GT vs. Super: Which is more damaging to the series' image?

[LuckyCat]

Dragon ball Super seems to be the series that has the most positive reception out of the two, thus I would say Dragon Ball GT has done the most damage (thus far, maybe SUPER in the future will do worse but as of right now that title belongs to GT).

Are fan's reception of one series really an indicator of overall "series damage", though? It would be interesting if there were records of DBZ's opinion ratings, for example, going down while GT was airing, or going up while Super is airing.

I mean I'd argue the arc that damaged the series the most was the Android arc. But that's insanely in popular in some circles

That's off topic, but since you're quoting this comment chain, do you have any numbers to back up your opinion? TV ratings don't support your claim.

[DBZAOTA482]

I mean I'd argue the arc that damaged the series the most was the Android arc. But that's insanely in popular in some circles

The Android arc is generally considered the best arc in the series alongside the Freeza arc. I was never even aware there was hate for it till I saw people complaining about it on this forum.

[ABED]

I think the Cell arc had the highest ratings, but I don't think that makes it more popular.

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

While Super has it's narrative problems from the rest of Dragon Ball, namely Goku's characterization. GT did far worse things for the narrative of Dragon Ball. Namely making every character but Goku worthless. Series image implies looking at the whole thing together and saying "which part makes the whole story get bad". GT wrote out fan favorite characters, took some great concepts and did them poorly and all around was just not a fun time. One thing about GT that helps the series image is that ending thou, it's perfect.

No, I find that criticism of character value and usage to be a generally a biased view from fans who want to see specific obscured characters take the lead, that in itself doesn't mean the narrative itself regressed. Really, none of the other characters did anything after the Cell Arc, so that being the position - it just carried over as the story was based on that setting. Though the issue from it is due to the power gap, and Saiyan pedestal that the series has always had problems with. Story wise GT actually felt like more of an actual progression because it was set in the point where the other characters were slowly retired out. It was supposed to focus on Pan, and Uub as set up in Z but with Goku as a renewed mentor. GT's story was at least expanding on what Z already started. Super is just made up new scenarios requiring a lot of directional bends and on the spot inserts just to generate hype, and the problem with most of it pandering to the fanbase rather than creating new substance to the series. GT didn't do that. It did throwbacks to what was iconic of the series but it didn't pander to fanbase sentiments which is why I don't consider it a sincere continuation. GT at least felt like it wrapped up a lot of lore holes with its storylines. Super feels more like AF fanfic where its writing in things just for the sake of it "sounding cool" but with no substance to it for the overall story. I guarantee there won't be any reference to Zamasu again because Super lacks continuity of its own material but relies more on that nostalgia-baiting DB material.

[lancerman]

Are fan's reception of one series really an indicator of overall "series damage", though? It would be interesting if there were records of DBZ's opinion ratings, for example, going down while GT was airing, or going up while Super is airing.

I mean I'd argue the arc that damaged the series the most was the Android arc. But that's insanely in popular in some circles

That's off topic, but since you're quoting this comment chain, do you have any numbers to back up your opinion? TV ratings don't support your claim.

Sorry I meant the Android arc was insanely popular.

[lancerman]

I mean I'd argue the arc that damaged the series the most was the Android arc. But that's insanely in popular in some circles

The Android arc is generally considered the best arc in the series alongside the Freeza arc. I was never even aware there was hate for it till I saw people complaining about it on this forum.

My problems with it are

1. It was a cheap Terminator rip off with Trunks.
2. They realized SSJ was popular so they made every Saiyan one, gave them augmented forms, then finished the arc with a form even more powerful.
3. They jobbed out the baddie of the previous arc like he was trash.
4. You could tell their was no plan with how much they constantly changed villains.
5. They tried to make it artificially important by Lowell retconning things like invoking the Red Ribbon Army and saying Goku trained in the ROSAT even though we never saw that.

That was just the in story problems.

The show had some crap episodes and was the worst offender of the characters standing around talking and screaming for an entire episode.

The show just jumped the shark for me at that point.

The Boo arc was more of the same but at least they kinda embraced that.

[NintendoBlaze53]

While Super has it's narrative problems from the rest of Dragon Ball, namely Goku's characterization. GT did far worse things for the narrative of Dragon Ball. Namely making every character but Goku worthless. Series image implies looking at the whole thing together and saying "which part makes the whole story get bad". GT wrote out fan favorite characters, took some great concepts and did them poorly and all around was just not a fun time. One thing about GT that helps the series image is that ending thou, it's perfect.

