Which did it better, GT or Super?

Discussion specifically regarding the "Dragon Ball Super" TV series premiering July 2015 in Japan, including individual threads for each episode.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

User avatar
JazzMazz
I Live Here
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:28 am
Location: Mordor, the Borg cube and Voldemort's lair all at the same time in the year 199X

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by JazzMazz » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:11 am

HeroR wrote:
JazzMazz wrote:I just want to get this off my chest since a lot of people are showcasing it as an example of Super being good, or something Super did well in.

Episode 105 is awful.

Its an episode, with literally no real redeeming elements to it. At all.

Its woefully abysmal in every single department. Animation, storyboard, art direction, direction, script, it has nothing going for it in any of them.

In terms of animation, its one of the most lifeless and static episodes of the entire tournament.

In terms of storyboarding, the episode is and action are flatter than a pancake, which is magnified by the terrible art direction.

The general direction doesn't help either, with none of the narrative beats landing in the least due to the horrid music placement that serves like white noise in the background, instead of enhancing it and horrible transitions that make the episode feel choppy in terms of pacing. All attempts to create atmosphere are squashed not only by the aforementioned art direction, but also by the really garrish and poorly implemented colour choices.

It isn't even like the narrative aspect of the episode is any good. We start off the episode in a really dull and cringy fight with a really poor rape joke, have another dull battle against one of the ugliest character designs introduced in the franchise, followed by a poor, extended battle with an opponent sporting another of the ugliest character designs in the franchise, and end the episode on an artificial death fake out scene. That's not even mentioning how the episode feels completely at odds with a lot of the themes and idea's related to Roshi's character that were established in the recruitment arc. The only real "positive" about the narrative of the episode, is that it sort of tries to justify Roshi being there. That's really it.

All these things come together to form a completely lifeless husk of an episode that has no emotional impact what so ever. I wouldn't say its the worst episode of the tournament(thanks 100), buts its definitely up there.

Roshi did get a genuinely fantastic episode in 107, but 105, just isn't it.

So can people please stop using it as an example of a good episode, because it really isn't at all. You might enjoy it the first time you watched it because Roshi was being unexpectedly cool, but once the initial cool factor is out of your system it loses the only I don't think there is very much to come back to since it doesn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. So please for the love of God, don't mention it when talking about how good Super is, it only really serves to hurt your point.

Sorry for going off topic, but I just feel extremely strongly about this subject matter in particular.
I love you Jazz, but I couldn’t disagree more. I loved 105 and it’s one of my favorite epsoides in the franchise and it deserves the praise it got. And have seen it more than once.

You’re free to hate it, but this entire post reads as a giant ‘stop liking what I don’t like’.
Yeah, it does kind of come off like that, and I think it was a little intentional.

Its just something that had been bugging me for a long time, so I apoligize if I was a little overzealous in my phrasing.

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:29 am

blain218 wrote: Appeal to Subjectivity fallacy. When you deny the existence of objective standards of what makes a good work of fiction (regardless of genre of medium) you forfeit any chance of your views being taken seriously.
There is no such thing as an objective standard of what makes a good work of fiction. These things are not axiomatic or natural law. Maybe you stop throwing around pseudo-scientific comments, leave the science to where it belongs and begin responding to people here appropriately. And reducing your insults but instead filling your posts with more lols and lmaos is not going to help you either.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

blain218
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by blain218 » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:34 am

Cetra wrote:
blain218 wrote: Appeal to Subjectivity fallacy. When you deny the existence of objective standards of what makes a good work of fiction (regardless of genre of medium) you forfeit any chance of your views being taken seriously.
There is no such thing as an objective standard of what makes a good work of fiction. Maybe you stop throwing around pseudo-scientific comments, leave the science to where it belongs and begin responding to people here appropriately. And reducing your insults but instead filling your posts with more lols and lmaos is not going to help you either.
If you deny the existence of objective standards then you would logically have to say all works of fiction are equally good or bad, which is obviously false.

