Would it still be Dragon Ball with out Goku, his family, and friends?

[kn83]

There is no Dragonball without Goku, no way possible. And this is coming from a fan that likes Vegeta, Gohan and Future Trunks more as characters. Goku is the essence of the series in more ways than one.

[Basaku]

That's so asinine to call him a plot device. Goku has a motivation and agency.

They watched it glued to the screens because it was good, thanks to the characters.

That's always been the case, but that doesn't prove that without Goku as the primary focus, people will continue to watch, because despite him not being in scenes with them, he's still the main character and the final confrontation is building to Goku vs. the antagonist. It's great they can carry their own story. That in no way proves your point that if Goku is not the main character, the story will remain popular. The more interesting characters you have, the better. Hopefully they do impact the story, otherwise, why are they there? But Goku is undeniably the spirit of the story. A 45 minute special and one plot thread doesn't prove the story can exist permanently without Goku.

"omg it's vaguley connected to Goku or maybe Goku will arrive in 50 episodes!".

No they don't think of it in those terms, but we did anticipate Goku's arrival.

If the audience didn't bail en masse during Namek arc, nor didn't make Trunks Special unpopular (on the contrary) then yes, it does prove that at the very least, the ensemble cast can carry the show with minimal Goku presence. A mentor role (for him and Vegeta) would be a good move IMO. Of course it's always a risk to actually change the lead/catalyst character(s), but DB proved it has the potential.

Of course even in mentor role I'm thinking more of a Piccolo-Cell Goku, the combination of all his traits, motivations and agency rather than the eye-roll inducing flanderized incarnation in neo-DB content Toriyama seems so proud of himself to push for (and a sieazable section of the fanbase accepting without second thoughts, as long as Goku's delivering on fanservice memes side).

[ABED]

They didn't bail en masse because Goku was still the main character. The Trunks special is 45 MINUTES! All you've shown is that Goku isn't necessary for every scene, not that he isn't integral to the story.

[Basaku]

They didn't bail en masse because Goku was still the main character. The Trunks special is 45 MINUTES! All you've shown is that Goku isn't necessary for every scene, not that he isn't integral to the story.

That's not how long-running shows work, if the audience gets bored or their favourite character they absolutely NEED ain't on screen for too long, it drops/bails/takes a break and returns when things get back to normal. Didn't happen during Namek.

As for Trunks - his saga provided Super with highest rated arc so yeah. And the special is one of the most revered pieces of DB ever.

Obvious proofs of the franchise's potential to go beyond its initial main. You're just trying to discredit it because you're only interested in Goku-led Dragon Ball, not matter how absymal that 'leading' is (as in Super).

[ABED]

They didn't bail en masse because Goku was still the main character. The Trunks special is 45 MINUTES! All you've shown is that Goku isn't necessary for every scene, not that he isn't integral to the story.

That's not how long-running shows work, if the audience gets bored or their favourite character they absolutely NEED ain't on screen for too long, it drops/bails/takes a break and returns when things get back to normal. Didn't happen during Namek.

As for Trunks - his saga provided Super with highest rated arc so yeah. And the special is one of the most revered pieces of DB ever.

Obvious proofs of the franchise's potential to go beyond its initial main. You're just trying to discredit it because you're only interested in Goku-led Dragon Ball, not matter how absymal that 'leading' is (as in Super).

None of what you wrote proves that DB can exist without Goku.

Oh my god with Namek. Again and again, you harp on that, but that doesn't prove your point at all. Goku is still part of the story as it heads to its inevitable final confrontation between Goku and Freeza. NO ONE here is disputing that you need other interesting characters beyond the main character! They had an integral part to play in the story but that doesn't prove DB as a whole can exist just fine without him given that the arc you talk about constantly had Goku.

Isn't Goku still an important part of the Trunks arc? How does a 45 minute special prove DB can exist without Goku as its lead? It's the length of two whole episodes. No one is claiming Goku has to be in every scene of every episode.

Of course I'm trying to dispel the notion that DB can exist with him. Without him as the lead, the story wasn't as interesting. In the case where Gohan took the lead role, the story suffered. He's absent from the Garlic Jr. arc, and it's quite boring.

[Basaku]

None of what you wrote proves that DB can exist without Goku.

