Your opinion on how Toei worked on Dragon Ball Anime

[super michael]

I am curious to hear members opinion on Toei working on Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT and Dragon Ball Super. Did Toei do a good job on them or did they fail?

In my opinion during Dragon Ball, Toei did some changes which was good. Example we got to see Tenshinhan perform his Mafuba in the battle against Daimao Piccolo, even if it failed. In the manga his rice cooker was broken before the match started, therefore never used it.
Goku doing a trail to get the Ultra Divine Water was a nice touch. In the manga he just gets it.
We got to see many training that was off-screen in the manga and many adventures.

In DBZ there was many anime scenes that was good, such as the characters training and getting ready for the Saiyan arrival, most was off-screen in the manga.

Some battles was anime exclusive and some battle were extended in DBZ. There was funny episode such as Goku and Piccolo learning to drive.

I would rate DB/DBZ a 9/10, which is a high score.

As for Dragon Ball GT while I found it enjoyable, I know it was a huge downgrade compared to DB/DBZ. Something in GT didn't make sense such as no healing from Senzu Bean, Boo, Oob and KibitoKai.
KibitoKai afraid of Dende and Mr Poppo.
I rank GT a 5/10.

As for DBS Toei did a horrible job here. Making the characters nothing like their DB/DBZ version, losing character developer just for the sake of comedy. Basically Toei did doing the same writing over and over even if it got old.
Goku whenever he appeared he always had to say or do something stupid, in some episode he didn't do anything smart at all.
I rank DBS a 4/10. Plus the huge censorship in blood wasn't good.

[Zephyr]

Speaking only about DB '86 and DBZ:

In the writing department, their work was definitely a mixed bag. Pacing can get absolutely fucked up sometimes, and a fair amount of the anime-exclusive scenes range from extraneous to forgettable. On the other hand, many of the anime-exclusive scenes are pretty good.

Beyond writing though, they did very good. Their production of the anime is what gave us things like Kikuchi's musical score, Nozawa voicing Goku, various sound effects and color schemes for characters. These are things which are hard to imagine Dragon Ball without, having become essential to the series' identity in many respects.

[YoungDefender]

I think Dragon Ball and Z were obviously their best work and mostly faultless. Even the filler I think is pretty good by anime filler standards. The Garlic Jr. arc for example does not feel to me like something that far divorced from what Toriyama would write himself. Outside of the fact that it exists in a weird anime canon where Dead Zone happened (but also couldn't have happened?) I don't think it's something worth busting Toei's chops over. It's a decent arc that does not interfere with the rest of the adaptation - it's harmless.

The art style and art direction of Z is my personal favorite but both original series are 10/10 in my book. Not being hyperbolic, I genuinely feel that if DB/Z is not 10/10 I don't know what show is or even could be.

GT is obviously where the magic starts to fall apart. The animation and art style/direction is still very good and almost on-par with Z with the animation quality being very good and maybe arguably better in some places.

I liked the first arc best and wish they kept GT as more of a low-power level, slice of life denouement to Z (basically channeling the original DB anime) rather than trying to top the Buu saga which in my view should have been left as the pinnacle of the Z-esque power level escalations.

Overall GT has it's charm but is very much a head canon continuation that I go back and forth between discarding and endorsing. As a battle anime in it's own right and not a continuation of Z it is hard not to appreciate it for what it is, I would say it's a 6/10 show.

Super I find mostly bereft of any of the Dragon Ball magic found in DB/Z and even GT. Much of this has to do with the astoundingly poor animation, art style and art direction that is impossible to overlook and never stops making me feel like this is a kid's show in a way you just don't when watching DB/Z. On a scale between Miyazaki on one end and Beyblade on the other the original DB/Z/GT are closer to Miyazaki whereas Super is closer to Beyblade.

If that doesn't say enough the writing and story work so hard to cheapen Z in a way that Z never did to DB and even GT didn't fully do to Z to where I just struggle being charitable when understanding the need for the series to go in this direction. To me it's a 2/10 as a continuation show and a 5/10 at best if you are removing it from head canon and just watching it as it's own thing. It's just not very good any way you slice it.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I think Dragon Ball and Z were obviously their best work and mostly faultless. Even the filler I think is pretty good by anime filler standards. The Garlic Jr. arc for example does not feel to me like something that far divorced from what Toriyama would write himself. Outside of the fact that it exists in a weird anime canon where Dead Zone happened (but also couldn't have happened?) I don't think it's something worth busting Toei's chops over. It's a decent arc that does not interfere with the rest of the adaptation - it's harmless.

The art style and art direction of Z is my personal favorite but both original series are 10/10 in my book. Not being hyperbolic, I genuinely feel that if DB/Z is not 10/10 I don't know what show is or even could be.

GT is obviously where the magic starts to fall apart. The animation and art style/direction is still very good and almost on-par with Z with the animation quality being very good and maybe arguably better in some places.

I liked the first arc best and wish they kept GT as more of a low-power level, slice of life denouement to Z (basically channeling the original DB anime) rather than trying to top the Buu saga which in my view should have been left as the pinnacle of the Z-esque power level escalations.

Overall GT has it's charm but is very much a head canon continuation that I go back and forth between discarding and endorsing. As a battle anime in it's own right and not a continuation of Z it is hard not to appreciate it for what it is, I would say it's a 6/10 show.

Super I find mostly bereft of any of the Dragon Ball magic found in DB/Z and even GT. Much of this has to do with the astoundingly poor animation, art style and art direction that is impossible to overlook and never stops making me feel like this is a kid's show in a way you just don't when watching DB/Z. On a scale between Miyazaki on one end and Beyblade on the other the original DB/Z/GT are closer to Miyazaki whereas Super is closer to Beyblade.

If that doesn't say enough the writing and story work so hard to cheapen Z in a way that Z never did to DB and even GT didn't fully do to Z to where I just struggle being charitable when understanding the need for the series to go in this direction. To me it's a 2/10 as a continuation show and a 5/10 at best if you are removing it from head canon and just watching it as it's own thing. It's just not very good any way you slice it.

I know Beyblade is shit but its sad to see EVERYONE dunk on it. I love it since its one of the anime kids can watch for free on tv in my country.

[Jord]

I think Toei did better on stretching for time for DB than they did on DBZ.
While DB had filler episodes, delving into characters' backstories, DBZ had a lot of episodes that felt like stalling, by powering up for ages, cutting back to other characters so they can react etc.
I'd rather see more self contained storylines like Garlic Jr.

[JulieYBM]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

[Jord]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

So you would have liked to see more time for filler to connect with the rest of the series. Interesting viewpoint that you don't hear often. Are there any specific examples where you felt that the flow was heavily disrupted?

[ABED]

I think Toei did better on stretching for time for DB than they did on DBZ.
While DB had filler episodes, delving into characters' backstories, DBZ had a lot of episodes that felt like stalling, by powering up for ages, cutting back to other characters so they can react etc.
I'd rather see more self contained storylines like Garlic Jr.

It's less in battle stuff and more of the endless cutaways to whatever Chichi or Bulma are up to.

[super michael]

In the Buu saga after Kid Buu defeat, in the anime we saw the characters partying and celebrating. Goku taking care of some birds was really good. There was slice of life episode.

Then there was episode like Goku and Tao Pai Pai in DBZ or Gohan meeting Tao Pai Pai.

I am aware there is DBZ Kai, which Toei did a good job on it also, for those that wants less filler and more similar to the manga.

[Jord]

I think Toei did better on stretching for time for DB than they did on DBZ.
While DB had filler episodes, delving into characters' backstories, DBZ had a lot of episodes that felt like stalling, by powering up for ages, cutting back to other characters so they can react etc.
I'd rather see more self contained storylines like Garlic Jr.

It's less in battle stuff and more of the endless cutaways to whatever Chichi or Bulma are up to.

I hate those cutaways with people stating the obvious. Really slowed down the pace of the already slow paced TOP in Super as well.

[ABED]

There were the occasional cutaways to someone doing commentary for the blind, but most of the time they are elaborating on what they are seeing.

[Toxin45]

it was a mixed bag for me

[super michael]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

[Jord]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

That was Otokosuki, fun character. He actually appeared in GT, as a Capsule Corporation employee. One of the few cross series minor characters.

[super michael]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

That was Otokosuki, fun character. He actually appeared in GT, as a Capsule Corporation employee. One of the few cross series minor characters.

I didn't know Otokosuki was a fan chracter. So he appears in episode 2 of GT, by wearing different clothes I didn't recognize him.

[Cure Dragon 255]

FUN character. As in FUN the concept. The concept and adjective of FUN.

[super michael]

FUN character. As in FUN the concept. The concept and adjective of FUN.

That is the first time seeing fun character, normally I am used to seeing fan character, as in a character which a fan designed.
Sorry for my mistake.

[JulieYBM]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

That character was meant to play into another negative gay trope, so, yeah, offensive. He definitely sets off alarms for me.

When both of your gay characters are "lol, look at how weird and creepy these gay guys are" I'd say that there's some yikes writing going on.

[super michael]

I don't think that there's enough anime-original content in Dragon Ball (1986) or Dragon Ball Z to properly allow for the episodes that do adapt comic storylines to really flow well. We see this issue later in Dragon Ball Super, where instead of doing episodes with plots based on original ideas, they try to unnaturally stretch out the length of arcs based on Toriyama ideas.

Furthermore, because of the poor planning of the production, each episode suffered from a low number of well-animated series, and then animators would often be scrambling to solo half of every third or so episode, like Uchiyama Masayuki and Obara Tai'ichirou. This is to say nothing of uncredited key animators and uncredted chief animation supervisors being necessary. Albeit, this is a industry-wide issue, but it's still nevertheless a problem that affected how Toei Animation created their Dragon Ball animated projects.

Oh, and they made the one canonically and openly gay character a child predator. Eww.

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

That character was meant to play into another negative gay trope, so, yeah, offensive. He definitely sets off alarms for me.

When both of your gay characters are "lol, look at how weird and creepy these gay guys are" I'd say that there's some yikes writing going on.

There is nothing negative about Otokosuki, just because Trunks wasn't attracted to him. Trunks can choose he who likes and who he isn't interested.

In Naruto the character named Sakura had a terrible reaction, just because Lee blew a air kiss and gave him many insults. The reason was just because of his appearance.

[JulieYBM]

I remember in EOZ a guy hitting on Trunks, although Trunks was uncountable with someone having a crush on him.

That character was meant to play into another negative gay trope, so, yeah, offensive. He definitely sets off alarms for me.

When both of your gay characters are "lol, look at how weird and creepy these gay guys are" I'd say that there's some yikes writing going on.

There is nothing negative about Otokosuki, just because Trunks wasn't attracted to him. Trunks can choose he who likes and who he isn't interested.

In Naruto the character named Sakura had a terrible reaction, just because Lee blew a air kiss and gave him many insults. The reason was just because of his appearance.

Your comparison is stupid, because you're comparing a minority typically depicted negatively in media in a M/M context to a M/F relationship, which is depicted as the norm and right way to live. Otokotsuki existed to be a 'creepy gay guy' stereotype for the entirety of his role while Haruno Sakura and Rock Lee were fleshed out characters with roles beyond a stupid and creepy introduction gag.