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:43 am

blain218 wrote: If you deny the existence of objective standards then you would logically have to say all works of fiction are equally good or bad, which is obviously false.
No, that's not how it works because the evaluation of such a piece of work is being done subjectively from the get-go. No work is "good" or "bad" because those ratings rely completely on the viewpoint and definitions of people and no one is actually forced to follow exactly the same viewpoints and definitions as well as is there no person who can actually decide that the standards that can be defined by people (which should already show you this is nothing that appears in nature itself) are universally true. I already wrote before if one follow ONE certain standard then in exactly this context he/she can rate it at come toi a certain conclusion following those, let's call it "internal rules". HOWEVER there is no saying this standard is the non-plus ultra that has any priority over others or to phrase it differently, people can rate within a completely different context and even the evaluation is highly dependant of what people say and define as such a things as "what makes a good or bad xyz movie/book/game" does not exist outside of their own social system. There might be a certain consensus so people's opinions overlap and it seems that there is some kind of most commonly used standard but that's really it. That does not make it the absolute and ultimate one that has to be considered for any evaluation and does not make any other person's evaluation "wrong" just because they evaluate under totally different circumstances. What is true in one context of course is true in one context but that does not mean it is true in another one. And if those things are even defined "artificially" it is even more ridiculous to assume that we all have to follow the same definition/standards for evaluation/morals/viewpoints/whateveroneistalkingaboutrightnow

TLDR version: Yes, we can say something is "good" and "bad" under certain circumstances. But those are not superior to something else and no one is forced to follow these things. It makes more sense in other areas but definitely not in such an area.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

Timetraveller
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:53 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Timetraveller » Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:19 am

blain218 wrote: Lmao, you are assuming 17 did no serious training since the Cell games, which is a false, baseless assumption. Goku and Vegeta get stronger all the time by punching the air all day lol, how is 17 and Freeza any different? Also, Freeza, Hit and even Jiren were also never stated to have gotten any special training from Gods and Angels either yet they are also at that level. There is no in-universe reason why 17 can't become SSB level in 10 years if Freeza (who is naturally weaker) could do the same thing without help from the gods in 4 months.

Also, you forgot to realize that even lowering 17 to current SSJ3 level like in the manga would still make 17 massively stronger than all of Z scaling wise (because of Goku and Vegeta absorbing SSG into their base and all that). So it really petty to complain about 17 being SSB level.
I haven't read the entire conversation, so apologies if I've missed anything. Goku got to his current level by fighting against the strongest fighters in the universe (Freeza, Cell, Buu and then the God of Destruction himself) and training with deities. There's no amount of punching air or saving animals from poachers that would bridge the gap between him and 17. 18's probably seen more action than 17 in the years since the Cell saga. Freeza's power jump was especially egregious given how quickly he obtained it. He went from weaker than a super saiyan to god level in 4 months? What is his limit? How long before he becomes as strong as Zeno?

Dragonball Z is a shounen so it's expected that each antagonist introduced is stronger than the last. It's the basic Pokemon formula where your pokemon get stronger after every battle and consequently, the pokemon you encounter and the trainers you battle also become increasingly stronger. It wouldn't be much of a challenge if a new villain on Nam's level is introduced and Goku already has SS3 so newer characters like Hit or Jiren being stronger from the get-go is more forgiving even if it's a little hard to believe.

What's not convincing to the viewers is when they take old characters and give them massive power leaps for the sake of fanservice. Sure there's no in-universe reason why 17 can't become SSB level in 10 years but that's a pretty poor argument for works of fiction since literally, anything can be possible. There's no real reason Tien can't become Zeno level in 10 years. Toriyama could throw in some random story about Tien being the descendent of an omnipotent three-eyed deity and Tien awakening his third eye grants him unparalleled power. It still has to be believable in the context of the story and what's been established. Toriyama has a reputation for taking shortcuts (like he has with the recolors), and using older characters instead of creating new ones is the ultimate sign of laziness. Mai, Golden Freeza, Android 17. Imagine how much better the tournament would be if they designed a new fighter from U7 instead of taking 10 earthlings like a Pikkon.

GT got a lot of flak for doing something similar with 17 so it would be hypocritical for fans not to call this out too. At least in GT they explained it with Super 17 being the fusion of two 17s. In Super you're left to use your own headcanon.

HeroR
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7886
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by HeroR » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:44 am

Cetra wrote:
blain218 wrote: If you deny the existence of objective standards then you would logically have to say all works of fiction are equally good or bad, which is obviously false.
No, that's not how it works because the evaluation of such a piece of work is being done subjectively from the get-go. No work is "good" or "bad" because those ratings rely completely on the viewpoint and definitions of people and no one is actually forced to follow exactly the same viewpoints and definitions as well as is there no person who can actually decide that the standards that can be defined by people (which should already show you this is nothing that appears in nature itself) are universally true. I already wrote before if one follow ONE certain standard then in exactly this context he/she can rate it at come toi a certain conclusion following those, let's call it "internal rules". HOWEVER there is no saying this standard is the non-plus ultra that has any priority over others or to phrase it differently, people can rate within a completely different context and even the evaluation is highly dependant of what people say and define as such a things as "what makes a good or bad xyz movie/book/game" does not exist outside of their own social system. There might be a certain consensus so people's opinions overlap and it seems that there is some kind of most commonly used standard but that's really it. That does not make it the absolute and ultimate one that has to be considered for any evaluation and does not make any other person's evaluation "wrong" just because they evaluate under totally different circumstances. What is true in one context of course is true in one context but that does not mean it is true in another one. And if those things are even defined "artificially" it is even more ridiculous to assume that we all have to follow the same definition/standards for evaluation/morals/viewpoints/whateveroneistalkingaboutrightnow