Oh my god with Namek. Again and again, you harp on that, but that doesn't prove your point at all. Goku is still part of the story as it heads to its inevitable final confrontation between Goku and Freeza. NO ONE here is disputing that you need other interesting characters beyond the main character! They had an integral part to play in the story but that doesn't prove DB as a whole can exist just fine without him given that the arc you talk about constantly had Goku.

Isn't Goku still an important part of the Trunks arc? How does a 45 minute special prove DB can exist without Goku as its lead? It's the length of two whole episodes. No one is claiming Goku has to be in every scene of every episode.

Of course I'm trying to dispel the notion that DB can exist with him. Without him as the lead, the story wasn't as interesting. In the case where Gohan took the lead role, the story suffered. He's absent from the Garlic Jr. arc, and it's quite boring.

Here's your argument to everything: no it doesn't. So really, there's no point continuing it cause you're just gonna say someone 'harps' on something (also known as giving relevant examples you refuse to accept).

Good point on using past tense when talking about the story being as interesting as without Goku. He used to be a character that contributed heavily if not mostly to the franchise, now he's just a meme plot device and everyone else is infinitely more interesting. Beerus, Future Trunks, Whis, Pride Troopers, what will Freeza do, Gohan's dilemmas, 17's comeback. What is the point of continuing like this? Cut his screentime, give characters who still got something to add, develop and say the lead and spotlight. Goku's not that anymore and a main character should be.

[ABED]

It's not that I don't accept them, I simply disagree with your conclusion.

Here's your argument to everything: no it doesn't.

It's just a difference of opinion. I'm not disagreeing with you to be contrarian. I've given you legitimate reasons why I disagree. I haven't just brushed you off. Are you implying that I couldn't possibly disagree with everything you wrote? When I say harp, I mean you keep bringing up the same two points. You believe they are relevant example, but they don't prove what you think they do.

Goku's not that anymore and a main character should be.

Or you know, give him something interesting to do. He is the spirit of the show. The tone and feel of the show reflects him more than anyone else. Also, it wouldn't make sense to take him out of the lead role given that Super takes place before the end of DBZ where he's still very much the lead.

What Freeza is up to is not that interesting.

[Basaku]

You believe they are relevant example, but they don't prove what you think they do.

They do, you just don't wanna admit it 'cause it would mean Goku is not irrepleceable as the lead od DB.

Goku's not that anymore and a main character should be.

Or you know, give him something interesting to do. He is the spirit of the show. The tone and feel of the show reflects him more than anyone else.

Not really, not even in large chunks of Z, and definitely not not. Modern Goku is a caricature while the series still is primarly action-drama driven, not just slapstick humor and neanderthalian fighting instinct. Vegeta is a better reflection of Super than Goku.

What Freeza is up to is not that interesting.

Of course it is. At the very least it's something new and fresh for thim versus stale, flanderized same-old Goku.

[ABED]

You believe they are relevant example, but they don't prove what you think they do.

They do, you just don't wanna admit it 'cause it would mean Goku is not irrepleceable as the lead od DB.

Goku's not that anymore and a main character should be.

Or you know, give him something interesting to do. He is the spirit of the show. The tone and feel of the show reflects him more than anyone else.

Not really, not even in large chunks of Z, and definitely not not. Modern Goku is a caricature while the series still is primarly action-drama driven, not just slapstick humor and neanderthalian fighting instinct. Vegeta is a better reflection of Super than Goku.

What Freeza is up to is not that interesting.

Of course it is. At the very least it's something new and fresh for thim versus stale, flanderized same-old Goku.

I genuinely don't agree with you. Goku is in fact irreplaceable as the lead.

Goku was taken out of action, but he was still the lead. Even when he was taken out (in order to up the stakes because he's the main character), much of the time is spent with the other characters waiting for Goku to arrive. The series doesn't reflect Vegeta.

No, Freeza isn't that interesting. We know he won't kill Goku. So either he will change his ways, which we've seen before, or he will once again die, which we've also seen before.

I wish people would stop using the term Flanderization. It's not only silly, it's not even apt as Flanders had layers to him. And while I haven't seen much of Super, I have seen the last two movies and if it's any indication, Goku hasn't been relegated to a caricature. It still makes no sense to me why you would prefer a radical, nonsensical shift like taking Goku out of the lead spot. Why do that instead of making him more interesting and less of a "caricature"?

[ekrolo2]

I always find these kinds of topics interesting as more and more I notice that a series has to set a precedent for having switchable protagonists early on in the run for people to be more accepting to it. Imagine if Jonathan Joestar was the protag of JoJo for way longer then a single arc, switching him for Joseph might not be as easy of a sell.

I also think the Internet's made such decisions a lot more dicey since backlash is a lot more immediate and "tangible" then it used to be meaning a certain status quo shake up could last for a good long while before a creator even became aware of it and could switch back.

[ABED]

Regardless of the speed of the internet and almost inevitable backlash, I don't think protagonists should be switched after a certain length of time. It doesn't work nearly as well as anyone thinks it will. Over time, characters accrue, let's call it, "emotion equity" that can't be replicated. I don't see what point there is to putting someone else in the main character slot.

"Let the next generation take over" pops up every now and then. While it's fine in the real world, it's not necessary in stories, especially in animation.

DB is a mixture of action and humor. There's a quirkiness that reflects Goku.

[jjgp1112]

Dragon Ball is ultimately a story about Goku and his journey to strength. Without him the entire story loses its purpose.

You can't cite his absences as evidence that it would work without him, because in all of those cases, it was his absence that was a driving point of tension throughout the arc and the story was building to his inevitable return. He's the main character of the show! We've seen countless times how much shows suffer when its main character is completely removed from the plot. Not just incapacitated for a bit, but persona non grata.

[KBABZ]

Personally I'd like to see more stories with fun characters in the Dragon World that don't have a strong connection to Goku, on top of what we already have of course. We kinda got that with Jaco (an example I brought up before); what if we got something with Tarble? Or maybe a side-series focused primarily on side-characters, like what Pokemon did with Chronicles?

[Jackalope89]

In short; without some connection to Goku and Company, its hard to call it Dragon Ball. Every special and film has had a connection to Goku and company. Bardock, well, he was the father of Goku. Trunks trained with and was close friends with Gohan (whom, along with Bulma, regaled Trunks with stories of Goku and friends in their youth). And even Bojack Unbound, where Goku is dead, STILL had him pop up to help out Gohan.

[dario03]

I think you could continue the story without him. I do think it would be harder than some other fictions though. Going back to the Star Wars comparison, that has worked for them in my opinion. Plenty of games and books weren't directly revolving around the Skywalkers but they worked well. Rogue one didn't really need the Skywalkers, Solo could be a good movie, Clone Wars CGI didn't always focus on Anakin though he was usually there, Rebels is good when it leans toward a higher age demographic (both those CGI cartoons can't seem to figure out their target age though...) But the SW Universe to me seems to be more expansive with it characters and the side stories have been around for a long time. Yeah Luke was a major part of the original trilogy but everybody didn't stop what they were doing to watch him battle Vader on the DS2.

The question is why though? What would be gained from removing him completely? Putting more focus on other characters sure, but completely removing him... Don't see the need.

[ABED]

While the main story of Star Wars concerns the Skywalkers, its premise of a galaxy at war lends itself to other stories. Dragon Ball isn't a premise. It's based around a character.

[dario03]

While the main story of Star Wars concerns the Skywalkers, its premise of a galaxy at war lends itself to other stories. Dragon Ball isn't a premise. It's based around a character.

Which is why it would be harder to do it with DB but It all depends on what you do with the story. Goku is a major part of his universe and for the most part the center of it but he isn't the universe. Just suddenly getting rid of Goku might be a bit jarring but you could continue the story. Or do it slower by putting more focus on other characters, have more side stories, develop the world and characters, and over time he wouldn't be as integral but you could still maintain the DB feel through its humor and action.

[KBABZ]

I personally feel like there's a lot of potential in the world itself than just the adventures of one guy who's in it.

[ABED]

While the main story of Star Wars concerns the Skywalkers, its premise of a galaxy at war lends itself to other stories. Dragon Ball isn't a premise. It's based around a character.

Which is why it would be harder to do it with DB but It all depends on what you do with the story. Goku is a major part of his universe and for the most part the center of it but he isn't the universe. Just suddenly getting rid of Goku might be a bit jarring but you could continue the story. Or do it slower by putting more focus on other characters, have more side stories, develop the world and characters, and over time he wouldn't be as integral but you could still maintain the DB feel through its humor and action.

I think in this case, he is the universe.

I enjoy a good side story every now and then, but only every now and then. As others have pointed out, they do revolve around Goku in some way.

there's a lot of potential

There's always "potential".

[KBABZ]

But do they have to?