A rebuttal to the defense of the Zamasu arc ending

[CascadeIllusion]

So my opinion on Super is that it's a big mixed bag, with some absolutely fantastic ideas here and there interspersed with some very questionable and sometimes downright awful ones. I'm on the side that the ending to the Zamasu arc (or Future Trunks arc I guess, but I have issues with that name for multiple reasons) was one of, if not the worst narrative decisions in Super and probably Dragon Ball history. The reasons as to why have been discussed a lot already, so that's not what this topic is about. Rather, it's in response to a common defense of the arc's ending, and why I think this defense doesn't really work. (By the way, this is my opinion and if you like the ending to the arc, that's all cool, this is for the sake of sparking discussion)

The common defense I hear from those who do like the ending is that it teaches a "realistic" message about the unfairness of life, and how even if you try your very best, you won't always succeed. To be fair, this is, unfortunately, true, and it's an issue that has been tackled in other media too, probably most notably Star Trek TNG with Picard's well-known quote "It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."

So if TNG can do it well, why can't Dragon Ball? Simply put, because the tone of those two shows is obviously very different. Actually, it'd be more precise to say that TNG is different tonally than most other shows in its genre that it gets compared to. TNG handles its topics pretty delicately, with a balance of emotional appeal and logical reasoning. It is hopeful and forward-thinking without denying the shortcomings of humanity, and addresses those issues in a way that people can accept while not being all doom-and-gloom either. That's perfectly fine for TNG and it's what makes the show so memorable and why it resonates with so many people.

However, Dragon Ball, and for that matter, many other Sci-Fi/Action shows, would not be able to handle this topic the same way, and it's largely because, well, if they did, the story would absolutely suffer for it, like I believe it does in Super with the Zamasu arc's ending. If you extend the logic of the ending of the Zamasu arc is good because it's "realistic", then by extending it to its logical conclusion, you could say this about pretty much any good/hopeful ending for any well-known media franchise. I guess in Star Wars the heroes should all die off horribly despite their best efforts, because their chances of success were very small anyway so it's more "realistic" to show it that way and it teaches the audience a "good lesson about life".

Spoiler:

And before you mention examples like Star Wars' Rogue One, those don't count because they're midquels and we know, despite the "bad" ending for the main characters in that movie, that their sacrifice wasn't in vain. It was a good movie because it was both somber in its portrayal and yet simultaneously hopeful toward the future. If it turned out that the heroes not only died but also they didn't succeed in their goal then that would be a slap in the face to the audience.

This isn't a post-apocalyptic drama, a grimdark horror, or some other genre that is more well equipped to deal with more "grounded" takes on hope. People watch shows like Dragon Ball because the characters, despite all of the odds being against them, end up succeeding in their goal in the end. Sure, obviously they may suffer major losses on their way to achieving said goal, and if you went the other extreme and got rid of these then that is also of course, bad. That is because those losses on the way make the eventual triumph all the more satisfying, and that is what people want here: satisfaction. An ending where all of the hard work, blood, tears, and suffering ends up not amounting to anything does not make for a satisfying conclusion to a story with the tone that Dragon Ball is known for.

[Magnificent Ponta]

People watch shows like Dragon Ball because the characters, despite all of the odds being against them, end up succeeding in their goal in the end. Sure, obviously they may suffer major losses on their way to achieving said goal, and if you went the other extreme and got rid of these then that is also of course, bad. That is because those losses on the way make the eventual triumph all the more satisfying, and that is what people want here: satisfaction. An ending where all of the hard work, blood, tears, and suffering ends up not amounting to anything does not make for a satisfying conclusion to a story with the tone that Dragon Ball is known for.

But looked at one way, isn't that what the ending of this arc ultimately gives us?

Trunks' timeline doesn't have Dragon Balls and practically everyone on Earth is dead well before the ending, so that grievous damage can't be simply fixed (and if you tried to introduce Dragon Balls in order to do that so Trunks doesn't simply preside over a Ghost World, you'd get the obvious question of why that wasn't done before, instead of resorting to the Time Machine). But despite his tribulations, Trunks still holds on to Hope and finds a way to preserve the future. Granted, he suffers the loss of his specific future, but he succeeds in helping stop Zamas, and in doing so he saves all the other timelines in the process. And he gets a new future to belong to.