TLDR version: Yes, we can say something is "good" and "bad" under certain circumstances. But those are not superior to something else and no one is forced to follow these things. It makes more sense in other areas but definitely not in such an area.
I disagree slightly with this since there is 'objectively' good writing. Does the writing match tone of the story, is the message of the story clear, are the characters presented in-character, does the plot makes sense, ect. These things go into making something with 'good writing'. Of course, personal enjoyment is subjective. Like I have watched movies that are extremely well written and there is nothing objectively wrong with it from a writing stand point, but I found the work boring. While I have watched movies that I know is badly written, yet still enjoyed watching it.
Kanassa wrote:
precita wrote:Goku will still be around but take a Buu saga approach backseat.
Goku barely took a backseat in the Buu saga, at best he took a leisurely stroll round back while everyone else cried for him to come back.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Rakurai » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:05 am

Timetraveller wrote:...
No worries, I think you nailed my frustrations with 17's absurd power jump based on what we previously knew about cyborgs in the series.

It would make a lot more sense if 17 had a source or setting in which he could gain exponentially stronger. I'd believe that he could get as strong as Goku/Vegeta or even stronger if he trained with Whis. But all we were told is that he 'trained' while working a full-time job as a poacher. That's like saying 18 could get close to Goku and Vegeta's level by doing Krillin's job as a policeman. Actually, it would make more sense to me if he had a SSJ-level partner to fight with and they grew stronger together to reach high levels because one kept pushing the other.

I think the Ginyu Force, Freeza's closer henchmen in general, do have a high aptitude for increasing their strength and endurance by training. Knowing Toriyama, they'd have problably gotten new forms like 'Shiny purple Ginyu' or something to that effect.

blain218 wrote:
Rakurai wrote:...
No, it's clear that the writers wrote that scene for the sake of fanservice to Broly fans without any any regard for powerscaling. No mention of Goku testing Kale or holding back at all, especially when he goes SSG like four episodes later to 'save stamina.' Poorly written narrative that was swept underneath the rug later on.

Which is why there is a weakness to the forms, which the manga used to balance out the battles while the anime did the exact opposite and inflated powers to match it, including 17 and Gohan. You are also detracting from my original point, which is that SSG/SSB still feel like something worth a damn in the manga as opposed to the anime where SSB is used for almost everything, from Krillin to baseball to dealing with ToP fodder. You can prefer whichever one you want but it's quite clear that the anime turned the god forms into something of a joke by the end of its run.

Again, I don't care about Freeza nor do I excuse him either. I think it is also stupid that Freeza was brought back and given a unnecessary, shoehorned explanation to become so strong, and I didn't enjoy RoF at all. Usually, new characters have more leeway than old characters who are established to be within the realms of some power tier. However, Freeza's species is an unknown one after all and still given more leeway than 17 where precedent was clearly established. What would you get stronger from, fighting poachers and protecting wild animals on Earth or constantly fighting Earth's last standing Super Saiyan for about 20 years? Again, Toriyama saying 'yeah he just trained' doesn't excuse poor narrative decisions.

Goku and Vegeta absorbing SSG into their base has either been retconned or disproven in the manga. It is also not present in any form of narrative in the manga at all because Toyotaro had a narrative to lay out, which included using SSG in future events.

You claimed that the people who didn't understand the timeline are stupid. If grown people on the internet couldn't even understand it then it's likely that kids who watch it also didn't get it the first time, if ever. You are calling a substantial part of the fanbase stupid.

You seem to have things confused. Homages are not fanservice. Catering to a character excessively or using nostalgia-driven tactics are part of fanservice. But Toyotaro does not rely on such things primarily to move the plot forward. He doesn't need to give Goku a throwback KK form that's been irrelevant since Namek saga. He doesn't need to give Future Trunks a special form to make him relevant. He doesn't need to give weaklings like Krillin or Tien any bones before they're dropped out. He has a narrative that operates within the realms of how the DB universe based on the original manga and its precedents.

You mean kind of how Vegeta did the final explosion attack that was an obvious flashback to his last stand against Buu which led to his death? Both scenes were making last stands, both attempted to emulate sympathy and sadness from the viewers in that moment, at least that's what it seemed like to me.