No, I find that criticism of character value and usage to be a generally a biased view from fans who want to see specific obscured characters take the lead, that in itself doesn't mean the narrative itself regressed. Really, none of the other characters did anything after the Cell Arc, so that being the position - it just carried over as the story was based on that setting. Though the issue from it is due to the power gap, and Saiyan pedestal that the series has always had problems with. Story wise GT actually felt like more of an actual progression because it was set in the point where the other characters were slowly retired out. It was supposed to focus on Pan, and Uub as set up in Z but with Goku as a renewed mentor. GT's story was at least expanding on what Z already started. Super is just made up new scenarios requiring a lot of directional bends and on the spot inserts just to generate hype, and the problem with most of it pandering to the fanbase rather than creating new substance to the series. GT didn't do that. It did throwbacks to what was iconic of the series but it didn't pander to fanbase sentiments which is why I don't consider it a sincere continuation. GT at least felt like it wrapped up a lot of lore holes with its storylines. Super feels more like AF fanfic where its writing in things just for the sake of it "sounding cool" but with no substance to it for the overall story. I guarantee there won't be any reference to Zamasu again because Super lacks continuity of its own material but relies more on that nostalgia-baiting DB material.

By other characters I mean characters other then Goku. Buu Arc had Gohan, Piccolo, Vegeta, Goten, Trunks, Mr. Satan, Supreme Kai's, Videl and a whole lot of expanding of the cast. Super has the GoD's, their attendants, new fighters and now the Universe teams, so it also has a varried cast. Baby had Goku, Pan and Trunks, I don't count Oob and them since they're only important for 2-4 episodes. Super 17 gave 18 an important role which was nice. But the Shadow Dragons arc has 2 characters, Goku and Pan. That's regressing the series, you have a huge cast and you focus on freaking 2 characters for your final chapter? No, that's just stupid. Fighting isn't what I mean when a character does something, I'm talking about screentime. And GT gives little screen time in it's final half to anyone not named Goku or Pan.

GT had an entire arc pandering to the fanbase. Super 17. I don't see Super pandering to the fanbase aside from Trunks. Super is simply doing what people want now, which is bring back the other characters. If anything Super has done more things AGAINST what people want. People didn't want God's. People didn't want new transformations. People didn't want Freeza back. People didn't want an evil Goku. The thing with Super is it does bad concepts very well 70% of the time.

I'm not debating which series is better, I'm debating which series feels the most like a continuation of Dragon Ball up to that point, which feels like the next step after the Buu Saga. Super feels like that with more Dragon Ball tone and Dragon Ball motifs. GT feels too far detached from the series in a lot of places, from it's cast to it's tone to it's character designs and visuals. GT is too far detached from the Buu Saga and from the rest of the Dragon Ball narrative, and thus I feel it's a bad representation of the franchise.

Also please tell me what holes you feel GT wrapped up on which were left open from DBZ? Cause how does a story not by the original creator made after the original work was finished wrap up holes?

[ABED]

1. It was a cheap Terminator rip off with Trunks.
4. You could tell their was no plan with how much they constantly changed villains.

1. Terminator wasn't an original story. In fact, Cameron was sued due to this fact.
4. You can't tell. The main villains didn't change. It was building towards Cell. Even if that wasn't the original intent, it's not apparent in the final narrative. People who claim it is only say so because they know the behind the scenes story.

[lancerman]

1. It was a cheap Terminator rip off with Trunks.
4. You could tell their was no plan with how much they constantly changed villains.

1. Terminator wasn't an original story. In fact, Cameron was sued due to this fact.
4. You can't tell. The main villains didn't change. It was building towards Cell. Even if that wasn't the original intent, it's not apparent in the final narrative. People who claim it is only say so because they know the behind the scenes story.

1. Agree to disagree, but I'm very skeptical of Toriyama writing a storyline about a young boy coming back from the future to warn of these killer robots creating a dystopian timeline the same year the sequel to the most popular film of all time with that premise came out and was the biggest movie release of the season.

