Which did it better, GT or Super?

Discussion specifically regarding the "Dragon Ball Super" TV series premiering July 2015 in Japan, including individual threads for each episode.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Rakurai » Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:03 pm

PFM18 wrote:
GT_Goten10 wrote:-Golden Oozaru
-Shadow Dragons
-SSJ4
-Baby
-GT’s music
-GT‘s Ending
-Piccolos Death
-new Planets&Races(Planet M2,Ledgic,Planet Immega,Rilldo..)
-weird/creative stuff like Para Para Brothers or Sugoro Space
-the concept of Super 17
- unique Character Designs(Omega,Ledgic,SSJ4,Super 17,Rildo,Baby Vegeta..)

Are meaningful too
Outside of SSJ4, Piccolo's death, and Baby none of that really constitutes a meaningful addition to the franchise. You basically just listed aspects of GT rather than anything that is new, creative, unique or compelling.

GT's music is a truly meaningful addition to the franchise? Really?
Music believe it or not defines scenes and the overall tone of the franchise, as Kikuchi's music and Tokunaga's music did for Z and GT respectively. Gohan's SSJ2 scene is marked by Kageyama's Unmei no Hi, which has a powerful emotional impact on the scene and by which many fans remember it by. That's a meaningful in its own right. Sumitomo's music pales by comparison to those two IMO.

And you are being hypocritical and nitpicky. Listing power adjectives "new, creative, unique or compelling" doesn't make your argument more convincing.

"Introduced the first ever villain with real motivations and nuances further than being evil" lol what. Have we forgotten about Gero and his revenge? Majin Vegeta and his reasons for being willingly controlled by Babidi? These are all arguably as justified as Zamasu's BS, who isn't a complex villain, not even by DB standards. His way of thinking is evil, his methods are evil, and he did asanine evil acts to ensure that he could not be stopped like killing all the other gods.

"Best fight in Goku vs Jiren," lol pls. It's also subjective, and many would agree it's far from being the best fight in the entire series.

"Has fights in which they aren't decided by strictly power like literally every fight in DBZ was/more strategy in the fights in general." You might have a point if you're talking about the manga but not with the anime.

I'm not even going to get into how you manage to convince yourself that Super did anything new besides expand the lore, of which it did very little with considering most universes weren't explored and only Saiyans really got any meaningful spotlight in the end. Jiren's backstory was generic af and I don't count that crap. Lol we're even getting a film about Broly of all people again.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

Diggz92
Newbie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Diggz92 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:59 am

Dragon ball GT had some good concepts like super but both didn't execute them well. In GT everything up to rildo was trash except legic he was the best part though short lived. From rildo to baby was good. Super 17 as a character was the best. The saga was rushed if they brought every enemy back from hell saw a cameo of them but we only saw a few old one like cell, frieza, and nappa that really had a voice. The shadow dragons was a good concept executed poorly the last three dragons was the best. I wish we could see what it would have been like with Goku gone and no dragon balls to save them. GT was short but sweet enough to tolerate certain things.

As from Super it just needs consistency. The movies to anime need to either stay the same or try and up it. Take a page from boruto. I think the manga should be the same way too. I mean it's nice to see two sides of the story but it makes the viewer or reader having to mash the content together just to know what's going on. The anime seemed rushed up until the trunks arc were the pacing seemed a lot better. ToP was the best arc and broly so far looks great. I just hope if they put broly in manga and anime ep that they stay close to the movie and add to it if possible, It can be difficult to do that.

So they are 50/50 neither is better than the other.

User avatar
Xeztin
I Live Here
Posts: 2242
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:15 pm
Location: Toyotarō's Place

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Xeztin » Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:01 am

Super didn’t really get me excited until the Zamasu src, I wasn’t much on the ToP because it bored me until the last few episodes where Goku started hitting UI and Goku/Jiren and Jiren/Toppo fighting moments. There was some neat little tricks here and there but I felt like they bit off more than they could chew as 90 percent of character designs looked like Pokemon or a Final Fantasy monster. Universe 2 was absolutely annoying and drove its uniqueness into the ground after repeating the same thing from episode one until their elimination. Universe 3 was unexpedately good, I felt like Universe 4 failed to live up to the hype. Universe 10 was a joke considering Zamasu came from there. It basically came down to 6,7,11, and 3. Honestly if they just had those 4 universes in the ToP it’d probably been a lot better, perhaps 9 to show an example of elimination.