You can talk to Cetra as to why objective standards truly do not exist since he replied to you on that part. But I want to point out that even your criteria, 'expanding lore,' 'screen time for minor cast characters,' 'speculation and wild fan imagination,' are all subjective and random to whatever 'objective' standards you're trying to preach. Your opinion as to why Super is better than GT because xxx is no more objective than me saying GT is better than Super because xxx. I make no attempt to hide the fact that my frustrations with Super anime are based on my perception and analysis of the show, which I am sure aligns with a lot of what other people have said as well. But it seems to me like you're the type to dismiss those criticisms and call them stupid or state some random literary device to try and make yourself sound more convincing.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

blain218
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by blain218 » Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:23 pm

Rakurai wrote: Goku and Vegeta absorbing SSG into their base has either been retconned or disproven in the manga. It is also not present in any form of narrative in the manga at all because Toyotaro had a narrative to lay out, which included using SSG in future events.
False. Goku and Vegeta absorbing the power of SSG (not the form itself) into their base was never retconned nor debunked in the manga nor the anime. That's just dumb headcanon and arbitrary skepticism in the fandom. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VnuWEr80tI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlThF-iGsdw.

This argument is a dead horse at this point. Plus Toyotaro wrote a RoF manga which is canon to the Super manga (that's why he skipped it and there are references to RoF in the Super manga so you can't say it didn't happened there) Virtually nothing in the anime nor manga contradict the fact that Goku and Vegeta's bases > all of Z.

Plus, Goku and Vegeta's bases > BoG SSG Goku explains why base Vegito was implied to be stronger than SSB Goku in the manga and was able to shot off Merged Zamasu's arm easily.
Last edited by blain218 on Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:59 pm

HeroR wrote: I disagree slightly with this since there is 'objectively' good writing. Does the writing match tone of the story, is the message of the story clear, are the characters presented in-character, does the plot makes sense, ect. These things go into making something with 'good writing'. Of course, personal enjoyment is subjective. Like I have watched movies that are extremely well written and there is nothing objectively wrong with it from a writing stand point, but I found the work boring. While I have watched movies that I know is badly written, yet still enjoyed watching it.
My entire post already explained why this cannot be. Admittedly it might be a bit troublesome to read though. There cannot be "objectively" good writing as long as it is not observed under a certain context. Everything observed under this context can be evaluated as good or bad - that is true and no one can change that but this should be more important when it comes to truly scientific things because there these things are more relevant - but no one forces the world to follow the standard that you think of and because those standards are already created through a set of people it already lies within something not found without their realm of influence. It is insanely arrogant to believe just because people define a certain standard that this is the one to go for. There is no saying that, depending on what we are talking about right now, there are no other things defined and to end this and not stretch this conversation more than it needs to be, everything you say is still highly dependant on subjectivity because even the questions you ask like "does this match" or "is this clear" is only so obvious to you because you in your mind follow already a certain guideline that no one else necessarily has to follow and which also is influenced individually.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

blain218
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by blain218 » Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:26 pm

Rakurai wrote:
No, it's clear that the writers wrote that scene for the sake of fanservice to Broly fans without any any regard for powerscaling. No mention of Goku testing Kale or holding back at all, especially when he goes SSG like four episodes later to 'save stamina.' Poorly written narrative that was swept underneath the rug later on.

Which is why there is a weakness to the forms, which the manga used to balance out the battles while the anime did the exact opposite and inflated powers to match it, including 17 and Gohan. You are also detracting from my original point, which is that SSG/SSB still feel like something worth a damn in the manga as opposed to the anime where SSB is used for almost everything, from Krillin to baseball to dealing with ToP fodder. You can prefer whichever one you want but it's quite clear that the anime turned the god forms into something of a joke by the end of its run.
If you want to be delusional and ignore blatant dialogue of Goku holding back with Kale then that's your problem.

