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
Kaiosama
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 1:03 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Kaiosama » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:50 pm

The Baby arc in GT destroys anything in Super. Also the last episode of GT was far superior to the abomination we just witnessed last night. Much better writing overall. Sure, GT had it's faults and was mediocre compared to Ball and Z, but the writing was far more consistent than Super.

User avatar
PFM18
Banned Alternate Account
Posts: 3701
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by PFM18 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:15 pm

Kaiosama wrote:The Baby arc in GT destroys anything in Super. Also the last episode of GT was far superior to the abomination we just witnessed last night. Much better writing overall. Sure, GT had it's faults and was mediocre compared to Ball and Z, but the writing was far more consistent than Super.
I agree with the Baby arc being pretty good. Baby vs Goku the rematch was the only decent fight in the entirety of GT though and Super has too many to think of off the top of my head. also how was last night an abomination? I am having trouble understanding how that was an abomination

precita
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5467
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:10 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by precita » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:18 pm

The Baby arc was the only good arc in GT.

The Shadow Dragons was a great concept but it was handled so horribly it was so disappointing.

snpaa
Not-So-Newbie
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:22 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by snpaa » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:33 pm

Gt, it had a better story.

User avatar
Professor Freeza
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:21 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Professor Freeza » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:35 pm

Wow the Super haters here...

Wonder if i can block members on this website... :think:

User avatar
GamerSkull
Regular
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:45 pm
Location: United States

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by GamerSkull » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:50 pm

PFM18 wrote:
GamerSkull wrote:I think GT was better... but I seem to be in the minority on that. :lol:
So to be clear, you do the prefer the series in which Goku was the only relevant character and the rest of the cast did absolutely nothing with no new characters being introduced to the cast?(like how Super introduced Beerus and Whis)

I can't help but be perplexed by this viewpoint.
I was just more entertained by the concepts in GT than I was in Super. Also, saying GT was better doesn’t mean I thought it was good. I’d give it the same score I gave Super, it just slightly edges out for me.

Also, I’m not knocking anyone for feeling otherwise but I honestly had a better time with GT and it also helps that it was shorter than Super too.

Oh, and aside from a few instances here and there in the ToP (which I think is a shit arc) DBS is still pretty much the Goku and Vegeta show. And since I don’t really like Vegeta all that much post-Namek... it’s okay that Goku got most of the spotlight in GT for me.
"Roga Fu-Fu Ken!"

User avatar
Saturnine
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:58 pm

Really though, Super did feel much more like the original manga than GT did. That's mostly because of what I've mentioned already - GT was riddled with Toei patting themselves on the shoulder all the time by referencing Z filler and theatricals, and catually building off them, while forgetting some of the most basic rules of Toriyama's universe. If you prefer the theatricals to the actual plots from the manga, then you might prefer GT to Super.

Oh, and I also felt GT was super derivative at times. No single villain was defeated in a way we hadn't seen before, Baby's defeat for example parrotted the Cooler and Broly theatricals. I really don't think comparing these two shows is even fair, but that's just me I guess.

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 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:06 pm

PFM18 wrote:
Kaiosama wrote:The Baby arc in GT destroys anything in Super. Also the last episode of GT was far superior to the abomination we just witnessed last night. Much better writing overall. Sure, GT had it's faults and was mediocre compared to Ball and Z, but the writing was far more consistent than Super.
I am having trouble understanding how that was an abomination
Same here. I understand having issues with Super and even preferring GT over it but last night's episode was anything but bad. It had good production value, the way they took down Jiren was amazing, 17 being the winner was a surprise, they wrapped up everything and we got a nice epilogue. It was everything I could want in an ending and so far can't think of a better one.
July 9th 2018 will be remembered as the day Broly became canon.