GT from the Baby Arc until the end was something I thought was a good idea that could have gone better. I loved SSJ4 and stuff like magical pants never bothred me as I never tried to stick the series in a real world context as if they were bound by our laws of real life. If you took the Zamasu arc out it’d definately be GT for me as Super started out as more of a promontial anime like SDBH in a sense. It wrote itself into a corner more than I’d like to admit and contradicted too many estasblished rules that wasn’t just set in Z, but that was set only a few episodes prior in Super itself. Super only attempted to really flesh out lore and history in BoG and Zamasu arc. If I had to give it a score out of 10 in DB standards, I’d give GT a 5/10 and Super a 6.5/10.

User avatar
GT_Goten10
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 266
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:46 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by GT_Goten10 » Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:59 am

Diggz92 wrote:Dragon ball GT had some good concepts like super but both didn't execute them well. In GT everything up to rildo was trash except legic he was the best part though short lived. From rildo to baby was good. Super 17 as a character was the best. The saga was rushed if they brought every enemy back from hell saw a cameo of them but we only saw a few old one like cell, frieza, and nappa that really had a voice. The shadow dragons was a good concept executed poorly the last three dragons was the best. I wish we could see what it would have been like with Goku gone and no dragon balls to save them. GT was short but sweet enough to tolerate certain things.

As from Super it just needs consistency. The movies to anime need to either stay the same or try and up it. Take a page from boruto. I think the manga should be the same way too. I mean it's nice to see two sides of the story but it makes the viewer or reader having to mash the content together just to know what's going on. The anime seemed rushed up until the trunks arc were the pacing seemed a lot better. ToP was the best arc and broly so far looks great. I just hope if they put broly in manga and anime ep that they stay close to the movie and add to it if possible, It can be difficult to do that.

So they are 50/50 neither is better than the other.
For me, Super does not even have good concepts, the only thing I found interesting was the FT Arc, which in my opinion was well executed except the end
GT Fighter

Jord
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:13 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Jord » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:41 am

Toriyama said in interviews that he basically used tournaments as a writing crutch in the series from which interesting things happen and the story picks up. We've seen that multiple times during DragonBall and DragonBall Z. In Super we just got.....tournaments. No interesting developments. Just dragged out tournaments. Yes there were stakes but they weren't realistic at all. They really thought we'd believe there was a chance that Everyone we know from DragonBall Z would be erased? That is just bad writing. Real bad.
If they want to make it interesting just give us a slightly more realistic stake like for example having Goku be banned from his universe for a set amount of time (potentially allowing for new adventures in new places with all the new characters) if they lose.
Ultimately the problem is that Super is afraid to change the status quo. It's been 5 years since the battle with Buu yet Goten and Trunks didn't age at all. Vegeta actually regressed in character. Yes we get new colored forms but there is no growth in characters which makes for some boring storytelling. That's what GT did better. The characters grew some actually ended their character arch.

User avatar
Kaiza_Toshiyuki
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiza_Toshiyuki » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:03 am

Ok, so Super over all was the better show, but its bland and predictable and doesn't really try. I´d rather have a show like Gt that try´s something new and fails, then something that sticks what works but Is unoriginal and boring. For example, The design of Ssj 4. Its pretty clear that people actually sat down and tried to make an original Idea, and its one of the things people really like about the show. They could have easily done what super did which was just change the color and call it a day. That shows that even though Gt didn't execute their ideas very well, they had good ideas and felt passionate about the Dragon ball Franchise. I think had toriyama had more involvement with the story in greater detail, it would have been a true predecessor to Z.

User avatar
Saturnine
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:50 am

How did Vegeta supposedly regress in character in Super? I think he progressed a lot actually, caring about people 'n shit.

User avatar
Saturnine
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:56 am

Kaiza_Toshiyuki wrote:Ok, so Super over all was the better show, but its bland and predictable and doesn't really try. I´d rather have a show like Gt that try´s something new and fails, then something that sticks what works but Is unoriginal and boring.
Sooo, either it "works", or is unoriginal and boring. In which case, it doesn't really work, now does it?
For example, The design of Ssj 4. Its pretty clear that people actually sat down and tried to make an original Idea, and its one of the things people really like about the show.


A lot of people like SSj4, but there's also a fair number of people who don't. The colors kinda look weird, and it looks more like a transitional state than a final form in its own right. I don't think people like GT because it tried to do something new, they like it for what they actually like in it.
They could have easily done what super did which was just change the color and call it a day.
Sometimes less is more. I don't remember anyone complaining about SSj2 Vegeta looking essentially identical to SSj Vegeta, and that's even less than doing a color swap.
That shows that even though Gt didn't execute their ideas very well, they had good ideas and felt passionate about the Dragon ball Franchise. I think had toriyama had more involvement with the story in greater detail, it would have been a true predecessor to Z.
Toei were passionate alright, but about shoehorning as many of their original ideas from Z fillers and the theatricals as possible - this clearly shows through all the referneces to filler plotlines and even mechanics (dead villains keeping their bodies in hell etc). For that reason GT feels decidedly un-Toriyama-ish.