As a result, Trunks gets a second (and implicitly successful) chance at saving the future that he knows, so he remains a man who belongs to the future and successfully preserves its peace (rather than, say, skulking about in the past with a future that is now just gone; he actually re-creates his own future by moving forward in time again) - this success is doubly assured because his own self is his ally in that future - and the arc just spent a lot of narrative energy showing us the power and effectiveness of two of the same person being united in pursuit of a goal. Admittedly it's not pure feelgood, there's a bittersweet tinge, but that was also true of the last time we left Trunks in his future - defeating the Androids likewise didn't restore what was lost, but it gave the opportunity for a fresh, hopeful new future. And so it is here: there is still both success and satisfaction, even when it seemed totally impossible. I wouldn't describe that as "not amounting to anything".

Like you, I wouldn't say a "message" about life being unfair despite best effort is really relevant to the arc (or even really there, in my opinion), or that either "realism" per se or comparison with treatments of that subject in other storytelling franchises has much of a bearing one way or another on how the arc and its ending should be appraised. But really, I'd say the arc (and the ending) is more about how Trunks embodies and preserves the Hope of the Future.

Can you elaborate a little further on what you believe makes the ending a "bad" ending? Is it strictly about the fact that Trunks's specific version of his future isn't saved, or is it something else to it?

[SupremeKai25]

It's meant to be a bittersweet ending.

Yes, Trunks gets his timeline blown up and Zamasu technically accomplishes his goal (eliminating all mortals in that timeline), hence why it's "bitter".

But there is also some "sweetness" to it. Zamasu did not just want to kill all mortals, he also wanted to rule over everything for eternity. He failed to accomplish that goal as he was erased from existence by his superior. He also failed to truly destroy all the mortals of that timeline, because that timeline's Trunks and Mai escape to safety.

In the end, Trunks' story revolves around the concept of "hope". He's not supposed to have it easy or have a happy fairy tale ending, he's supposed to have hope. The point of that ending is that Trunks keeps his hope even after he has lost basically everything else. He doesn't let go of his hope, that's the only thing he never loses.

With his hope, he is ultimately able to create a future free from Black/Zamasu's reign of terror. In the new future, they warn Beerus of Zamasu's plan before he can put it in motion. So, at least, Trunks creates a timeline of peace where Black and Zamasu will never be able to attack the mortals.

Would you have preferred if this arc ended with the Good guys using the Dragon Balls to revive everyone who died/every city that got destroyed like *check notes* pretty much all the other arc endings in DBZ/DBS?

[ChronoTwigger]

Since his first appearance, Future Trunks Timeline was in fact grim and dark. One armed Gohan very depressive to watch.
That reality was fated since the start to show "what couldn't be shown" - if you mind well, there was no reason *that* timeline was touched instead of the original one or any other. But something like a crazy God-level menace fitted better such Dragon Ball Dark Fantasy alternative. Zamasu in original timeline would be a bit too much to digest, and more close to your "out of tone" point. It was fine in the Catastrophe Trashbin FT Timeline was.

Why they did such ending? To me, a couple reasons, none about "realism".
REASON A
The most evident to me is they locked themselves in a blind spot. They rised the stakes so high they trapped themselves into a black hole. How do you beat something *so* strong? Final apocalypse. I'm quite sure they didn't planned the whole script in advance, so they had to justify (or simply not justify) all the plot holes they made in the meanwhile. Zamasu was able to defeat everyone, included Beerus, any possible gathered hero, possibly angels like Merus, and whoever, so how Goku could defeat him? He can't. So, final apocalypse.
And such final apocalypse (luckily) fitted in such grim FT landscape, while the original, doki doki happy happy "real" world continue.

REASON B
Or, simply speaking, a lot of people overthink a kid show that some author use to pay their bills and sometime they just go with the flow. "I dunno how to add meaning to this scene" >> "Don't add any meaning, just do something by the deadline".