And no, SSG/SSB don't feel any stronger in the manga because all the villains are made to be fodder compared to their anime versions. That doesn't the forms look impressive at all if Toyotaro wont give them any hard earned wins with them. Whereas in the anime it was used to beat Black in his prime (Vegeta), take down Aniraza, beat Hit in a rematch (Goku) and beat Golden Freeza one-on-one (Goku), all of which was portrayed as a hard win. The manga version Hit vs Goku made it clear that Goku could have just stomped Hit immediately if he just went Blue right away. That's cheap as hell.
Rakurai wrote:Again, I don't care about Freeza nor do I excuse him either. I think it is also stupid that Freeza was brought back and given a unnecessary, shoehorned explanation to become so strong, and I didn't enjoy RoF at all. Usually, new characters have more leeway than old characters who are established to be within the realms of some power tier. However, Freeza's species is an unknown one after all and still given more leeway than 17 where precedent was clearly established. What would you get stronger from, fighting poachers and protecting wild animals on Earth or constantly fighting Earth's last standing Super Saiyan for about 20 years? Again, Toriyama saying 'yeah he just trained' doesn't excuse poor narrative decisions.
Once again you are making the stupid, baseless assumption that 17 did nothing but hunt poachers all day. There is no in-universe reason why 17 or Freeza can't get that strong at all. You are projecting arbitrary limits on the characters that Toriyama himself had never put on them, then whining that your headcanon got debunked :roll:. How is it a problem if Toriyama himself even before Super established that these characters could get that strong with training? You failed to logically explain why its bad writing when it doesn't contradict a thing. Goku and Vegeta get stronger off screen by just training by themselves all the time, why can't others do the same.

Rakurai wrote:You claimed that the people who didn't understand the timeline are stupid. If grown people on the internet couldn't even understand it then it's likely that kids who watch it also didn't get it the first time, if ever. You are calling a substantial part of the fanbase stupid.
Isn't it an obvious fact that large chunks of the American fandom are stupid? I'm mean virtually no one in the Japanese fandom had a problem understanding the timeline stuff in either Z or Super, yet much of the American fandom needs to spoon fed info for every little thing that happens in the show. Isn't that a sign of low IQ?
Rakurai wrote:You seem to have things confused. Homages are not fanservice. Catering to a character excessively or using nostalgia-driven tactics are part of fanservice. But Toyotaro does not rely on such things primarily to move the plot forward. He doesn't need to give Goku a throwback KK form that's been irrelevant since Namek saga. He doesn't need to give Future Trunks a special form to make him relevant. He doesn't need to give weaklings like Krillin or Tien any bones before they're dropped out. He has a narrative that operates within the realms of how the DB universe based on the original manga and its precedents.
Homages ARE fanservice. Fanservice is anything designed to please the audience regardless of any other function used. Most of the callbacks in the manga didn't do anything to move the plot forward at all nor served any purpose but to cater to longtime DB fans. And the manga is FILLED with blatant pandering to the Vegeta fanboys, there is no way to deny it.

In DB and many other shonen, a character's power determines his/her relevance in the story (unless you're Bulma). KaioKen mixed with Blue was there to give Goku the ability to fight opponents naturally stronger than himself (and its written with a heavy drawback so to argue that its just fanservice is pure bullshit). Blue Evolution was there for Vegeta to break his limits and still be even with Goku (since he's his eternal rival).The Goku Black arc is supposed to be Trunks' story, so by giving him SSJ Rage he gets to play a more active and relevant role in his own arc (as opposed to being sidelined for the Goku and Vegeta show of the manga). The main reason why most of cast gets sidelined in the franchise is because they are simply not powerful enough to make a difference, so by giving these characters power-ups it becomes possible to develop them again.

Giving characters like Krillin and Tien wins isn't about fanservice, its about properly investing and incorporating a character, a problem most of Z had with the humans, that the Buu saga had with the non-saiyans, that GT had with anyone that isn't Goku and that the Super manga has with anyone who isn't Goku or Vegeta. There is no point in bringing Krillin and Tien along if they are not gonna accomplish anything of note in the ToP. The fact that so many people are defending such bad writing from Toyotaro is astounding.

Rakurai wrote:You can talk to Cetra as to why objective standards truly do not exist since he replied to you on that part. But I want to point out that even your criteria, 'expanding lore,' 'screen time for minor cast characters,' 'speculation and wild fan imagination,' are all subjective and random to whatever 'objective' standards you're trying to preach. Your opinion as to why Super is better than GT because xxx is no more objective than me saying GT is better than Super because xxx. I make no attempt to hide the fact that my frustrations with Super anime are based on my perception and analysis of the show, which I am sure aligns with a lot of what other people have said as well. But it seems to me like you're the type to dismiss those criticisms and call them stupid or state some random literary device to try and make yourself sound more convincing.
This is relativist bullshit. If deny that objective standards of quality then you would have to conclude that everything is of equal quality, which is clearly nonsense. Using logic and evidence to debunk bad arguments isn't being subjective.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it can't be scrutinized, because opinions are still truth-claims that can be (dis)proved. And stuff like "'expanding lore,' 'screen time for minor cast characters,' 'speculation and wild fan imagination,'" ARE objective factors in determining the quality of a story. You don't need to be some literary critic to know that, it just common sense.

User avatar
VegettoEX
Kanzenshuu Co-Owner & Administrator
Posts: 16627
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by VegettoEX » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:06 pm

A temporary ban has been issued on blain218, whose continued post-freebies/post-formal-warning contributions here do not live up to the spirit of the Kanzenshuu community guidelines and should in no way be viewed as representative of what we find acceptable.

Additional account strikes may be issued on other accounts pending further review.

All would do well to review what you agreed to (twice) prior to registration.
:: [| Mike "VegettoEX" LaBrie |] ::
:: [| Kanzenshuu - Co-Founder/Administrator, Podcast Host, News Manager (note: our "job" titles are arbitrary and meaningless) |] ::
:: [| Website: January 1998 |] :: [| Podcast: November 2005 |] :: [| Fusion: April 2012 |] :: [| Wiki: 20XX |] ::

User avatar
Cetra
I Live Here
Posts: 3856
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:01 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:14 pm

blain218 wrote:
This is relativist bullshit. If deny that objective standards of quality then you would have to conclude that everything is of equal quality, which is clearly nonsense. Using logic and evidence to debunk bad arguments isn't being subjective.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it can't be scrutinized, because opinions are still truth-claims that can be (dis)proved. And stuff like "'expanding lore,' 'screen time for minor cast characters,' 'speculation and wild fan imagination,'" ARE objective factors in determining the quality of a story. You don't need to be some literary critic to know that, it just common sense.

I know this guy is banned by now but I want to point out that he would have done well reading my explanations because it has nothing to do with "realitivist bullshit". It is the very essence of contextualization because that is simply how it works and what it follows. And he follows this as well, whether he understands that or not. One thing has not necessarily priority over the other thing and I want to point at my other posts for that once more. And no, an opinion, especially not one about such a thing, on what is good or bad cannot be disproven when different standards are followed.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"

kn83
Banned
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by kn83 » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:06 am

Blain218 may have been disrespectful but his arguments were basically right when it comes to the manga vs the anime.

User avatar
Rakurai
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Rakurai » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:35 am

Blain218's arguments basically boiled down to "if you don't understand the show then you are stupid." "My 'objective' criteria determine that Super anime is the superior quality product to Z/GT and if you don't agree then you are just a fanboy blinded by nostalgia glasses."

He is no more right than a bully who wants to assert his own ego and dominance over things.
Last edited by Rakurai on Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Super Dragon Ball Heroes Universe Mission translation compilation here. All translations are done and owned by me.

SDBH 9th anniversary the secret development interview here. Learn how original SDBH characters such as SS3 Raditz, SS4 Bardock, Robel, & more were conceived!

User avatar
VegettoEX
Kanzenshuu Co-Owner & Administrator
Posts: 16627
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by VegettoEX » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:38 am

We ask that you address actual points of discussion, rather than the individual(s) themselves devoid of any Dragon Ball-related conversation, please and thank you.
:: [| Mike "VegettoEX" LaBrie |] ::
:: [| Kanzenshuu - Co-Founder/Administrator, Podcast Host, News Manager (note: our "job" titles are arbitrary and meaningless) |] ::
:: [| Website: January 1998 |] :: [| Podcast: November 2005 |] :: [| Fusion: April 2012 |] :: [| Wiki: 20XX |] ::

User avatar
SingleFringe&Sparks
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:55 pm
Location: Mt. Paozu/East District

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SingleFringe&Sparks » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:11 pm

blain218 wrote:A story that generates lots of theories and speculation is objectively more interesting and better than one that doesn't. That's what keeps people invested into the story's lore and boosts it potential.

GT didn't have the internet at the time so there wasn't anywhere for people to do this, but with Super most of this speculation isn't story related half the time. Most of it is just recaps and reactions to scenes or previews, because Super has no story. Its really not hard at all to impress the Super fandom. If its not Animation, it's trivial flashy character moments. It's nothing but momentary hype and reaction off hype. Entirely. DB's brand just gives Super enough familiarity to hype people up without the need for substance to hold interest in an unfamiliar series. A newer series would have to build itself up or risk being dropped. DB does not. It still rides off of the positive reception people have for Z, thus it takes place there.
blain218 wrote:The fact that Super does this and GT didn't is just more evidence that Super is superior to GT story wise.
No it isn't. The whole reaction-vid business wasn't around then, now people know its easy to BS hype onto Super to keep an audience because thats what nostalgia + fanfic equals. Super doesn't have superior anything to GT. Its first episode started on a plot-hole it created for its own setting after the Buu arc. GT didn't.
blain218 wrote:GT didn't do this because it did absolutely nothing to enrich the DB universe's lore, that's why GT killed Dragonball in Japan for the next 6 years.
Nope. Everything in GT was about lore, even with its minor mistakes, it solely focused on continuing off Z. Super does not. GT didn't end because of reception either which is a myth given by the people who hate GT claiming justification. It ended because it wasn't selling enough merchandise during franchise fatique and GT focusing more on story over stacking transformations was what didn't produce the merchandise. Super took the opposite route by only focusing on marketing, because the nostalgia of people wanting DB back also increased the demand after BOG, just hearing Toriyama was coming out of retirement for the movie hyped people up. Super was the cash-grab off of Toei realizing DB can still sell, hence the anime adaptions of the first two movies. The only lore Super has are the things Toriyama gave for plot ideas but everything in Super is written very stand-alone from the series, like SS4.
blain218 wrote:Super on the other hand opened up more story possibilities for the franchise with each arc, especially with the possible return of the missing 6 universes at the end, as well as the unexplored 4. That's why Super's ending hasn't broken the franchises momentum like GT did. Being vague is actually a good thing writing wise, because it doesn't treat the audience like idiots and spoon-feed all the info, letting the audience think for themselves and allow their imagination to run wild.
Meh, hype-bias. Claiming Super has "more potential" is opening up fan-fic arguments used to claim Super is better than what it actually has been. Hypothetical potential from headcanon thinking does not equate what is presented into quality. People do not review movies this way or all of them flop or not would still be high rated because of that logic. Thats also what contributes to ow people overrate Super. They insert their hype to then claim it's Super's quality. When in reality, its fallacious as anything in DB has the same hypothetical potential in concept alone.The claim of "Good concepts but bad execution" isn't even a real review of anything i the series, because bad execution of anything objectively (key word is objective) means something is subpar. I'm not going to say GT was amazing just because I liked the arc plots or villain characterizations, because cherrypicking "moments" is like I said, inherently subjective and biased.
blain218 wrote:And the nostalgia argument is dumb and false because in reality, its the nostalgia tards that are the biggest haters of Super. People how aren't blinded by DB(Z) nostalgia are often the most positive about Super, unlike folks who delude themselves with thinking that all the things they whine about in Super didn't exist in DB(Z).
I doubt that because would people still praise it if it wasn't DB? Would people only care about seeing certain characters 'shine' if not for nostalgia? People compare the writing in Super to Fairytail all the time and because Fairytail is its own brand, people judge it without preconsived hype and say its terrible. So if Fairytail's genre tropes ruin its presentation to people, then Super having the same issues should as well, but it doesn't. Those who defend it often always say "Well Z was flawed too" to justify it, and if they didn't have a nostalgia bias, they wouldn't be using Z to defend Super. Nostalgia is why people watch it regardless of quality, the people that say "shut up and watch some dragonball; you take it too seriously; I remember at 5.pm on Toonami" ec. Thats nostalgia. Unless its the casual casual dragonball fans who know of the series vaguely who defend Super, most people that dislike Super generally go through their reasons why, and their reference of Z portraying something better to them is not nostalgia. Its a comparison of expectations based on superior aspects of the past.
blain218 wrote:And no, people were not more objective back then than now. Fantards and haters are a universal across time and culture. GT's lack of quality is part of the reason why the franchise was going through fatigue in the first place.
Yes they were more objective (or at worst had negative bias nitpicking the SS4 fur color and BS). How is it that people can just flat out say they hated GT, but with Super people can reach for the flimsiest of claims to justify things Super does that are controversial? Nobody would claim characters in GT are "Heavily suppressed, mastered ki control" blah blah, for the exact same issues people claimed made GT bad. People hated Vegeta's design in GT, but defended Gohan's equally bad ROF design. Both Toriyama... unless people only hated GT because they thought it was okay that they could if it wasn't canon and believed Toriyama said somewhere that it wasn't canon (despite this being untrue), while people thinking Super is Toriyama approved, must mean they can't criticize it as harshly or with the same pious. That is also a factor.

GT did have a bad start up but the franchise fatigue started in the Buu saga, not GT. That is a fact. 20 years later it wore off with younger people who miss DB and now suddenly every installment is the greatest thing they ever watch and the only anime they are willing to watch.
Last edited by SingleFringe&Sparks on Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.

User avatar
sintzu
Banned
Posts: 13583
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:41 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sintzu » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:22 pm

SingleFringe&Sparks wrote:Franchise fatigue started in the Buu saga, not GT. That is a citable fact.
I think it may have started even before the Buu arc but the effects were only beginning to show up during Buu. I do think GT's quality played a major part in the franchise "dying" but I'm not sure how much more it could've lasted even with something better as people may have just needed a break at that point.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.