4. It's actually very apparent in the narrative. You can't dispute that there were fake outs that made no sense besides "Trunks messed up the timeline". The first two Androids that came in were just anomalies in the timeline that Trunks didn't know about. Even if the timeline changes their is no reason 17 and 18 weren't the original Androids on the island. Then I don't know how you dispute that Cell was just completely brought into the story out of absolutely nowhere with no forwarning until after the first meeting with the Androids. Yeah after they changed villains twice and settled on Cell it became a race to the finish. It still was very apparent that it wasn't planned out.

You can go through the rest of the series and not find the issues that plagued the Android arc. The first tournament was clearly leading to Goku vs Roshi. The RRA remained the main villains of that arc until they were defeated. The second tournament was built to Goku vs Tenshinhan. King Piccolo was the main villain throughout his entire arc. The third tournament was built around Goku vs Piccolo Jr. The Saiyan arc was all about the preparations for the coming Saiyans who were the final villains of the arc. Freeza was clearly the big bad throughout the entire Freeza arc. The Booarc, ditto.

There's only one arc where midway through the arc the villains we are led to believe are the main villains for switchsd out for someone else. It happened twice.

Even when I was a kid watching, all of that was noticeable.
-----


That aside, the reason I would claim the Android arc did the most damage besides quality issues were that unlike GT which everyone just said "sux", unlike Super that fans complained about animation issues and power scaling, for like 15 years if someone was going to make fun of or parody Dragon Ball it's usually based around tropes that happened in the Android arc or were completely taken over the top in the Android arc.

[ABED]

1. There's not agreeing to disagreeing on that issue. Cameron was in fact sued and lost because he took his ideas for The Terminator from Harlan Ellison. He even admitted it. It's why there's an acknowledgement at the end of the movie. Cameron took his ideas from someone else, just like Toriyama took his ideas from someone. Hell, his very first arc takes a lot from Journey to the West. There's nothing wrong with using other stories and characters as inspiration.

4. 4. It's actually very apparent in the narrative. You can't dispute that there were fake outs that made no sense besides "Trunks messed up the timeline". The first two Androids that came in were just anomalies in the timeline that Trunks didn't know about. Even if the timeline changes their is no reason 17 and 18 weren't the original Androids on the island. Then I don't know how you dispute that Cell was just completely brought into the story out of absolutely nowhere with no forwarning until after the first meeting with the Androids. Yeah after they changed villains twice and settled on Cell it became a race to the finish. It still was very apparent that it wasn't planned out.

I CAN and I will dispute that. Trunks disrupting the timeline is classic butterfly effect. A small change created a ripple effect throughout the new timeline. The entire first third of the story was shrouded in mystery. VERY shortly after 17 and 18 and now 16 are activated, they defeat the Z Team, our heroes hear about a busted, moss covered time machine. And will people stop using the phrase "out of nowhere" when it doesn't apply? There is forwarning. The air of mystery and the busted time machine were the warning. It's not apparent. You know the BTS story. So what if it changed twice, why would the big bad(s) be something so mundane looking as two kids? AND the entire story was not structured the same as his previous stories. Toriyama had never done mystery and time travel before. That buys you a lot, especially since before Cell arrives, we never got an answer to the question of why things were so different from Trunks timeline. The main villains weren't changed in a way that's apparent. In every single case you mentioned, the big bad and Goku don't lock horns until either halfway through or towards the end. 19 and 20 begin fighting the heroes at the beginning. There's a more than good chance that they were a red herring, which they were.

[lancerman]

1. There's not agreeing to disagreeing on that issue. Cameron was in fact sued and lost because he took his ideas for The Terminator from Harlan Ellison. He even admitted it. It's why there's an acknowledgement at the end of the movie. Cameron took his ideas from someone else, just like Toriyama took his ideas from someone. Hell, his very first arc takes a lot from Journey to the West. There's nothing wrong with using other stories and characters as inspiration.

4. 4. It's actually very apparent in the narrative. You can't dispute that there were fake outs that made no sense besides "Trunks messed up the timeline". The first two Androids that came in were just anomalies in the timeline that Trunks didn't know about. Even if the timeline changes their is no reason 17 and 18 weren't the original Androids on the island. Then I don't know how you dispute that Cell was just completely brought into the story out of absolutely nowhere with no forwarning until after the first meeting with the Androids. Yeah after they changed villains twice and settled on Cell it became a race to the finish. It still was very apparent that it wasn't planned out.

I CAN and I will dispute that. Trunks disrupting the timeline is classic butterfly effect. A small change created a ripple effect throughout the new timeline. The entire first third of the story was shrouded in mystery. VERY shortly after 17 and 18 and now 16 are activated, they defeat the Z Team, our heroes hear about a busted, moss covered time machine. And will people stop using the phrase "out of nowhere" when it doesn't apply? There is forwarning. The air of mystery and the busted time machine were the warning. It's not apparent. You know the BTS story. So what if it changed twice, why would the big bad(s) be something so mundane looking as two kids? AND the entire story was not structured the same as his previous stories. Toriyama had never done mystery and time travel before. That buys you a lot, especially since before Cell arrives, we never got an answer to the question of why things were so different from Trunks timeline. The main villains weren't changed in a way that's apparent. In every single case you mentioned, the big bad and Goku don't lock horns until either halfway through or towards the end. 19 and 20 begin fighting the heroes at the beginning. There's a more than good chance that they were a red herring, which they were.

Several problems with this.

1. I wasn't disagreeing you about Cameron. It just is irrelevant to the point I made. The point being that Toriyama wrote a storyline that's premise was the same as the most popular film of the year he wrote it. There's a difference between taking influence from a classic story and then then copying Terminator at the peak of its franchise. One is more blatant and less original.

2. You can dispute it. It's just we know for a fact that behind the scenes it is the way I said it. We know Toriyama changed the villain multiple times per editorial requests.

So everything else your arguing is predicated on whether what was actually happening in the creative process was apparent narrative. Which is a judgment call. Frankly, since I'm in not the only person in the world who called it out or lampooned it, I don't think you can make an indisputable case that to some people it was very visible.

First off, that's just not how a butterfly effect works in a narrative format. The idea is supposed to be that something happens in the past and it has smaller implications that grow larger as time spreads out. Since we know Gero stopped following them before they left for Namek, nothing should change for him until the main cast shows up stronger when the Androids appear.

But let's be generous and allow the butterfly effect plot device. It's used so poorly and without explanation that it shows up in the narrative. It's a thinly veiled excuse for changing villains and it was apparent to some of us.

Now I'm going to take exception to you calling people out people for not knowing what "out of nowhere" means when your defense is that it's "not out of nowhere" if the author introduces an entirely seperate plot device midway through the story, until right before a new villain appears.

There is nothing to indicate that Cell even exists until after 17 and 18 are released. The foreshadowing occurred almost directly before Cell was revealed. We were over 25 chapters into the Android arc before Cell was even hinted at and the he was fully revealed. That's out of nowhere. Again the switch in narrative was apparent and jarring.

Now you can say Toriyama never wrote a story in that structure before as cover for him. However, it just wasn't done well. How good is a mystery if it occurs midway through the story and the entire mystery is resolved a couple chapters later without anyone even figuring it out. Cell literally just popped up and spilled the beans on everything.

Again it was something that you didn't need to know the backstory of Toriyama and his editors to see what was going on. The villains changed twice and he had two paper thin excuses for that. Once he settles on Cell it was fine. It just was always evident to me at a young age and a lot of people that story just got jarring from the minute Trunks said "those aren't the Androids from my time" to Cell's first appearance.

Just to sum it up. First off we know that what you are calling a red herring wasn't a red herring. We know what the reality was when the story was made. So now we are just splitting hairs on whether Toriyama did a good job covering up the changes in his story. To you he did. To me and plenty of others, he didn't.

[LuckyCat]

There is nothing to indicate that Cell even exists until after 17 and 18 are released. The foreshadowing occurred almost directly before Cell was revealed.

That's not true. Before Goku and Piccolo arrived at the island where they engage the androids, Piccolo says he has confidence they'll defeat the androids, but all the same he can't shake this awful premonition. It turns out later that Kami had the same premonition (and we know Piccolo and Kami are linked at various levels), that Cell would be a greater threat than the androids. Yes, an awful premonition is vague, but with that Toriyama did give us a warning that the android story would not play out the way Trunks described.

[ABED]

1. Neither were original. Something being more current doesn't copying it less original than using an ancient story.
2. Yes, which is why you are saying what you are saying. It's not apparent in the final narrative. It all works seamlessly because it's a mystery.