User avatar
BlueBasilisk
I Live Here
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by BlueBasilisk » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:30 pm

I greatly prefer Super myself, but GT did have some entertaining slice of life stuff, I liked the Goku/Trunks/Pan trio going on adventures until they got mired down in Luud and Baby's nonsense, and Nakatsuru's character designs had a pleasant thickness to them. But it always felt like they'd tease you with an interesting concept and then blueball you for something trite or bizarre instead, and I can't watch too many episodes at a time because the color palette strains my eyes. But my biggest beef was that Dragon Box interview revealing why Pan never got to be a Super Saiyan. I get angry just thinking about it.

SuperCyan2
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by SuperCyan2 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:53 pm

Dbzk1999 wrote:I don’t consider saiyan arc to be separate, but I know others that do because of just how fluidly the one arc transitions into the other that they consider Namek and Saiyan to be one arc. Don’t ask me why.
Makes no sense but whatever.
PFM18 wrote:If anything that is a positive because several characters got their own unique transformations. Instead of everybody having the same old same old forms each character got something unique. But Goku and vegeta kept the same transformation FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE SERIES. Goku Black and future trunks had uniwue forms and then Goku and Vegeta FINALLY got new forms at thw very end of the series.
Reskins are now considered "unique", huh? The transformations in DBZ were actually unique in that they kept it balanced and kept to a minimum without overdoing it unnecessarily which is something that quite clearly happened in Super.

Next thing you'll say is that Jiren is a unique character. lol
PFM18 wrote:This is really just a ridiculous criticism.
I could say the same about you. :lol:
Account no longer in use since 03/31/2018.

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:57 pm

SuperCyan2 wrote: Makes no sense but whatever.
It absolutely makes sense and I do the same thing. I do not consider the Vegeta battle just because he was doing something for himself the final battle of "its own arc". Just as I do not consider the Cyborgs not part of Cell just because they also wanted to do their own thing. The Saiyajin landing on earth served as a thematical prelude to what would come next. It is not that I cannot call them arcs at all. I just consider them sub-arcs that are a part of a bigger one.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

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

lancerman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by lancerman » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:15 pm

Kaiosama wrote:The Baby arc in GT destroys anything in Super. Also the last episode of GT was far superior to the abomination we just witnessed last night. Much better writing overall. Sure, GT had it's faults and was mediocre compared to Ball and Z, but the writing was far more consistent than Super.
The Baby arc gets severely overrated for being the best thing in GT, which was a generally bad show. I would't consider the Baby arc better than at least half of Super. It's the only un half-assed arc in GT, but it's very dull at times, drags the final battle between SSJ4 Goku and Baby out, and really doesn't have many satisfying moments. The SSJ4 transformation didn't compare at all to mastered UI. Baby was just another cackling villain. The parasite thing was kind of cool but it was also a retread of Garlic Jr. And a big part of it just felt like an excuse to get a nu version of Goku to fight a nu looking version of GT (albeit as a parasite).

lancerman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by lancerman » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:17 pm

Cetra wrote:
SuperCyan2 wrote: Makes no sense but whatever.
It absolutely makes sense and I do the same thing. I do not consider the Vegeta battle just because he was doing something for himself the final battle of "its own arc". Just as I do not consider the Cyborgs not part of Cell just because they also wanted to do their own thing. The Saiyajin landing on earth served as a thematical prelude to what would come next. It is not that I cannot call them arcs at all. I just consider them sub-arcs that are a part of a bigger one.
Not really. When the Saiyan arc concludes the main threat of the arc ended and we know nothing about Freeza or his empire. You can watch the arc in a vacuum and it has a solid resolution. When Cell shows up, we still have 16/17/18 hunting Goku and being a threat. The overall Android threat hasn't concluded until Cell is defeated.

lancerman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by lancerman » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:18 pm

Saturnine wrote:Really though, Super did feel much more like the original manga than GT did. That's mostly because of what I've mentioned already - GT was riddled with Toei patting themselves on the shoulder all the time by referencing Z filler and theatricals, and catually building off them, while forgetting some of the most basic rules of Toriyama's universe. If you prefer the theatricals to the actual plots from the manga, then you might prefer GT to Super.