[ankokudaishogun]

The ending of the Zamasu arc was all about Gods.

At the bare minimum, it was to show how out of there scary was Zen'oh, the cute All-King that Goku did befriend willy-nilly the previous arc.

Toriyama did kill Trunk's whole timeline just to hype his(now their) scariness and, by extension, the scariness of the GoDs that the main cast take so lightly because they are gluttons.

with a dash of Shadow Dragons\don't rely on dragonball\gods to save your ass.

[capsulecorp]

One incredibly important aspect of this ending is that it was used to introduced the second Zen'oh. In fact, that might be the single most important element of the entire arc... but of course, this remains to be seen.

[Mr Baggins]

In the end, Trunks' story revolves around the concept of "hope". He's not supposed to have it easy or have a happy fairy tale ending, he's supposed to have hope. The point of that ending is that Trunks keeps his hope even after he has lost basically everything else. He doesn't let go of his hope, that's the only thing he never loses.

This is correct.

The main theme of the Future Trunks arc mirrors the Cell arc's theme, but with a somewhat darker twist; the message ultimately being that it's possible to maintain hope even after all efforts to improve one's circumstances are in vain. It's not meant to be pessimistic or cynical, exactly, though it does make use of similarly bleak undertones to illustrate its point.

While I do enjoy this arc well enough, I'm not especially crazy about it for reasons unrelated to this thread's topic. But the ending, I think, is fine.

[GokuHater]

For me, there are two issues here.

And it isn't about being realistic or gloomy.

I feel as Zamasu Arc intended to be dark and gloomy from the start - and it did succeed.
It was also set as a sort of tragedy. Despite our heroes hopes and dreams, they fail to save the timeline. Zamasu beats them at the end and without Zeno they would be fuuuuucked.

This isn't on the level of an Ancient tragedy but nonetheless all parallels are there. Goku triggers Zamasu in the beginning, the downfall of a god, a failure of his teacher. Failures of Goku (as stupid as they are) with Senzu and Mafuba. In this context everything goes as the story intended expect for the ending.

And that is because right there and then Toei unfortunately didn't have the balls to pull the tragedy to the end. They wanted to have their cake and eat it. By all means killing of Future Trunks and Mai would be controversial but I'd argue it would flow better.

Right now because Trunks timeline had to be erased but Trunks also had to survive, they made this strange compromised idea where he lives but goes of to another timeline?
Which completely destroys the entire purpose of his character (and worse, retroactively does that to the Android arc).

Trunks failed to save his mother, his people, his timeline. He failed to beat Zamas. And now he lost everything and will be just another Trunks in god knows where.

Imagine if the ending would consist of Zamasu going absolutely crazy (be that him being the sky, him making clones or even something like Moro) and the timeline is doomed either way. The only way to save every other timeline is for Trunks actually to somehow destroy it or give his life - maybe Zeno would be involved but more in a negotiation plot? I find it waaay better.

And then... Trunks dies. Cold and cruel for the audience. Think when Ned Stark dies in GoT. Also cold, cruel and unpredicted. This would be a dark slap for the face for the audience but at least Trunks would stay a hero who did lose, who failed but gave his life for other timelines. This is kind of his character resolution, just a negative one.

Completely on the other hand I feel the issue with Zamasu Arc ending is that it concerns the same timeline as Androids did. This means Trunks and Bulma already suffered very very much. Trunks already had his story, his journey, character growth. And everything is being for naught and forgotten because of this ending.

For me I don't particularly HATE the ending but I feel it could have been waaaay better.

[Civic]

Trunks' timeline doesn't have Dragon Balls and practically everyone on Earth is dead well before the ending, so that grievous damage can't be simply fixed (and if you tried to introduce Dragon Balls in order to do that so Trunks doesn't simply preside over a Ghost World, you'd get the obvious question of why that wasn't done before, instead of resorting to the Time Machine). But despite his tribulations, Trunks still holds on to Hope and finds a way to preserve the future. Granted, he suffers the loss of his specific future, but he succeeds in helping stop Zamas, and in doing so he saves all the other timelines in the process. And he gets a new future to belong to.

As a result, Trunks gets a second (and implicitly successful) chance at saving the future that he knows, so he remains a man who belongs to the future and successfully preserves its peace (rather than, say, skulking about in the past with a future that is now just gone; he actually re-creates his own future by moving forward in time again) - this success is doubly assured because his own self is his ally in that future - and the arc just spent a lot of narrative energy showing us the power and effectiveness of two of the same person being united in pursuit of a goal. Admittedly it's not pure feelgood, there's a bittersweet tinge, but that was also true of the last time we left Trunks in his future - defeating the Androids likewise didn't restore what was lost, but it gave the opportunity for a fresh, hopeful new future. And so it is here: there is still both success and satisfaction, even when it seemed totally impossible. I wouldn't describe that as "not amounting to anything".

That's a parallel I hadn't noticed before - that Trunks still gets a future, a second chance, like he did at the end of the Cell saga. Perhaps it's just perception but I feel like the concept of him having another chance isn't as obvious or satisfying as the Cell saga's version, but after you've spelled it out like that, it's absolutely there. Good response.

[SupremeKai25]

What people also ignore is that the ending that Future Trunks got in DBZ was a little too good and happy, considering what he did.

In fiction, you can't just travel around the timestream, creating timelines out of nowhere, without repercussions. You can't just meddle with time like that, there must be consequences.

Now Future Trunks really didn't face that many consequences in DBZ. His use of time travel pretty much saved two timelines from destruction and resulted in him having a happy ending.

But it was still time travel. In fiction, there must always be harsh consequences for time travel. You can't just alter history as you please, that's not how it should work.

That's why in Super you got both the Good guys and the Bad guys criticising Trunks for his abuse of time travel. That's the one thing that Zamasu, Gowasu, and Beerus all agree on: time travel is taboo and a mere mortal should never have abused it. I mean, Beerus even threatened to destroy the Earth for their abuse of time travel and it's mentioned that if Grand Zeno learned about the timeline abuse, he would erase all of existence.

And when you think about it, what Trunks suffered is karma. Because there must be CONSEQUENCES for abusing time like that. And when you look at the facts, had Trunks not meddled with time to save Goku (a change that defied the natural history), then Black and Zamasu would never have existed in their current incarnation. Because Goku would have died of a heart virus, so no one would have challenged Zamasu and the whole arc wouldn't have happened in the first place.

So Trunks ironically caused his own demise. This is karma for abusing time travel. In fiction, there MUST be consequences. You can't just hop around timelines, change history, alter the natural course of the world, and then get away scots-free.

Of course this development is also necessary to build up Zamasu's hypocrisy. Because Zamasu wants to kill the mortals for abusing time travel, but Zamasu also abused time travel. A lot. In fact, in Heroes, there's a version of Zamasu who time-travelled 99+ times to kill 99+ Gokus and be the ultimate "Goku".

Back to Trunks, he needed to be punished for his abuse of time travel. That's just how it works. DBZ gave him a happy ending, but he deserved to be punished for abusing time and causing so many splits. DBS saw to that.

He can still make a good life for himself and Mai in the New Future timeline, which is free from Black and Zamasu's reign of terror. But he needed to suffer the consequences of his abuse of time travel.

[Magnificent Ponta]

That's a parallel I hadn't noticed before - that Trunks still gets a future, a second chance, like he did at the end of the Cell saga. Perhaps it's just perception but I feel like the concept of him having another chance isn't as obvious or satisfying as the Cell saga's version, but after you've spelled it out like that, it's absolutely there.

I feel like insofar as there is a difference between Trunks's 'Second Chance' in each arc (and I don't think it's just your perception, I think it's actual even if it ends up the same way), I guess I'd say it's the difference between Making Things Right and Getting A Do-Over. In the Cell arc, we leave Trunks just after he's finished doing the former; in the Future Trunks arc, we leave him as he embarks upon the latter.

I think it's telling that, when we first catch up with the gang in this arc, we not only get a several-page conversation on and exposition of Time Travel per se - we also get a direct conversational aside on the do-over they got against Freeza. It's fitting that Trunks gets something quite like it at the end.

[Kaboom]

This once-intriguing story arc's absolutely abysmal ending is the thing that made me finally, after cutting it way too much slack already, give up on and completely discount Dragon Ball Super. I did briefly peek back into the manga when the Moro arc seemed like it might turn out interesting, but suffice to say I also ended up dropping that before too long. But I digress.

The way I've almost always summed up my feelings about the Zamas arc's ending is this: If I wanted depressing and grim endings where the heroes are ultimately overwhelmed and lose everything they've been fighting for, then I'd be reading and watching other series. Ones that are very different from Dragon Ball.

Real life is depressing enough. So in my adventurous, high-energy, made-for-kids fantasy escape fiction, I want to see the good guys actually win in the end. It doesn't have to always be an absolutely one-sided total win, and the heroes having to endure some sacrifices in the process makes for good drama and is expected.

A "bittersweet ending" is something like Goku sacrificing himself during the climax of the Cell Games, or him leaving with Shenlong for parts unknown at the end of GT. But this was way beyond that. There was no victory. Zamas was defeated in the end, but only by the intervention of an even more vile and destructive villain who "fixed" the problem by just going completely scorched-Earth on everything. And in the process, Trunks had his past legacy as a character and a symbol of "hope" completely undercut and crushed by all of the above. Not to mention the other stupid shit that this story arc introduced like the Potara retcon attempt, the introduction of "Super Saiyan Blue But Now Pink," and the additional flanderization of Goku's character.

Nobody won. Trunks lost. The people Trunks was trying to save in his timeline lost. The other heroes trying to help Trunks lost. The audience lost. Dragon Ball's larger mythos and reputation lost. My last embers of hope that modern Dragon Ball material could actually be good or worth embracing lost, and hard. And several years later, seeing anyone try to defend this arc's ending as actually good just baffles me.

[Skar]

So Trunks ironically caused his own demise. This is karma for abusing time travel. In fiction, there MUST be consequences. You can't just hop around timelines, change history, alter the natural course of the world, and then get away scots-free.

There are stories involving time travel and don't result in any consequences though. In DB, that particular Trunks was the only who suffered since he ended up moving to an identical timeline with another Trunks who was fine. I recall the gods advised him what to do to prevent Zamasu from being a threat in the new timeline.

[Jord]

The Zamasu arc is a mess in general. It reminds me of the Buu Saga, where everything is thrown against the wall and hoping something sticks, including a nerfed Vegetto appearance. It's clear that unlike the Buu saga, they didn't know how to end it. They had the "cool" idea to bring Future Trunks back and from there just got lost.

Having Goku press a magic button to let another guy just zap the main villain away is by far the worst ending in all of Dragon Ball. No final battle, no excitement. No, just press the button on the magic remote.

Even the Super 17 saga, for all it's faults, had a better ending than this piece of crap.

[Vegard Aune]

Having Goku press a magic button to let another guy just zap the main villain away is by far the worst ending in all of Dragon Ball. No final battle, no excitement. No, just press the button on the magic remote.

I will defend the Omni-King Button ever-so-slightly in that it is at least a thing the story did take the time to set up, as well as the repeated mentions that "Yeah, the Omni-King is incredibly fickle and you absolutely do not want to engage with him any more than strictly necessary!" meaning that him doing what he did when he did show up does track...
But generally my stance on the whole thing is basically the same as Kaboom's. (Well, insofar as this one arc's ending goes. I largely enjoyed the anime's take on the Universe Survival arc and found Moro to be some of the most fun I've ever had with Super, even if I admit it's more than fair to say that that arc was intensely derivative.)

[SupremeKai25]

The arc was never going to have a classic ending where the protagonist just fires a giant ki ball and obliterates the antagonist.

Zamasu got immortality. Reminder that literally the entire first half of DBZ was about preventing two Alien villains from using the Dragon Balls to get Immortality, because if the villain got Immortality, it would be game over.

Now Zamasu got Immortality, he accomplished what Vegeta and Frieza were desperately trying to do. So clearly he wasn't going to lose like a traditional DBZ villain, obliterated by huge beam.

The ending of the arc was sufficiently set-up. In the Anime, in ep. 55, many episodes before the ending, Goku is given the Zeno button. At that point, plenty of people already figured out that the Zeno button was going to play in the resolution of the arc.

What was unexpected was Zeno erasing the entire timeline, but even that was actually set-up:

- In the very first episode of the arc, Whis tells the story of the 6 universes that were erased by Zeno on a whim long ago;

- In ep. 55 (same episode where Goku gets the Zeno button), Beerus warns Goku not to mention time travel to Zeno, or he could snap and erase all of existence (time travel being a terrible taboo, even for the Gods).

With all things considered, it was fairly obvious that the ending would revolve around three key plot points:

- Zamasu's immortality would come in clutch, because Immortality is that OP (entire early DBZ was about stopping villains from getting immortality or it would be game over);

- The Zeno button was obviously going to play a role, and by proxy Zeno;

- Whenever Zeno is involved, Universes have a high risk of being erased.

The erasure of FT timeline also serves as an important story purpose. It forces Future Zeno to go to the Present timeline, leading to the Zen Exhibition match in the next arc, where the rivalry between Goku and U11 is first set-up. Then, it also gives insight into Zeno's full power and that raises the stakes of the ToP arc: the stories about Zeno erasing Universes are not just legends or myths, it's not just a BS story the trickster Whis made up on the spot to troll Goku. It's real. And that's why Goku had flashbacks to Zeno erasing Zamasu and the timeline right after U9 is erased.

The only thing that I would consider truly out of nowhere is Infinite Zamasu, whether it be the Immortal Zamasu spirit merging with the Cosmos, or the Fused Zamasu cloning himself ad-infinitum. But not only these developments were explained anyway, it's par for the course with DBZ. Did people forget all the BS plot armour surrounding Super Perfect Cell? Infinite Zamasu really isn't that much different from the BS that was Super Perfect Cell.

[Vegard Aune]

The arc was never going to have a classic ending where the protagonist just fires a giant ki ball and obliterates the antagonist.

Zamasu got immortality. Reminder that literally the entire first half of DBZ was about preventing two Alien villains from using the Dragon Balls to get Immortality, because if the villain got Immortality, it would be game over.

Now Zamasu got Immortality, he accomplished what Vegeta and Frieza were desperately trying to do. So clearly he wasn't going to lose like a traditional DBZ villain, obliterated by huge beam.

You got it backwards. It's not that the arc had to end the way it did because Zamasu was undefeatable. Zamasu was undefeatable because it had been decided ahead of time, before any scripts had even been written, that the arc would end with the Omni-King erasing the timeline. This isn't 1990s Toriyama writing stuff by the seat of his pants anymore. All of these arcs were outlined before work started on them in earnest. And yeah, you can point to the narrative justifications for why the ending we got had to happen all you want, but that hardly matters to those of us whose fundamental problem is the idea of the ending itself. The entire arc literally exists to facilitate a thing that we actively consider a slap in the face.

And I don't buy that it had to happen for the Universe Survival arc to take place, either. Like, in the manga, the exhibition match served the secondary purpose of deciding the rules, with the Omni-Kings deciding that flying shouldn't be allowed and that gods should not be allowed to participate because that made things too complicated to enjoy. And then it also sets up Jiren as Goku's main goal for the tournament. Both of these things could absolutely have been done without the second Omni-King there needing an explanation for what a tournament is. Just have the one be like "Hmmm, I saw the other tournament but I'm not sure how that worked, let's just have a smaller test run first." And then as soon as the main event starts, the two Omni-Kings are literally indistinguishable from one another and do nothing besides go "WOW COOL" and also dishing out the universe-wiping penalty for losing teams. Which, yeah, one could say Future Trunks's world being erased helped immediately make those stakes more real but... I can easily imagine a version of the story where the audience is just left asking "Would he really just destroy the entire universe of any losing team? Can he even do that? Or have all the other gods been exaggerating how dangerous the Omni-King is?" only for it to then happen mid-tournament and that being the moment it well and truly hits that, okay, yeah, the stakes are higher than they have ever been. Yes, the Universe Survival arc as it exists now builds upon the ending to Future Trunks, but in this hypothetical alternative universe where the story just goes straight from Goku VS Hit to the Universe Survival arc, you could still facilitate most of the same plot developments without Omni-King #2.

[SupremeKai25]

The arc was never going to have a classic ending where the protagonist just fires a giant ki ball and obliterates the antagonist.

Zamasu got immortality. Reminder that literally the entire first half of DBZ was about preventing two Alien villains from using the Dragon Balls to get Immortality, because if the villain got Immortality, it would be game over.

Now Zamasu got Immortality, he accomplished what Vegeta and Frieza were desperately trying to do. So clearly he wasn't going to lose like a traditional DBZ villain, obliterated by huge beam.

You got it backwards. It's not that the arc had to end the way it did because Zamasu was undefeatable. Zamasu was undefeatable because it had been decided ahead of time, before any scripts had even been written, that the arc would end with the Omni-King erasing the timeline. This isn't 1990s Toriyama writing stuff by the seat of his pants anymore. All of these arcs were outlined before work started on them in earnest. And yeah, you can point to the narrative justifications for why the ending we got had to happen all you want, but that hardly matters to those of us whose fundamental problem is the idea of the ending itself. The entire arc literally exists to facilitate a thing that we actively consider a slap in the face.

And I don't buy that it had to happen for the Universe Survival arc to take place, either. Like, in the manga, the exhibition match served the secondary purpose of deciding the rules, with the Omni-Kings deciding that flying shouldn't be allowed and that gods should not be allowed to participate because that made things too complicated to enjoy. And then it also sets up Jiren as Goku's main goal for the tournament. Both of these things could absolutely have been done without the second Omni-King there needing an explanation for what a tournament is. Just have the one be like "Hmmm, I saw the other tournament but I'm not sure how that worked, let's just have a smaller test run first." And then as soon as the main event starts, the two Omni-Kings are literally indistinguishable from one another and do nothing besides go "WOW COOL" and also dishing out the universe-wiping penalty for losing teams. Which, yeah, one could say Future Trunks's world being erased helped immediately make those stakes more real but... I can easily imagine a version of the story where the audience is just left asking "Would he really just destroy the entire universe of any losing team? Can he even do that? Or have all the other gods been exaggerating how dangerous the Omni-King is?" only for it to then happen mid-tournament and that being the moment it well and truly hits that, okay, yeah, the stakes are higher than they have ever been. Yes, the Universe Survival arc as it exists now builds upon the ending to Future Trunks, but in this hypothetical alternative universe where the story just goes straight from Goku VS Hit to the Universe Survival arc, you could still facilitate most of the same plot developments without Omni-King #2.

You're forgetting that Trunks ultimately created a peaceful version of his timeline, even if it has some minor changes compared to his original one.

Trunks has created a version of his timeline that is free from Black and Zamasu's reign of terror. Trunks and Mai survived and got away while Zamasu got erased from existence.

Ultimately Toriyama saw it as a good ending to Trunks' story.

Now Trunks can live in happiness and peace in his new timeline, and Black and Zamasu will never be able to threaten the mortals again:




Isn't this what Trunks has always fought for? A peaceful world.

[FireFly]

The arc was a mess with the ridiculously convoluted and paradoxical time travel even prior to the ending, but the ending itself was also bogus. I at least give the anime a very small brownie point for trying to justify Zeno erasing the entire timeline by having Zamasu become one with said timeline itself and begin to pervade other timelines in turn and somewhat justify having to erase all of existence to end him, but in the manga there's not even that excuse - Zamasu had multiplied, but even simply erasing Earth would've sufficed which made the timeline erasure just seem like gratuitous despair.

[Coola Yagami]

I liked the manga better than the 'Zamasu literally became the sky' nonsense from the anime. I liked the idea that the bad guy sorta won and that not everything needs to be a happy ending. Due to the Dragonballs, everything is for the most part fixed 'as it never ever happened' at the end of an arc. It's different seeing a bad guy do something so horrible that not even the Dragonballs could fix it.