Character Depth

[ABED]

Taking this from a discussion in another thread, what do you think constitutes character depth? The subject arose from a comment claiming

In fact the characters in DBS feel like actual characters than they ever did in "Z". We see Goku, work provide and generally hang out with his family all the time, same with Gohan we're actually seeing him live the life he wanted and even Vegeta has shown so many instances of being an actual person instead of mopping all the time like he's an edgy teenager.

This isn't me calling out the specific comment to disagree with it, as much as it making me think about the issue of multi-dimensional characters and how do you define it. The answer I come to is that the definitons most sources use are pretty much true, but it all depends on execution. I've seen plenty of characters that are supposed to have this deep resevoir of pain and be multi-dimensional, but they come off as little more than the writer or actor trying to embue the character with depth because what they think constitutes depth, but it simply falls flat. On the other hand, a pure evil character like Piccolo Daimao feels like he has depth in comparison.

[Kinokima]

And moving my reply over here

I don't really see how the characters interacting with their family doesn't give them depth. I think the characters in Z had depth and I think they continue to grow naturally in Super.

I don't see how that alone gives them depth. Depth is about what the characters want, their psychology.

Well I never said that alone gives the characters depth but it does add to their characterization. Dragon Ball is a fighting series but the fact that it actually gives us slice of life moments makes the characters feel well rounded. They actually have lives beyond fighting and that actually makes me care about them more. But as for motivations and psychology:

* Gohan who doesn't love to fight now wants to train and fight again to protect his family. I think I understand that motivation and it does add to his character for me. And I love that Gohan actually has become a scholar which is what he wanted to be since he was a small child.
* Goku of course just loves fighting for fighting sake and is always looking for the next most powerful opponent. Goku is probably the character that has changed the least but I think that was the same in Z. A lot of his character development happened in Dragon Ball in my opinion. But Goku will continue to find new ways to overcome his limits, to push forward.
* Vegeta also loves fighting and wants to get stronger. Vegeta's motivation hasn't really changed from Z he still wants to get stronger than Goku it's just no longer an antagonistic rivalry. But the fact that he also has a family he cares about (in fact he will even forgo training for his family) shows he has grown to not only think about himself & surpassing Goku is a goal not as much of an obsession as it once was.


Anyways Id certainly like to explore this topic in more detail as I love character analysis. I am at work now but I will try to work on something. But I do think it is important that with established characters a lot of their development may have happened earlier. That doesn't mean they lack depth in Super.

For reference I will be using this which I think gives a pretty good run down of what character depth entails. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... acterDepth

[ABED]

I don't agree with much of TVtropes says, but I'll go with it.

[Saikyo no Senshi]

Generally, from what I've seen and experienced reading/watching fiction and also observing fans who classify a character having depth is struggle(mainly internal). The character struggling gives the audience a reason to invest themselves just to see whether he/she overcomes it or not or just what the endgame is. Internal struggles often deal with themes of pain, atonement, loneliness, depression etc etc and that gives the feeling of depth, even though it may not necessarily be all that deep. Point is human psychology and exploration of it in fictional works is very interesting. Way more interesting than presenting it in a straight forward manner. At least, that's my understanding of what I and from my observation many fans refer to as character depth. But, ultimately it is all about the execution and trying too hard sometimes can lead to some horrendous characterization.

Speaking of Dragon Ball and the original run specifically cause DBS is an exaggerated mess in the character department especially the main cast as far as I'm concerned, I don't really think any character has got depth or more correctly meaningful depth. But, that's not really a bad thing. Keeping it simple and straight forward is fine.

[TheMikado]

Because people don't read I''ll just post the info from tv tropes here:

This is how "deep" a character is. It involves questions like why the character does what the character does, what the character thinks, feels, desires, and hates, backstory, and/or how the character sees the world. It may be there in Sub Text, but it still affects the depth of the character.
This is often known as a character being One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, or Three-Dimensional.
Keep in mind that not all characters have to be three dimensional, nor is there necessarily something wrong with a character who is not. The genre, audience, plot, and role of the character affects the minimum depth needed for the character to maintain Willing Suspension of Disbelief. Go at least that far, and you're good with the audience.
The Three Dimensions can be thought of thus:
Height: How important the character is to the story/society/main character. Most one-dimensional characters are defined by this and one or two character trait(s).
Breadth: Variation within a character. The amount of different traits that define them and how well these interact.
Depth: How the character changes the better you know them. If your ogres are like onions, they do indeed have depth.
You can go further, it's just optional. Related to this is whether a character is Dynamic or Static, these can maintain or increase the dimensions of a character, or simply "move them sideways" to change their nature without adding depth. Related to Character Calculus, at least in that the farther away a character is from the POV or Focus axes, the less developed they are likely to be.
Only One Dimension Needed
It's a victim of The Virus, like a zombie. Unless one zombie has a major role, what more do you need?
An extra in a crowd.
A Mook in most Video Games.
Cannon Fodder, unless the show is focusing on the horrors of war.
Any character in a game with an Excuse Plot.
A minor character in a story told to little children. Not that kids can't understand character depth. Just that they are likely to give that attention to major characters.
At Least Two Dimensions Needed
A Virus victim in a major role.
Most victims in a Slasher Movie.
Minor characters in most movies.
Major characters in a B-Movie.
At Least Three Dimensions Needed
All but the smallest roles in a character study.
Most major protagonists and antagonists.