That is EXACTLY how a butterfly effect works. Something small happens in the past and it has ripple effect. Cell came back a year before Trunks and it has a ripple effect. The butterfly effect IS the explanation. And you can take exception all you want. It's not out of nowhere. Cell arrives about 1/3 of the way through the story and the entire arc is shrouded in mystery. We still don't know what the cause is until Cell arrives but before that the audience is constantly being asked questions. Why are the Cyborgs stronger than in Trunks timeline? Why are they less violent? Why didn't Goku's heart virus affect him until this point? Why are there 3 more cyborgs that Trunks never knew about?

There is nothing to indicate that Cell even exists until after 17 and 18 are released.

So? That's not bad writing. Where did you get the idea that we have to have any indication of Cell's existence prior to then? Cell's forshadowing was happening throughout the early part of the story. It's all a mystery. It's only after Cell tells Piccolo that the mystery was solved.

The villains changed twice

Only if you think the Cyborgs were the endgame. No way in Hell were 19 and 20 going to be the big bads. For one, the Z Team fought them at the very start of the arc. That would be like saying Raditz was the big bad and it got switched to Vegeta. They were simply the prelude.

To me and plenty of others, he didn't.

Because apparently unless he telegraphs his setups, it's out of nowhere. The structure of the story was very different from the start. The mystery was the foreshadowing.

[lancerman]

1. Neither were original. Something being more current doesn't copying it less original than using an ancient story.
2. Yes, which is why you are saying what you are saying. It's not apparent in the final narrative. It all works seamlessly because it's a mystery.

That is EXACTLY how a butterfly effect works. Something small happens in the past and it has ripple effect. Cell came back a year before Trunks and it has a ripple effect. The butterfly effect IS the explanation. And you can take exception all you want. It's not out of nowhere. Cell arrives about 1/3 of the way through the story and the entire arc is shrouded in mystery. We still don't know what the cause is until Cell arrives but before that the audience is constantly being asked questions. Why are the Cyborgs stronger than in Trunks timeline? Why are they less violent? Why didn't Goku's heart virus affect him until this point? Why are there 3 more cyborgs that Trunks never knew about?

There is nothing to indicate that Cell even exists until after 17 and 18 are released.

So? That's not bad writing. Where did you get the idea that we have to have any indication of Cell's existence prior to then? Cell's forshadowing was happening throughout the early part of the story. It's all a mystery. It's only after Cell tells Piccolo that the mystery was solved.

The villains changed twice

Only if you think the Cyborgs were the endgame. No way in Hell were 19 and 20 going to be the big bads. For one, the Z Team fought them at the very start of the arc. That would be like saying Raditz was the big bad and it got switched to Vegeta. They were simply the prelude.

To me and plenty of others, he didn't.

Because apparently unless he telegraphs his setups, it's out of nowhere. The structure of the story was very different from the start. The mystery was the foreshadowing.

What are you talking about?? We know for fact from Toriyama's mouth that his editors forced to change villains midway through TWICE by his editors. That;s not an opinion. That's a fact and a well established one at that. It's not like Raditz who showed up at the beginning of the Saiyan arc and died immediately and the rest of the arc built to preparing for two even stronger Saiyans.

That's why I said this conversation is just splitting hairs. We know the real answer for the switch. Toriyama's editors didn't want the villains to be an old man and a clown. Then they didn't want them to be two teenagers so they asked him to change it again. THEN they got Cell and liked cell, BUT they didn't like his Imperfect design. So they asked him to have Cell have another form. That entire arc was rife with editorial oversite that altered Toriyama's original intentions.

That's not me speculating. So we are splitting hairs over whether it was apparent in the narrative or not. To me when I was 9 years old I thought the whole "Trunks changed the timeline" thing didn't make sense and sounded lazy, and Cell did come out of nowhere. Cell being a mystery for a couple chapters prior to his introduction isn't good writing? Have you ever read mystery story? I'd love to see all the great mystery stories where the only mystery is midway through the store for a couple of scenes and then without the characters deducing anything the antagonist shows up (still midway through the story) and reveals everything. It was quick fix to get a new villain in the narrative that had no place in the narrative before it.

Either way, Cell wasn't originally supposed to be the final villain. That's not speculation.

ALSO all the mystery that you claim was set up happened in an extremely brief section of the story that all jumbled up on top of each other. Notice how the story builds cleanly to the Androids arriving and the first fight. Notice how after Cell is introduced the arc goes smoothly again until the endgame. Like I said, there's one section from one Trunks arrives to say those aren't the right Android to the point where Cell arrived where all of sudden the story loses direction, we are given cheap plot devices for things changing, and the villains change twice. Again, during a period we know the editors were constantly telling the Toriyama to change to change the villain.

Once again, you did the same thing in your last post where you started out by arguing it's not apparent in the narrative then finish and try to suggest everything was an intended red herring. It wasn't. We know from Toriyama that the first Androids were supposed to be the villains. There wasn't a grand plan.

I also don't know where you get off telling me that it wasn't apparent to me. It was always apparent to me. It was apparent to me that the arc was lazy crap writing that had no direction before I even knew who Toriyama was. You're just listing the plot devices that I thought were weak and saying that's good enough to cover for it. Maybe for you it was. Not for me. Not for a lot of people.

[ABED]

Which is my point. Far too many people know the inside scoop and then say it's apparent in the final work. It's not. It's a testament to Toriyama's talents that it flows.

This conversation isn't arguing over an irrelevant detail. You claim the arc hurt DBZ's image and this was one of the big reasons. It's about whether it's apparent in the final product that he switched the idea of who the big bad was. I know the story, but even taking that into account, he might as well have planned for Cell to be the big bad all along and have him transform twice. Think about it, he tells Piccolo he wants 17 and 18 in order to reach his perfect form.

I'd love to see all the great mystery stories where the only mystery is midway through the store

I have read plenty of mysteries, perhaps the better term would be thriller. The entire arc isn't a mystery but the first 1/3 of the story is clearly shrouded in mystery.

To me when I was 9 years old I thought the whole "Trunks changed the timeline" thing didn't make sense and sounded lazy

Because you don't know what the butterfly effect is. Nearly every time travel story involves the traveler going back and changing things only to have their small change have huge ramifications. And it wasn't just Trunks. The real effect started due to Cell going back further than even Trunks.

Notice how the story builds cleanly to the Androids arriving and the first fight

Notice how Goku didn't have the heart virus UNTIL he started fighting when in the Trunks' timeline Goku would've died years prior? It didn't cleanly build to the cyborgs, the whole arc to that point was constantly asking questions. If it is all building towards the cyborgs, why would they fight the Z Team so early on in the story if it wasn't building to something bigger?

try to suggest everything was an intended red herring. It wasn't.

I didn't. You inferred that. I'm saying it works as that. You constantly bringing up the editorial changes just proves my point that because you know that story is the reason you claim it's apparent in the finished story. If most can't tell that, then switching the intended villain wasn't an issue for the series' reputation.

[lancerman]

"There's a more than good chance that they were a red herring, which they were."

I didn't infer that.

And no these were things I thought far before I knew the backstory. The Android arc always felt like it was directionless once the Androids showed up. The fact that years later I learned that I was right doesn't dispute that. Plenty of people made that critique of the arc. I'm far from the only one who criticized the direction of the arc. You're just making up and changing arguments now. Agree to disagree and move on.

[ABED]

The story isn't directionless, it's a thriller where we don't know the answer to the question of what exactly is going on? Did you really think it was all building towards 19 and 20? I don't care how many people use that critique because every single one of them use the same tired argument - the behind the scenes issues. Then they will deny the mystery and disregard there were constantly questions being asked. The number of people that criticize it is irrelevant, that's not an argument. A lot of people seem to miss the thriller or mystery elements that are present in the beginning. I didn't say it was ALL a red herring. Regardless of whether it was intended, it all still works as though it was, unlike say the Buu arc which was in fact unfocused.

It just was always evident to me at a young age and a lot of people that story just got jarring from the minute Trunks said "those aren't the Androids from my time" to Cell's first appearance.

You use jarring as a pejorative. You're supposed to be off kilter and not know exactly what is going on. That's how mysteries and thrillers work. You mislead the audience. And yet you ask me if I've ever read a mystery.

[SingleFringe&Sparks]

By other characters I mean characters other then Goku. Buu Arc had Gohan, Piccolo, Vegeta, Goten, Trunks, Mr. Satan, Supreme Kai's, Videl and a whole lot of expanding of the cast.

Vegeta and Gohan are the only other characters that were handled better than they were in GT, but that was only because Super's Vegeta is based off the ROF Vegeta and Gohan's changes were from fan-demand. Piccolo, Goten, Trunks, Mr. Satan, Shin, and Tenshinshan are literally no different from how they were in the Buu saga.

Super has the GoD's, their attendants, new fighters and now the Universe teams, so it also has a varried cast.

Most of the new fighters are pretty generic, and beyond Caulifla they're all pretty forgettable. Arc-fodder.

Baby had Goku, Pan and Trunks, I don't count Oob and them since they're only important for 2-4 episodes. Super 17 gave 18 an important role which was nice. But the Shadow Dragons arc has 2 characters, Goku and Pan. That's regressing the series, you have a huge cast and you focus on freaking 2 characters for your final chapter? No, that's just stupid. Fighting isn't what I mean when a character does something, I'm talking about screentime. And GT gives little screen time in it's final half to anyone not named Goku or Pan.

Screen time isn't decided before an arc. Most of DB was written as the story called for things. Screen time is only a convience as most of the supporting characters were always plot devices or used for decoys for Goku, hence why they never get any individual development (not after the Saiyan arc at least) because the confrontations are never directly about them. Most of the character problems in GT were just due to the fact that the other characters were retired for the most part, so they were either excluded or misused. Goku was the face of the series and the mentor character and Pan was the focus but they messed up the dynamic by not actually giving them this relationship. GT lost the tone of DB being a martial arts show, thats its flaw. As for screen time, thats just based on what fans want, not a plot necessity.

GT had an entire arc pandering to the fanbase. Super 17. I don't see Super pandering to the fanbase aside from Trunks. Super is simply doing what people want now, which is bring back the other characters.

It based its arcs off filler in Z and tried to expand them into something bigger. That wasn't pandering. That was lore building. Super just tends to pull things out of thin air, or base things off of what they want to market for the sake of toys rather than story.Thus why they added more Gods, Future Trunks, Goku Black, and more Golden Freeza. Fans of the series may not have wanted it, but commercially they are the easiest thing to go to, and GT did not write itself around selling toys. It tried to be an actual continuation.

I'm not debating which series is better, I'm debating which series feels the most like a continuation of Dragon Ball up to that point, which feels like the next step after the Buu Saga. Super feels like that with more Dragon Ball tone and Dragon Ball motifs.

How? Just because its sillier than GT? What about Super connects to it? Super is more so based off of BoG, which BoG was independent from the Z sagas. No Buu saga relevance in it either.

GT feels too far detached from the series in a lot of places, from it's cast to it's tone to it's character designs and visuals.

In what way? Super's characters are barely changed themselves from Z, they either still wear their Z clothing or their BoG clothing. As for the newer characters, most of them barely look like they're even from this franchise, but taken out of Hunter X Hunter or Fairy Tail.

GT is too far detached from the Buu Saga and from the rest of the Dragon Ball narrative, and thus I feel it's a bad representation of the franchise.

But Super has nothing to do with the Buu saga at all. Super could exist even if the Buu saga never happened. There is absolutely no reference to it at all (beyond 1 or 2 mentions of Uub just so they can prove they didn't forget about the Z ending).

Also please tell me what holes you feel GT wrapped up on which were left open from DBZ? Cause how does a story not by the original creator made after the original work was finished wrap up holes?

The Saiyans vs. The Tuffles
A Saiyan's True form (implied) from Vegeta's flash back
The Effects of Abusing the Dragonballs.
17's claim of being the best Artificial Human & 18's thoughts about his true nature
Shenron's response to the issue with the abuse of the Dragonballs.

All elements taken from Z.

[NintendoBlaze53]

-So Trunks in GT is a business man, Goten is a flirting teenager, in Super they're both still have the same character that we know and like from DBZ. As opposed to GT where if we didn't hear their name, I would have thought them completely different new characters. There needs to be a level of consistency in character, this is how even after Goku and Kuririn grew up we could still see the characters we knew. GT fails at this massively.

-So Hit is generic? Zamasu? Hell we saw in this latest Super episodes over 70 original character designs! GT had how many new characters? Black Star Dragon Ball Saga villain of the days, Rildo, Ludd, Baby, Myuu and the Shadow Dragons. How are any of these more memorable then Hit or Zamasu or the U6 Saiyans or the GoD's?

-GT HAS characters, Trunks and Goten could be used more. Bra would make another female lead with Pan. If Goku can still fight, why can't Vegeta. And I said I wasn't talking about JUST martial artists. Super has made Bulma a main character again, what's GT's excuse besides bad writing?