User avatar
Kaiza_Toshiyuki
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiza_Toshiyuki » Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:00 am

Saturnine wrote: Toei were passionate alright, but about shoehorning as many of their original ideas from Z fillers and the theatricals as possible - this clearly shows through all the referneces to filler plotlines and even mechanics (dead villains keeping their bodies in hell etc). For that reason GT feels decidedly un-Toriyama-ish.
And how is super any different?

User avatar
Kaiza_Toshiyuki
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiza_Toshiyuki » Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:06 am

Saturnine wrote: Sometimes less is more. I don't remember anyone complaining about SSj2 Vegeta looking essentially identical to SSj Vegeta, and that's even less than doing a color swap.

[
This is more of a Z complaint that a GT complaint, so no clue where you thought this was going.

User avatar
Saturnine
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:37 am

Kaiza_Toshiyuki wrote:
Saturnine wrote: Toei were passionate alright, but about shoehorning as many of their original ideas from Z fillers and the theatricals as possible - this clearly shows through all the referneces to filler plotlines and even mechanics (dead villains keeping their bodies in hell etc). For that reason GT feels decidedly un-Toriyama-ish.
And how is super any different?
It's entirely different. There are homages to some GT and filler stuff, but they're homages, not blatant ripoffs. In GT we had a villain death parroted off 2 theatricals directly (Kamehameha'd into the Sun), and a plot arc that was a direct rehash of one from a theatrical movie with the same bullshit treatment of deceased villains (what's the deal with them keeping their bodies with no halos, even?)

Super on the other hand, ignores filler whenever there's a Toriyama thing overwriting it. For example, Freeza's afterlife is portrayed according to Toriyama's vision, rather than the filler hell situation from Z; Goku is mentioned not to have used Kaioken for years right until its resurgence with Blue, no one associates Kale with Broly etc. If this was GT, I'm 100% certain they'd have tried to reference every piece of filler they ever made: Freeza's hell would have been the same, Goku would have mentioned he used the Kaioken in the Other World Tournament, and Kale would be immediately commented on as being similar to Broly.
Kaiza_Toshiyuki wrote:
Saturnine wrote: Sometimes less is more. I don't remember anyone complaining about SSj2 Vegeta looking essentially identical to SSj Vegeta, and that's even less than doing a color swap.

[
This is more of a Z complaint that a GT complaint, so no clue where you thought this was going.
Yeah, and Z is the supposedly superior series that both GT and Super are being held up to. Yet Toriyama himself created a transformation that's arguably even lazier than SSj Blue. And no one minded it a bit. People complaining about recolors come across as hypocrites for this very reason. Either that or they've gotten too used to seeing all those ridiculously over-designed fan transformations and thinking those somehow fit the series conceived by Toriyama, a lover of simplicity.

User avatar
Kaiza_Toshiyuki
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiza_Toshiyuki » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:09 pm

Saturnine wrote:It's entirely different. There are homages to some GT and filler stuff, but they're homages, not blatant ripoffs. In GT we had a villain death parroted off 2 theatricals directly (Kamehameha'd into the Sun), and a plot arc that was a direct rehash of one from a theatrical movie with the same bullshit treatment of deceased villains (what's the deal with them keeping their bodies with no halos, even?)

Super on the other hand, ignores filler whenever there's a Toriyama thing overwriting it. For example, Freeza's afterlife is portrayed according to Toriyama's vision, rather than the filler hell situation from Z; Goku is mentioned not to have used Kaioken for years right until its resurgence with Blue, no one associates Kale with Broly etc. If this was GT, I'm 100% certain they'd have tried to reference every piece of filler they ever made: Freeza's hell would have been the same, Goku would have mentioned he used the Kaioken in the Other World Tournament, and Kale would be immediately commented on as being similar to Broly.
It sounds to me like you give super way too much credit for what its worth. It´s riddled with bad plot and terrible ideas that came right from Toriyama´s desk. For example, the idea to bring frieza back AGAIN for the tournament of power arc and doing the same fake out ¨Majin boo in a tournament¨ joke that wasn't funny the first time.
Yeah, and Z is the supposedly superior series that both GT and Super are being held up to. Yet Toriyama himself created a transformation that's arguably even lazier than SSj Blue. And no one minded it a bit. People complaining about recolors come across as hypocrites for this very reason. Either that or they've gotten too used to seeing all those ridiculously over-designed fan transformations and thinking those somehow fit the series conceived by Toriyama, a lover of simplicity.
Thats not what I was saying at all. The fact that Z made the same mistake before is irrelevant. Everyone complains about the fact that Ssj 2 looks almost the same as regular ssj. So the fact that super is making the same mistake is retarded considering how much everyone complains.