When we talk about character depth one of the first things should be asked is "What is their role?" How important are to the story?
Does know or not knowing their motivations and background add or take away anything to the story?

This is a great, great, great topic!

[KBABZ]

On the subject of Slice of Life content, it adds depth to both the characters and the world because you get to see both operating at a normal level. When you see the world as it exists normally, you have a better appreciation for when it doesn't act normally. For example, at the start of the Raditz arc, the plot is about the characters meeting up for a reunion which is interrupted. This makes it feel more dramatic when the actual fighting starts and Raditz fires an attack that blows up a mountain. IMO it's also why the Turtle training part of the original Tournament arc works so well; we're seeing Goku and Krillin in a relatively normal setting, and Toriyama uses the training to show us each of their characters (as shown with the rock hunt) and how they develop leading up to the Tournament. It's also a great place to put in foreshadowing, like how Goku is a step or two ahead of Krillin, and in terms of pacing it means it isn't all-action all the time.

[TheMikado]

On the subject of Slice of Life content, it adds depth to both the characters and the world because you get to see both operating at a normal level. When you see the world as it exists normally, you have a better appreciation for when it doesn't act normally. For example, at the start of the Raditz arc, the plot is about the characters meeting up for a reunion which is interrupted. This makes it feel more dramatic when the actual fighting starts and Raditz fires an attack that blows up a mountain. IMO it's also why the Turtle training part of the original Tournament arc works so well; we're seeing Goku and Krillin in a relatively normal setting, and Toriyama uses the training to show us each of their characters (as shown with the rock hunt) and how they develop leading up to the Tournament. It's also a great place to put in foreshadowing, like how Goku is a step or two ahead of Krillin, and in terms of pacing it means it isn't all-action all the time.

Ironically this is why I love the original Z pacing. They included a ton of filler which was in between major events like Goku/Piccolo learning to drive and Gohan at school

[ABED]

On the subject of Slice of Life content, it adds depth to both the characters and the world because you get to see both operating at a normal level. When you see the world as it exists normally, you have a better appreciation for when it doesn't act normally. For example, at the start of the Raditz arc, the plot is about the characters meeting up for a reunion which is interrupted. This makes it feel more dramatic when the actual fighting starts and Raditz fires an attack that blows up a mountain. IMO it's also why the Turtle training part of the original Tournament arc works so well; we're seeing Goku and Krillin in a relatively normal setting, and Toriyama uses the training to show us each of their characters (as shown with the rock hunt) and how they develop leading up to the Tournament. It's also a great place to put in foreshadowing, like how Goku is a step or two ahead of Krillin, and in terms of pacing it means it isn't all-action all the time.

When you say normal, normal for whom?

They way I'd put it is by showing us the things the characters care about, then when those values are threatened, it helps it mean something.

[KBABZ]

Ironically this is why I love the original Z pacing. They included a ton of filler which was in between major events like Goku/Piccolo learning to drive and Gohan at school

Yeah, and this is probably why Super does it as well. Toriyama did it too; Teenage Gohan, Videl and Goten at least feel like characters you know thanks to the High School and Saiyaman content, so you feel like you know them before Buu shows up.

On the subject of Slice of Life content, it adds depth to both the characters and the world because you get to see both operating at a normal level. When you see the world as it exists normally, you have a better appreciation for when it doesn't act normally. For example, at the start of the Raditz arc, the plot is about the characters meeting up for a reunion which is interrupted. This makes it feel more dramatic when the actual fighting starts and Raditz fires an attack that blows up a mountain. IMO it's also why the Turtle training part of the original Tournament arc works so well; we're seeing Goku and Krillin in a relatively normal setting, and Toriyama uses the training to show us each of their characters (as shown with the rock hunt) and how they develop leading up to the Tournament. It's also a great place to put in foreshadowing, like how Goku is a step or two ahead of Krillin, and in terms of pacing it means it isn't all-action all the time.

