee doo! I don't want every villain to be as nuanced and multi-layered as Zamasu (clearly the most complex villain in Dragon Ball), but they could at least try to write a villain that goes beyond the extremely generic "I am evil and dark so I will destroy everyone and everything!" trope. Which was already done by Kid Buu anyway.ricky84 wrote:The way the Shadow Dragons were handled was so sloppy. They were supposed to be the final antagonist yet half of them were killed by base Goku, most have ugly designs and all have little personality. Syn/Omega Shenron and Nova were the only ones that stood out in any way.
Which is why I, as impartial as usual, will have to commend Baby Vegeta for being a villain who actually had a relatable goal (who wouldn't want revenge on a primitive and violent species that committed genocide upon your city?).
Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?
It's amazing how you always manage to bring up Zamasu in every postSupremeKai25 wrote:Agreed. Plus Omega Shenron was such a boring villain. He is evil incarnate, basically. Whoop dee doo! I don't want every villain to be as nuanced and multi-layered as Zamasu (clearly the most complex villain in Dragon Ball), but they could at least try to write a villain that goes beyond the extremely generic "I am evil and dark so I will destroy everyone and everything!" trope. Which was already done by Kid Buu anyway.ricky84 wrote:The way the Shadow Dragons were handled was so sloppy. They were supposed to be the final antagonist yet half of them were killed by base Goku, most have ugly designs and all have little personality. Syn/Omega Shenron and Nova were the only ones that stood out in any way.
Which is why I, as impartial as usual, will have to commend Baby Vegeta for being a villain who actually had a relatable goal (who wouldn't want revenge on a primitive and violent species that committed genocide upon your city?).
Spoiler: