Should fans write for official products ?

[Grimlock]

The author flat-out said that its just a what if story, not a canon thing.

Being what-if obviously doesn't mean it's not a sequel/prequel. The last we saw of Bardock was him getting caught by Freeza's attack and the OVA picks up right from there, showing what happens to the character afterwards. That constitutes a sequel.

Not that there is canon established, by the way.

[Shaddy]

There is no definitive "yes" or "no" answer to this question. Ultimately the people who work on anything should be the people who do the best job. Sonic Mania wasn't good because its creators made ROMhacks and fangames beforehand, it was good because they were really talented game designers who knew what a good Sonic game looked like, and you don't have to be a fanatic about something to have that understanding.

So if we have people that happen to be Dragon Ball fans working on Dragon ball, it would only be worth bringing up this argument if being fans was the only reason they were hired. Someone's fan-status shouldn't actually matter unless you care more about maintaining continuity with a bunch of lore or worldbuilding stuff than telling a story that's engaging and well-paced. Because, let's be honest -- Dragon Ball is a story driven by characters and emotion. The lore, worldbuilding and consistency is absolutely worthless in the face of something that properly establishes tension, drama and motivation to a fight, which is where a lot of the most soulless corporate trash in the franchise drops the ball.

Unfortunately I can't exactly tell you what well-written Dragon Ball fan content is like, because I've never seen any, but I'm sure it exists. Swapping discharge like Heroes for slightly different-smelling discharge like Multiverse isn't going to fix anything.

TLDR; being a "fan" doesn't inherently qualify or disqualify. All that should matter is whether it's good.

[Skar]

I don't understand the question

One big issue with fanfic is they don't get the author's voice. It's difficult for even professional writers, hence the need for a showrunner.

I think it would benefit DBS if they made a shorter version that stuck closer to Toriyama's outlines with fewer writers to get the author's voice. Out of all the revivals or sequels I've seen that had a fan of the original story working on them, DBS reminded me of fan fiction the most at times.

Fan service and using ideas that have frequently been used in fan fiction isn't necessarily bad I've read many fan comics so I can't help comparing them to DBS. There were moments in DBS that had I seen them in a fanfic over the years they likely wouldn't have stoodout. It could be why BoG, U6 tournament, and Broly were my favorite because the characterization ideas, themes, etc I haven't come across in fanfiction and felt the most Toriyama-esque to me.

[MyVisionity]

It can be a fan or it can be an outsider. Each of them would have something valuable to bring to a series. But good writing is good writing.

I think what's maybe more important is respect for the material. Nolan and his team clearly respected the source material enough to do their research and to craft films that do justice to Batman. It's probably what sets him apart from any pre-MCU era comic book filmmakers.

TLDR; being a "fan" doesn't inherently qualify or disqualify. All that should matter is whether it's good.

It's only three damn paragraphs!!

[Sadala Elite]

There is no definitive "yes" or "no" answer to this question. Ultimately the people who work on anything should be the people who do the best job. Sonic Mania wasn't good because its creators made ROMhacks and fangames beforehand, it was good because they were really talented game designers who knew what a good Sonic game looked like, and you don't have to be a fanatic about something to have that understanding.

So if we have people that happen to be Dragon Ball fans working on Dragon ball, it would only be worth bringing up this argument if being fans was the only reason they were hired. Someone's fan-status shouldn't actually matter unless you care more about maintaining continuity with a bunch of lore or worldbuilding stuff than telling a story that's engaging and well-paced. Because, let's be honest -- Dragon Ball is a story driven by characters and emotion. The lore, worldbuilding and consistency is absolutely worthless in the face of something that properly establishes tension, drama and motivation to a fight, which is where a lot of the most soulless corporate trash in the franchise drops the ball.

Unfortunately I can't exactly tell you what well-written Dragon Ball fan content is like, because I've never seen any, but I'm sure it exists. Swapping discharge like Heroes for slightly different-smelling discharge like Multiverse isn't going to fix anything.

TLDR; being a "fan" doesn't inherently qualify or disqualify. All that should matter is whether it's good.

You basically hit the target, great post.

[ABED]

It's probably what sets him apart from any pre-MCU era comic book filmmakers.

Sam Raimi might disagree with you. Regardless of that point I agree.

[MyVisionity]

It's probably what sets him apart from any pre-MCU era comic book filmmakers.

Sam Raimi might disagree with you.

I'm not a fan of those movies' interpretation of Spider-Man, despite their quality.

[ABED]

It's probably what sets him apart from any pre-MCU era comic book filmmakers.

Sam Raimi might disagree with you.

I'm not a fan of those movies' interpretation of Spider-Man, despite their quality.

But the world is pretty much classic 60's Spidey. The core relationships, backstories, visuals, are all there. I would argue that Spider-Man was the Superhero movie more than any other that proved you a film didn't have to deviate from the source material including aesthetic to be successful. The changes Raimi made were mostly to make them work as 2 hour films.

[MyVisionity]

I would argue that Spider-Man was the Superhero movie more than any other that proved you a film didn't have to deviate from the source material including aesthetic to be successful.

This is about the only part I can agree with. The changes Raimi made were just too much for me, I don't think his style works well for Spider-Man, and the 1960s elements work to the films' detriment in my view. I think he did well enough with the first film, but beyond that I don't think that Raimi and his people had a thorough enough understanding of the material.

[LoganForkHands73]

I think that there's definitely a weird aesthetic to Raimi's films and the later ones seem to get worse, but I do appreciate the first one more and more for how well he captured the original Ditko-Lee Spider-Man story and characters, showing how universally applicable they both were four decades later. It still hasn't really been topped in terms of faithfulness to the source material.

While I found Homecoming reasonably entertaining, I think Marvel Studios have a far worse understanding of what makes Spider-Man tick than Raimi. Perhaps the worst thing for me is that MCU Spider-Man isn't treated as the main attraction in his own movies - he's treated as just another cog in a larger machine. Case in point, Tom Holland's Spidey was introduced as a side character in a Captain America film and he's characterised by constantly feeling overshadowed by his mentor/father figure Tony Stark, who is treated as an inseparable of his identity. His solo films feel more like episodic TV filler than anything else in the MCU franchise as a result. In the comics, Spider-Man always had relationships with other heroes, primarily the Fantastic Four (which was usually treated as more of a comedic rivalry against a more successful superhero team than an integral part of his character), but he was always established as his own hero, an outsider to the establishment.

[ABED]

I think that there's definitely a weird aesthetic to Raimi's films and the later ones seem to get worse, but I do appreciate the first one more and more for how well he captured the original Ditko-Lee Spider-Man story and characters, showing how universally applicable they both were four decades later. It still hasn't really been topped in terms of faithfulness to the source material.

While I found Homecoming reasonably entertaining, I think Marvel Studios have a far worse understanding of what makes Spider-Man tick than Raimi. Perhaps the worst thing for me is that MCU Spider-Man isn't treated as the main attraction in his own movies - he's treated as just another cog in a larger machine. Case in point, Tom Holland's Spidey was introduced as a side character in a Captain America film and he's characterised by constantly feeling overshadowed by his mentor/father figure Tony Stark, who is treated as an inseparable of his identity. His solo films feel more like episodic TV filler than anything else in the MCU franchise as a result. In the comics, Spider-Man always had relationships with other heroes, primarily the Fantastic Four (which was usually treated as more of a comedic rivalry against a more successful superhero team than an integral part of his character), but he was always established as his own hero, an outsider to the establishment.

I disagree with the second part. Peter spends a fair amount of time in his own stories feeling insecure about his place in a world full of other heroes. How he was introduced into the MCU was perfect. In Far From Home, it feels like he's come into his own. We've had years of stories that you're talking about, it was interesting to see it from a different angle. What makes Spidey tick is the soap opera of it all. It's juggling his duties as a superhero with his personal life. All of that is there in this version.

Anyway, the main points I want to convey are - popular things are popular for a reason. They shouldn't just be dismissed, but by the same token any changes should be made for reasons that have to do with story. The same applies to what is kept - it should be because it makes sense for the story.

My Visionity, I don't know how much more understanding anyone could have of the source material.

[jjgp1112]

The typical fan would probably just end up writing a bunch of boring horseshit at the the behest of a power level flow chart.

[LoganForkHands73]

I think that there's definitely a weird aesthetic to Raimi's films and the later ones seem to get worse, but I do appreciate the first one more and more for how well he captured the original Ditko-Lee Spider-Man story and characters, showing how universally applicable they both were four decades later. It still hasn't really been topped in terms of faithfulness to the source material.

While I found Homecoming reasonably entertaining, I think Marvel Studios have a far worse understanding of what makes Spider-Man tick than Raimi. Perhaps the worst thing for me is that MCU Spider-Man isn't treated as the main attraction in his own movies - he's treated as just another cog in a larger machine. Case in point, Tom Holland's Spidey was introduced as a side character in a Captain America film and he's characterised by constantly feeling overshadowed by his mentor/father figure Tony Stark, who is treated as an inseparable of his identity. His solo films feel more like episodic TV filler than anything else in the MCU franchise as a result. In the comics, Spider-Man always had relationships with other heroes, primarily the Fantastic Four (which was usually treated as more of a comedic rivalry against a more successful superhero team than an integral part of his character), but he was always established as his own hero, an outsider to the establishment.

I disagree with the second part. Peter spends a fair amount of time in his own stories feeling insecure about his place in a world full of other heroes. How he was introduced into the MCU was perfect. In Far From Home, it feels like he's come into his own. We've had years of stories that you're talking about, it was interesting to see it from a different angle. What makes Spidey tick is the soap opera of it all. It's juggling his duties as a superhero with his personal life. All of that is there in this version.

Anyway, the main points I want to convey are - popular things are popular for a reason. They shouldn't just be dismissed, but by the same token any changes should be made for reasons that have to do with story. The same applies to what is kept - it should be because it makes sense for the story.

My Visionity, I don't know how much more understanding anyone could have of the source material.

I appreciate that they tried a new angle with the MCU version but I just wasn't a huge fan of the result in hindsight even though I found some enjoyment out of both movies. I was excited for a new angle as well after the overall failure of The Amazing Spider-Man movies.

[kemuri07]

1. It depends. I think a lot of fans mistakenly believe that "knowing" lore and terms from their favorite franchise means that they also understand how storytelling works. Yeah...that's a big fucking no. It's a rare few that can find a healthy balance between showing their adoration for their favorite show, while also allowing the story to take their characters where they need to go instead of just writing a bunch of fan service.

2. Since we're talking about Marvel: The problem with Parker in Far From Home is that it misses exactly what makes Parker such a relatable character in the first place. And one of the biggest problems with that movie is they really lean into the idea of Parker being Tony Stark Jr. Gone is the level of adversity that defines Parker. Instead he's a trust fund kid with a (dead) Daddy that can basically give him whatever he wants. Homecoming worked precisely because Parker felt relatable in the sense that he was kind of a fuck up, but still wanted to do the right thing. It's no where near as bad as Amazing because, yikes. As I've gotten older, I definitely started to appreciate Mcquire's Parker. I love that he's a dope, and the world seems out to get him, yet he puts on that mask again and again because someone has to save the world. It's something that I think Into The Spiderverse captured quiet well too.

[Zestanor]

OP says

My question is, if the original author won't or can't write for the franchise anymore, then who should ?

Then... it should end. Now, I think GT was justified, even if it was done poorly, because in some sense Toei animation was part of the several headed monster that was the "original author." There was Toriyama, and his many editors, but also everyone who had stakes in his series. GT's creators were in continuity with with the latter. Further, GT only promoted itself as a new anime, and not as a necessary part of the Toriyama canon. And GT had a good purpose: to give the series a final ending. The purpose of GT was to end.