When you say normal, normal for whom?

I'd say the characters themselves. A story like Star Wars starts out fantastically, but then you jump to Luke Skywalker and see what his day-to-day is like before the story comes along and changes it forever. Similar to Goku; when we first see him, he's doing day-to-day activities like gathering wood and getting some food. But at the same time, Bulma is the audience surrogate from which the they view Goku since she's the closest to a normal character, with Roshi and Krillin doing the same in the Tournament arc. After that the story trusts that we know in what ways Goku isn't normal (Pat Pat) for the Red Ribbon arc and beyond, but he always tends to be paired with more normal characters Suno and Upa.

Anyways, by establishing a baseline for what is normal in the world, the audience has a better appreciation for when things that challenge or break those rules show up. To go back to Star Wars, by the Imperial characters hyping up the Death Star's destructive capabilities, we understand that blowing up a planet is not normal for that world, even when the main characters are traveling faster than light when that happens (which we know to be normal since even backwater Luke Skywalker treats it as such). Same applies for ki attacks; since Joe Public doesn't use them, it reinforces how amazing it is when characters like Goku and Tien throw laser beams out of their hands. Ergo we get some understanding of how powerful Frieza's forces are when they treat ki attacks as an ordinary means of attacking by contrast.

[ABED]

I think you are talking about something different than depth. Audience surrogates is more about world building and exposition, whereas normal and breaking the rules often pertains to the concept of character arc. The latter is close, but not exactly what the thread is about.

I don't think the driving episode added any depth to Goku or Piccolo. It was silly (but not funny, at least not to me) and beside the point. While I'm not the biggest fan of The Great Saiyaman, it does serve to show what Gohan wants. He wants to study and fit in with his classmates, but he also likes using his abilities to help out.

I'd also like to add that I don't think elaborate backstories neccessarily make for a deeper understanding of the character. Once again, it all boils down to execution. Back story can help but it's not vital.

[Kinokima]

Generally, from what I've seen and experienced reading/watching fiction and also observing fans who classify a character having depth is struggle(mainly internal). The character struggling gives the audience a reason to invest themselves just to see whether he/she overcomes it or not or just what the endgame is. Internal struggles often deal with themes of pain, atonement, loneliness, depression etc etc and that gives the feeling of depth, even though it may not necessarily be all that deep. Point is human psychology and exploration of it in fictional works is very interesting. Way more interesting than presenting it in a straight forward manner. At least, that's my understanding of what I and from my observation many fans refer to as character depth. But, ultimately it is all about the execution and trying too hard sometimes can lead to some horrendous characterization.

This is one way to add depth but certainly not the only way. Yes audiences can relate to characters that have internal struggles and hardships but a character without these things is not necessarily lacking in depth.

I used Goku, Gohan, and Vegeta as my examples because I do think all 3 characters have an amazing amount of depth. Now some of it as I pointed out is because they were developed throughout previous series like Goku mainly in Dragon Ball and Gohan & Vegeta in DBZ. But I would argue that because of how these characters were written we know these characters so well that they are like old friends to us. They all have distinct personalities, relationships, and motivations. Another thing that adds depth to Goku, Gohan and Vegeta is that we can look back throughout the series and understand the journey they have been on.

And yes seeing Goku, Gohan and Vegeta interacting with their families in Super certainly adds depth to their characters. The fact that they even have families, have gotten older and have changed in different ways adds dimensions to their characters. Vegeta may be the most different from where he was at the start but a character doesn't necessarily have to change drastically in personality to be dynamic.

Goku, Gohan, and Vegeta also have distinct personality traits. Now as a negative sometimes these traits can be exaggerated (especially for Goku & Vegeta) but that type of things often happens in long running series. But at the same time these traits make these characters not cardboard cutouts.

I would say all three of them are 3 dimensional. And while not every Dragon Ball character meets this I think it has many examples in its large cast of 3 dimensional characters. Of course because of its long length it has advantages that a shorter series would not have. And yes the newer characters in Super are not as well developed yet but that is because they just haven't had as much time to fully explore these characters yet.

[KBABZ]

I think you are talking about something different than depth.

Yeah I kinda went on a tangent there. Basically you get a better sense of who the characters are when there's nothing going on, so that when the drama hits you either have a fair idea of how they might react, or get surprised if they act differently than you expect. It's also a prime area to see how they interact with the other characters; as an example, I felt Goten got a lot of expansion in the early Buu arc when he interacts with Gohan and idolizes his big brother, and I found an extra respect for Kid Trunks when he acts friendly towards Gohan as well.