User avatar
SingleFringe&Sparks
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:55 pm
Location: Mt. Paozu/East District

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SingleFringe&Sparks » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:24 pm

sintzu wrote:
SingleFringe&Sparks wrote:Franchise fatigue started in the Buu saga, not GT. That is a citable fact.
I think it may have started even before the Buu arc but the effects were only beginning to show up during Buu. I do think GT's quality played a major part in the franchise "dying" but I'm not sure how much more it could've lasted even with something better as people may have just needed a break at that point.
Maybe disappointment in GT, but there is no way to know what franchise fatigue did versus what GT itself did to disappoint people rating wise.
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.

User avatar
sintzu
Banned
Posts: 13583
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:41 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sintzu » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:33 pm

SingleFringe&Sparks wrote:Maybe disappointment in GT, but there is no way to know what franchise fatigue did versus what GT itself did to disappoint people rating wise.
I think it was multiple reasons. You had franchise fatigue beginning to show up possibly a few years before the original story even ended, you had the original author and anime's staff leaving the franchise and to make everything worse, you had a show in GT that didn't live up to the original which in itself was beginning to lose people.

I know there are stories like One piece where it can go for 20+ years and everyone, somehow are still sticking around with it but that's the exception, not the norm. I personally think DB will face franchise fatigue again if everyone involved don't make major changes to it.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.

User avatar
SingleFringe&Sparks
I'm pretty cozy, here...
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:55 pm
Location: Mt. Paozu/East District

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SingleFringe&Sparks » Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:50 pm

blain218 wrote: SSG/SSB don't feel any stronger in the manga because all the villains are made to be fodder compared to their anime versions. That doesn't the forms look impressive at all if Toyotaro wont give them any hard earned wins with them. Whereas in the anime it was used to beat Black in his prime (Vegeta), take down Aniraza, beat Hit in a rematch (Goku) and beat Golden Freeza one-on-one (Goku), all of which was portrayed as a hard win. The manga version Hit vs Goku made it clear that Goku could have just stomped Hit immediately if he just went Blue right away. That's cheap as hell.
The manga doesnt have the pacing length the anime does, but the Zamasu bit isn't credible. It wast stated that Toriyama did not intend Zamasu to be strong at all. He was intended to be fodder, but the fanbase wanted Vegito which Merged Zamasu gave perfect leeway for. Toei's Zamasu literally pulled everything he did out of thin air in their fight. The spirit bird thing, the energy halo, the (pretentious attack names), him turning giant out of no-where when neither Saiyans nor Kais can do that. Everything. His scaling being abstract is a given from Toei as they don't write Super with logic, they write for the cinematic event. Hence the bad scaling. Justt like the ridiculous fight with Uglyraza.
blain218 wrote:Once again you are making the stupid, baseless assumption that 17 did nothing but hunt poachers all day. There is no in-universe reason why 17 or Freeza can't get that strong at if Toriyama himself even before Super established that these characters could get that strong with training? You failed to logically explain why its bad writing when it doesn't contradict a thing.
There is nothing to suggest anything plausible for 17 & Roshi to get that strong either. We can assume he did nothing but hunt poachers because thats all hes been ever shown to do since the Buu arc. Anything in between that is more appealing to hyperbole. You can't just claim something makes sense while you make up your own evidence to fill in a blank. Thats exactly why the people who love to exaggerate potential and power when they call it "scaling" outside the series are also making a mess of discussions. Its just as baseless to claim 17 did anything more than what we consistently know he was doing. It would also be just as ridiculous to have him fight some random god level enemy to justify it too, because you know that would just be a bad plot insert. If it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Massive suppression is also a bad argument. With Freeza, Toriyama was lazy and though just him saying Freeza never trained was his loophole. It wasn't. It was just for the sake of explaining the scenario, despite how bad it was. The same movie where Freeza got excited over simply doubling his suppressed first form's power level.
Zephyr wrote:The fandom's collective fetishizing of "moments" is also ridiculous to me. No, not everyone needs a fucking "shine" moment. If that's all you want, then all you want is fanservice, rather than an actual coherent story. And of course those aren't mutually exclusive; you could have a coherent story with "shine" moments! But if a story is perfectly coherent (and I'm really not seeing any compelling arguments that this one is anything but, despite constantly recurring, really poorly reasoned, attempts to argue otherwise), and you're bemoaning the lack of "shine" moments as a reason for the story's poor quality, then you're letting your thirst for "shine" moments obfuscate your ability to detect basic storytelling when it's right in front of you.

Post Reply