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 4047
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:25 pm

It sounds to me like you give super way too much credit for what its worth. It´s riddled with bad plot and terrible ideas that came right from Toriyama´s desk. For example, the idea to bring frieza back AGAIN for the tournament of power arc and doing the same fake out ¨Majin boo in a tournament¨ joke that wasn't funny the first time.
Personally, All the credit that Super gets is well-deserved. Trash ideas like "Goku Black" and "Frieza's third return" were executed flawlessly. Frieza was one of the best characters by far in the Tournament of Power. Without him, the narrative would have suffered a lot. He is much more entertaining to watch than some dumb clown like Buu who has the personality of a toaster. Frieza kept things interesting and mysterious, and it is therefore not a surprise that there were so many theories about his true motives. As for Goku Black, well... The fact that he has become one of the most popular and beloved characters ever is proof of the writers' blatant success.

I much prefer a cheap idea executed wonderfully, than an original and creative idea executed terribly (such as the Shadow Dragons).
Last edited by SupremeKai25 on Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

ricky84
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ricky84 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:34 pm

Jord wrote:Toriyama said in interviews that he basically used tournaments as a writing crutch in the series from which interesting things happen and the story picks up. We've seen that multiple times during DragonBall and DragonBall Z. In Super we just got.....tournaments. No interesting developments. Just dragged out tournaments. Yes there were stakes but they weren't realistic at all. They really thought we'd believe there was a chance that Everyone we know from DragonBall Z would be erased? That is just bad writing. Real bad.
If they want to make it interesting just give us a slightly more realistic stake like for example having Goku be banned from his universe for a set amount of time (potentially allowing for new adventures in new places with all the new characters) if they lose.
Ultimately the problem is that Super is afraid to change the status quo. It's been 5 years since the battle with Buu yet Goten and Trunks didn't age at all. Vegeta actually regressed in character. Yes we get new colored forms but there is no growth in characters which makes for some boring storytelling. That's what GT did better. The characters grew some actually ended their character arch.
1. The "Vegeta regressed" nonsense has been debunked several times already. He doesn't act nor do anything like he does before the end of Z, like treat his allies and family like shit or try to gain immortality, etc. And I don't recall seeing anything like the Vegeta/Cabba relationship with him Z. So to say he got no development in Super is pure bullshit.

2. And GT in other hand had no character development for anyone whatsoever, mostly since everyone except Goku was out of the spotlight and weren't given anything relevant to do in the story. So nobody actually "grew some" in GT at all.

3. The 21st and 22th tournament arcs didn't have any stakes at all, and the only character development feature in either of them was for Tien. In the ToP (anime version) we actually did get character development for some characters (and at least great character moments for many others). The 23th and the Cell Games were the only tournaments with actual stakes in the original manga.
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.

ricky84
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ricky84 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:37 pm

SupremeKai25 wrote:
It sounds to me like you give super way too much credit for what its worth. It´s riddled with bad plot and terrible ideas that came right from Toriyama´s desk. For example, the idea to bring frieza back AGAIN for the tournament of power arc and doing the same fake out ¨Majin boo in a tournament¨ joke that wasn't funny the first time.
All the credits that Super gets is well-deserved. Trash ideas like "Goku Black" and "Frieza's fourth return" were executed flawlessly. Frieza was one of the best characters by far in the Tournament of Power. Without him, the narrative would have suffered a lot. He is much more entertaining to watch than some dumb clown like Buu who has the personality of a toaster. Frieza kept things interesting and mysterious, and it is therefore not a surprise that there were so many theories about his true motives. As for Goku Black, well... The fact that he has become one of the most popular and beloved characters ever is proof of the writers' blatant success.

I much prefer a cheap idea executed wonderfully, than an original and creative idea executed terribly (such as the Shadow Dragons).
Goku Black is a perfect example of a "fan fic cliche" being done greatly. He's easily the best DB villain ever. Just because a concept is done to death in fan fiction doesn't make it inherently bad.
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.