But in the last few years, they've decided that DB ending was not a good thing. They don't like endings. That's the main problem.

I really have no idea, but do people take Dragon Ball Super seriously as an anime in Japan? That is, is it considered "good" like the original, or is it seen as a novelty?

[Saikyo no Senshi]

The reactions were mixed to negative from what I saw on 4ch and some of the blogs I read. The hardcore fans' reactions were pretty similar to here in the English speaking fanbase. They had same issues with the story and characters and by the time ToP happened, interest had dwindled a lot although partly cause of the timeslot change of Kamen Rider and Sentai. The newer fans enjoyed it however from what little I saw on Twitter. Also, the Broli movie had a far more favorable review. I'm sure a JP fan would be able to give a more comprehensive answer about this though.

[Matches Malone]

Do people take Dragon Ball Super seriously as an anime in Japan? That is, is it considered "good" like the original, or is it seen as a novelty?

Apart from the BOG movie, when I discuss DB in comparison to other anime, I limit my talking points to the original manga. That's not due to me disliking Super, there's just nothing there to work with. I've never searched for Japan's opinion on the matter, as I don't know Japanese or where to look, but I'd be surprised if it's looked at as anything more than "it's fun the first time, but there's nothing worth revisiting". Compared to the original DB and other anime, it doesn't have anything going for it. It has no compelling story arcs, it has no character development, it has little to no plot twists, etc. All it has is cool fights and transformations, which hold 0 weight when discussing stories. It's as bare bones as an anime can get.

[FoolsGil]

Not someone found off the street, but someone who has done official work on manga or anime, or even western comics, or cartoons, and is invited based on their resume to write for the series.

[ABED]

1. It depends. I think a lot of fans mistakenly believe that "knowing" lore and terms from their favorite franchise means that they also understand how storytelling works. Yeah...that's a big fucking no. It's a rare few that can find a healthy balance between showing their adoration for their favorite show, while also allowing the story to take their characters where they need to go instead of just writing a bunch of fan service.

2. Since we're talking about Marvel: The problem with Parker in Far From Home is that it misses exactly what makes Parker such a relatable character in the first place. And one of the biggest problems with that movie is they really lean into the idea of Parker being Tony Stark Jr. Gone is the level of adversity that defines Parker. Instead he's a trust fund kid with a (dead) Daddy that can basically give him whatever he wants. Homecoming worked precisely because Parker felt relatable in the sense that he was kind of a fuck up, but still wanted to do the right thing. It's no where near as bad as Amazing because, yikes. As I've gotten older, I definitely started to appreciate Mcquire's Parker. I love that he's a dope, and the world seems out to get him, yet he puts on that mask again and again because someone has to save the world. It's something that I think Into The Spiderverse captured quiet well too.

2. He's still a fuck up whose trying to do the right thing and considering where the last film left him, you might want to rethink your belief that he's living a charmed life. The core characterization is there.Spider-verse disproves its own theme so that's points against that film.

1. Agreed. The idea of giving fans what they want makes for good storytelling is incredibly stupid.

[Skar]

I really have no idea, but do people take Dragon Ball Super seriously as an anime in Japan? That is, is it considered "good" like the original, or is it seen as a novelty?

I was always curious how DBS holds up in Japan compared to other shonen series inspired by DB and Toriyama. I figured this would be a good place to ask since we know One Piece, Naruto, Bleach, Zatch Bell, and many more were written by fans of DB who grew up to become professionals. I've only seen some of One Piece so I can't comment on the others. I hear different opinions from fans online but I was wondering if there was a poll in Japan or opinions from manga artists and other professionals.

I haven't watched a lot of anime and there's so much out there so I usually check lists for "favorite anime of all time" or of a certain decade to decide. I frequently see DB, DBZ, and a few of its "successors" on these lists. Of course, it all comes down to opinion but my point is that these held up over time despite thousands of anime that have been released and forgotten over the years.