Oh, and I also felt GT was super derivative at times. No single villain was defeated in a way we hadn't seen before, Baby's defeat for example parrotted the Cooler and Broly theatricals. I really don't think comparing these two shows is even fair, but that's just me I guess.
Yeah GT had the feel of the old movies that didn't really capture the old Dragon Ball feel but captured kind of the stereotype people had about it.

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Cetra » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:25 pm

Not really. When the Saiyan arc concludes the main threat of the arc ended and we know nothing about Freeza or his empire. You can watch the arc in a vacuum and it has a solid resolution. When Cell shows up, we still have 16/17/18 hunting Goku and being a threat. The overall Android threat hasn't concluded until Cell is defeated.
No, you can't watch it in a solid vacuum. The "arc" introduces heavy plotpoints that are relevant for later and not solved until then and that the name "Freeza" does not fall is an incredible stretch because a lot of stories introduce someone who is really relevant for things later. And if you really want to go by "the overall x threat has not been concluded" - well, so hasn't the threat of Vegeta who was also part of the late Namek stuff and still an enemy. The point is, Vegeta had his own thing but the arrival on Earth was essential for the conclusion of what was started in vol. 17: Goku's origin with everything included. Saiyajin, the guy who was the reason why he even had to come to Earth, et cetera, et cetera. Just because it is the common behaviour to try and contradict everyone it is not what should be tried all the time. Same goes for the triple posts. When in doubt, there is still the edit button.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

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

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 » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:12 pm

Saturnine wrote:Really though, Super did feel much more like the original manga than GT did. That's mostly because of what I've mentioned already - GT was riddled with Toei patting themselves on the shoulder all the time by referencing Z filler and theatricals, and catually building off them, while forgetting some of the most basic rules of Toriyama's universe. If you prefer the theatricals to the actual plots from the manga, then you might prefer GT to Super.

Oh, and I also felt GT was super derivative at times. No single villain was defeated in a way we hadn't seen before, Baby's defeat for example parrotted the Cooler and Broly theatricals. I really don't think comparing these two shows is even fair, but that's just me I guess.
Super did the same exact thing in the TOP. Super brought back the Final explosion for a scenario where it was unnecessary, and it didn't even do what it did in Z to make a complete reference. They brought back the Kaioken for no other reason but just to call it back as it was never needed to support the plot. Super never brought any relevance to what was referenced from Z at all, but just used scenes or moments for the sake of reference. GT never did that. When GT did it, most of the call backs were plot-required or just visual cues. For example they didn't bring back Goku's tail to just say "hey kids, remember dragonball???", no. It did that and was a role for Goku's further ascent into SS4. The call back to the Oozaru was beneficial because it was an abandoned aspect of the Saiyans since the Saiyan arc. Super bringing in Broly references was just for the fact that its Broly and kids like him.

Also if you're going to say GT's villain deaths were unoriginal (which Baby was actually the only villain in the Z era series to actually try to flee which Cooler did not do), you could argue that Trunks cutting Zamasu in half is no different from Freeza being cut in half. Then again, Zamasu was the only real villain in Super anyway so thats not even a fair statement to say, but with Super giving characters friendship power ups as a source of spontaneous strength, or just choosing when Stamina matters after the claim it as an issue is by far more derivative.

I do not prefer theatricals over logic however but GT lacks a manga for that choice. With Super, that choice is easy. I prefer the manga over both anime (GT & Super).
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
Saturnine
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:58 pm

Of course the Namek arc is separate from the fight on Earth. There is a rest period, and it takes place on a different freakin' planet too. How you can say it's two separate arcs is beyond me.

User avatar
ulisa
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:43 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ulisa » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:25 pm

Now that Super is done, I have to say that I do think more highly of it than I did at the beginning. I've been trying to re-watch it as well as revisit GT. However, having said that, I still say GT was a far better follow-up. Now, I don't mean that Super does not have its merits. While I am hardly the biggest fan of Super, it does have some really good episodes and points to it. I do feel that they were not used as well as they could have been but I do have to give credit where credit is due:

Beerus and Whis are awesome. I was not overly fond of them in the movies but Super really does give us time to get to know them and expands their personalities. Both of them are really enjoyable characters and I really love seeing them interact off of the others. Likewise, the Goku Black arc is really well done. Zamasu, while not a perfect villain, is very intriguing and his motivations are a really good angle to take. The ending to the arc didn't sit well with me but everything before that was awesome. I actually don't mind the Copy-Vegeta arc if only for the interactions with Vegeta, Goku, Bulma and Jaco, plus some action for Goten and Trunks and the dub version of it threw old-school dub fans a bone by casting Drummond. I appreciate the Universe 6 Saiyans and Champa. The wrap-up fight with Goku and the others eventually conquering Jiren and the slice-of-life was a lot of fun.

Having said that though, I prefer GT's overall stories. While I'm still not fond of the Black Star dragonball hunt, there are a few gems in there and I really enjoy any interaction between Goku and Pan. The Baby arc continues to be a favorite and I love the callback to past actions having consequences. In this case, it calls back to way in the beginning of the Saiyan race but they still have to deal with it. I'm always a fan of when friends become foes and the main leads have to deal with that. I'm a fan of the Garlic Junior saga so the call back to using the holy water was a nice touch as it wasn't something the characters could just power up to overcome; it needed a different approach to free them from Baby's infection. Plus, there's Super Saiyan 4, which is still my favorite transformation for both a call back to the Saiyan race roots, the original legend and is just such a departure from the forms previous which gives it a finality feel. Then, there's the Shadow Dragons arc that remains my favorite arc out of GT. While there are definitely some dragons that were less threatening than others, I think even some of the earlier dragons such as the Two Star Dragon introduced some unique issues--i.e. for the Two Star Dragon, they had to contend with Poison and losing their own strength, the Five Star Dragon utilizes electricity and I really appreciate the atmosphere and setting of the fight, the Six Star Dragon got some interesting dialogue out of Goku and I really think his mature mind in a child's body was really utilized well here (plus Pan's first Kamehameha) and I actually am a big fan of the Seven Star Dragon in that it overtakes Pan and thus, Goku has a very emotional dilemma to deal with. The Four Star and Three Star Dragons introduce interesting personalities, especially with the Four Star Dragon having a sense of honor and the Three Star having none. I will admit that the One Star Dragon can be a bit bland but I still think the final battle against him, especially once the fusion fails, is very intense and the concept of a universal spirit bomb being needed to take him out really drove home the type of power he held. Then, there's the ending which I still think is superior to any other ending in Dragonball.

My big deciding factor though is the characterization, especially of Goku. I just feel GT did it SO much better than Super. Despite being in a child's body, Goku presents as someone who has been through all his past battles and has learned not only from the fights but from his interactions with others. He still seems like the Goku we saw at the end of Z instead of trying to capitalize on some of Kid Goku's traits that adult Goku has not had for quite some time.

While the others don't get nearly as much focus, and I do find that to be a weakness, if you're going to focus on Goku, do the characterization well and I think GT accomplishes that. While I appreciate Super bringing in the old side characters, I don't feel they utilize them especially well or they don't explain their sudden ability to keep up very well (i.e. much as I love them utilizing 17, his ability to maintain all the way to the end of the Tournament still feels shallow and out-of-nowhere to me.) While I do love that Gohan gets some love in Super, it felt more like they built him up and never delivered on it. GT Gohan, while not able to access his Ultimate Form, felt more like the old Gohan in that it was obvious he had not neglected his training and still was able to hold his own, even if he never directly contributed to the victory. ChiChi felt more like a continuation from Buu Saga ChiChi as opposed to Super which feels like they have reverted her back to Namek/Android saga characterization. The side characters may have been used less but I think when they used them, the characterization was more fitting.

Overall, I do appreciate Super and I admit it has improved from when I first started watching it. I'll likely tune in if/when they do a new series and I look forward to seeing where the movie takes us. GT is still my preferred follow up, though.
We truly begin to live when we find something we're willing to die for

User avatar
One_Instance
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: Gengoro Island

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by One_Instance » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:28 pm

Pretty much everything about the series themselves that I'd like to say here has been said, even down to some of the more minor details. To add a new perspective, I'll just let you all know about my experience binge watching the shows, because I'm probably the only person in this thread who can say they've binged over 100 episodes of Super.

Starting with Super, I began my binge after the first two arcs because I had already seen them, unlike the rest of the show. The Universe 6 arc was fun, but not something I'd like to sit down and watch all day again. The Goku Black arc was pretty easy to sit through for the most part, with some parts still making we want to just stop for a few days, but the ToP, which is definitely my favorite arc, was very easy to sit through. Sure there were a few times when I was kinda getting tired of it but usually after seeing the following episode, I changed my mind. The binge was definitely not the easiest I've ever had, but it's not something I regret and it's something I definitely enjoyed.

Okay, now for GT. I've tried binging GT twice and I plan to try again soon. The first time I tried, it was dubbed. I don't remember how far I made it, but I know i wasn't even at the Baby stuff yet. The second time, it was subbed this time I made it to that episode where Trunks has to disguise himself as a girl and while I was enjoying it more, I obviously couldn't take it for very long. These were both pre-Super watches so maybe I'll have a different outcome next time (I WILL rewatch GT eventually, but I want to at least try another binge). The only time I've ever really been able to watch GT was when it was airing on Nicktoons. I watched the first 26 episodes weekly (or however often they came out) and then I finished the rest of the series at my own pace (which was much quicker). I have to say, I enjoyed GT much more that way.

Anyways, right now, I do like Super a lot better and I think my being able to watch almost every episode back to back shows the generally high quality it has compared to GT.

lancerman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by lancerman » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:58 pm

Cetra wrote:
Not really. When the Saiyan arc concludes the main threat of the arc ended and we know nothing about Freeza or his empire. You can watch the arc in a vacuum and it has a solid resolution. When Cell shows up, we still have 16/17/18 hunting Goku and being a threat. The overall Android threat hasn't concluded until Cell is defeated.
No, you can't watch it in a solid vacuum. The "arc" introduces heavy plotpoints that are relevant for later and not solved until then and that the name "Freeza" does not fall is an incredible stretch because a lot of stories introduce someone who is really relevant for things later. And if you really want to go by "the overall x threat has not been concluded" - well, so hasn't the threat of Vegeta who was also part of the late Namek stuff and still an enemy. The point is, Vegeta had his own thing but the arrival on Earth was essential for the conclusion of what was started in vol. 17: Goku's origin with everything included. Saiyajin, the guy who was the reason why he even had to come to Earth, et cetera, et cetera. Just because it is the common behaviour to try and contradict everyone it is not what should be tried all the time. Same goes for the triple posts. When in doubt, there is still the edit button.
Just because an arc sets up future stories doesn’t mean that the following arc is actually just the second half of one big arc. The entirety of that arc was that this alien threat was coming to Earth for the Dragon Balls and Goku and his friends stopped them.

The Namek arc about a conflict that resulted in the aftermath of that when they were trying to save their friends. It’s very different than splitting up the Androids and Cell arc.

That’s like saying The Godfather and Godfather Part II aren’t two seperate stories because things done in the first one directly play into the second one. Or better yet it’s like saying the 22nd Tournament, King Piccolo, and Piccolo JR arc are all one big arc because their is a cliffhanger at the end of both of them.

Post Reply