User avatar
Saturnine
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1515
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:38 pm

ricky84 wrote: 1. The "Vegeta regressed" nonsense has been debunked several times already. He doesn't act nor do anything like he does before the end of Z, like treat his allies and family like shit or try to gain immortality, etc. And I don't recall seeing anything like the Vegeta/Cabba relationship with him Z. So to say he got no development in Super is pure bullshit.
I think they mean how Vegeta didn't accept Kakarot as his superior forever and become his second-class horn tooter like he was in GT. I have no idea why people consider this attractive, or are bothered by a competitive Vegeta. If Vegeta had no drive to surpass Kakarot, he'd never come as far as he has in Super. He'd probably not even approach SSj God level overall. I personally would find it a waste of the character. Vegeta's pride and ambition to be the absolute number 1 are some of his most enjoyable traits, he just doesn't work as someone's lapdog.

User avatar
Kaiza_Toshiyuki
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2018 1:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiza_Toshiyuki » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:48 pm

ricky84 wrote: I much prefer a cheap idea executed wonderfully, than an original and creative idea executed terribly (such as the Shadow Dragons).
I guess thats fair. I just hope that If super goes past the 10 year time skip, that they at least try to do a Gt Reboot or remake and have the same general plot Idea, just execute it in a better way.

ricky84
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ricky84 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:51 pm

Saturnine wrote:
ricky84 wrote: 1. The "Vegeta regressed" nonsense has been debunked several times already. He doesn't act nor do anything like he does before the end of Z, like treat his allies and family like shit or try to gain immortality, etc. And I don't recall seeing anything like the Vegeta/Cabba relationship with him Z. So to say he got no development in Super is pure bullshit.
I think they mean how Vegeta didn't accept Kakarot as his superior forever and become his second-class horn tooter like he was in GT. I have no idea why people consider this attractive, or are bothered by a competitive Vegeta. If Vegeta had no drive to surpass Kakarot, he'd never come as far as he has in Super. He'd probably not even approach SSj God level overall. I personally would find it a waste of the character. Vegeta's pride and ambition to be the absolute number 1 are some of his most enjoyable traits, he just doesn't work as someone's lapdog.
I know right? Its like these people want Vegeta to be another irrelevant background character smh. Just because he admitted that Goku was better than him doesn't mean Vegeta no longer wants to improve himself anymore. The point of that scene in the Kid Buu fight was the Vegeta no longer hates/resents Goku and if he competes with him again, it would be on healthier terms. This is best shown in Super were the two of them are now best friends who hang out with each other more often than with their actual families lmao.

The idea of a character like Vegeta (with as much arrogance and pride as he has) wanting to remain irrelevant and 2nd rate forever is extremely out of character. That's why Toriyama changed the ending in the original manga Kanzenban version with Vegeta. Hell, even the writiers of GT realized that throwing him aside was mistake, so they gave him a spotlight episode in ep.55 and SSJ4 lol.
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.

User avatar
Green_Goblin
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 223
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:21 pm
Location: Jerusalem, Israel

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Green_Goblin » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:55 pm

Saturnine wrote:How did Vegeta supposedly regress in character in Super? I think he progressed a lot actually, caring about people 'n shit.
Well, to me and to (apperently) 99% of the fandom that I had came across in other forums Vegeta in Dragon Ball Super had reversed to his pre-battle with Kid Buu self.
He's back to his arrogance and "I'm the Prince of ALL Saiyans" BS (even though there are only 2 citizens to this race with himself included and 5 other cross-breeds) who SOMETIMES doesn't care about his wife (he preferred to train over being in her birthday, REMEMBER? And while she had appeared in his mind while he collapsed after Jiren punched him, all he could say is "DAMMIT Let me sleep some more" and it seemed that his promise to Cabba was more important to him than his own family), sure he was nicer to Future and modern Trunks in terms of fatherhood and even gave up on training before the ToP with Whis due to his wife's pergnancy were nice touch-ups to his character but his shitty writing-wise relationship with Cabba, was felt too forced upon the viewers - AFTERALL They didn't had EVEN a mini-arc of him going to Universe 6 Sadala and fleshing things up with Cabba other than their match at the Champa Arc till the Tournament of Power.

ricky84
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ricky84 » Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:58 pm

Kaiza_Toshiyuki wrote:
ricky84 wrote: I much prefer a cheap idea executed wonderfully, than an original and creative idea executed terribly (such as the Shadow Dragons).
I guess thats fair. I just hope that If super goes past the 10 year time skip, that they at least try to do a Gt Reboot or remake and have the same general plot Idea, just execute it in a better way.
The Shadow Dragons (who were executed badly) and SSJ4 (2nd best transformation design ever) are great ideas, and Baby is one of the most underrated DB villains. I consider him a better main antagonist than Pilaf, Jiren, any version of Buu, Commander Red and 90% of the movie villains.

I consider Super superior to GT overall by a considerable degree, but I'm not one of those people who think GT had nothing good about it.
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.

Post Reply