-If you watch Kai before GT, you are not going to know freaking anything about any of GT's arcs then. What's a Tsufurian? And how is introducing new characters ways to cell toys? Can I say Freeza having 5 forms was to sell toys? How about Buu having 8 forms? I will agree Ikari, felt like it was just to sell toys, but Golden Freeza, Rose', SSjBlue were all for power creep. And how can you say entirely new characters like the GoD are made just for toys? At least they have charater and fit the world Dragon Ball has created up to this point.

-BoG has no relevance to the Buu Saga? Buu is a leading important character, Gohan is settled down with Videl and Pan is born, Vegeta shows Goku more respect, Supreme Kai's place in the group is important for Beerus being there, Gohan still dawns the Saiyaman outfit, Mr. Satan is a member of the group and gets along well with everyone there, Vegeta accepting his family and growing close to them. So how can I take the Buu Arc out and still have the same show then? Super's characters make decsions and their lives are decided based on the events they've gone through in the Buu Arc. You can start every arc in DB/DBZ and be able to recognize the characters and reconnect with them easy. But with GT it's hard to connect with any of the cast, Goku is now a kid again so we can't even call him the Goku we've known since the 23rd Tenkaichi Budokai. I already said how Trunks and Goten are different.

-As for GT's tone, the dark dreery style of GT stands out a lot, the lack of a charismatic cast feels like a departure from DB, many characters are cleary stuff Toriyama would never do and are often over designed. And if you think Super characters look anything like Togashi or Mashima's character designs then you are VERRYYY wrong. I say this as fans of both shows.

-Regarding your "holes". Why are Tsufurians a hole? Did we really need to learn that one of them survived? And wasn't this story already done before in Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans? Vegeta's flashback can simply be written off as SSj was still being designed. When in DB or DBZ was overusing the Dragon Balls ever brought up? One throw away line by Elder Kai was it. Super has brought 17 back and made him have a more dynamic character then GT ever did, and why was 17 being the best Artificial Human even a question? Isn't that naturally Cell due to power creep?

-Elements implies characters which still needed development being wrapped up. Not using filler which doesn't exist in Kai, or throw away lines to make plots out of. Even still, Shadow Dragons was an amazing idea, but it was ruined by going back to just Goku and Pan. In Super, Gohan is expanding on his character by finding a way to be a scholar and also protect his family, Vegeta is shown caring about his family following his events as Majin during the Buu Arc, Trunks is shown growing up from interactions with his future self, Kuririn's resurgence to be a martial artist, hell for just one episode Tenshinhan got more character development then in GT with him having a school with student. Super gave Kame-Senin get character development with him training to get over his fear of woman! This is how you move a show forward is having it's characters grow and develop as the show goes on. Not writing them all out aside from the main character and a 9 year old girl for marketability sake.

[emperior]

I still can't get how fans can compare Super and GT with a straight face. Rewatching GT is a pain in the ass. I'm quite sure nostalgia is blinding GT fans (and Z fans to a lesser extent).

Super's got a bad reputation only because of the movie retellings, and more specifically episode 5, most of RoF arc and episode 33. And some bad drawings here and there. Otherwise Super is a good serie and ever since the US arc the art and animation have dramatically improved, so the "bad drawings and animation" complains shouldn't exist anymore. Storywise I would say Super is waaay above GT, and definitely on par with DBZ arc after Namek.

I'm also 100% sure many people would find DBZ EXTREMELY boring if it were to air nowadays (in the 1 episode a week format) and would rip it apart even more than Super. Just imagine if Andoids saga or Buu saga happened in 2015. The fan rage would be too much. Like, Androids start with a SSJ teenager coming out of nowhere slicing the best villain of the serie like he's made out of paper, and Buu starts with the badass kid who killed Cell hanging out 7 years later in a silly costume doing silly poses. GT started with the main character getting turned into a kid... It doesn't even compare to Super which picks up from Buu battle aftermath and introduces new super powerful Gods that open up crazy possibilities and lore.

In conclusion, Super isn't even damaging the serie's image. The bad animation and art did. Otherwise, Super brings very good stories to the table. Sure, they could be executed better sometimes, but they are still very enjoyable. While GT's story did in fact damage the serie.