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
ConfusedPhantom
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:16 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by ConfusedPhantom » Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:58 am

Despite the disjointed writing, Super has a lot of highs that make more entertaining to watch plus it feels more like Dragon Ball. GT has the Baby arc and Super Saiyan 4. Other than that, it's consistently bland.

Husig
Newbie
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:40 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Husig » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:48 am

Super all the way, sure the first episodes were meh, but TOP arc was awesome. GT was crap. Best thing about gt was the japanese opening.

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Timetraveller » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:26 am

Husig wrote:Super all the way, sure the first episodes were meh, but TOP arc was awesome. GT was crap. Best thing about gt was the japanese opening.
It's hilarious that some people generalize a whole show with short, vague statements like this. You can't make vague statements like "GT was crap" and completely ignore the good parts of the show. It's a show made up of great arcs and not so great arcs. Similarly, you can't say Super's fantastic because of the ToP arc, ignoring everything that happened before that like the not-so-great remakes. The GT vs Super argument is more complex than a bunch of poorly written blanket statements like "Super sucks" or "GT sucks". There are elements that each show does better and worse.

Super just ended so I expect people to still be on the hype train. The finale was really well done so this might skew people's overall thoughts on the show for now. Anyone who hasn't seen GT in a while should take this chance to re-watch it if you want to objectively compare them. Make a list of what each show does well and what you were disappointed in.

User avatar
coola
I Live Here
Posts: 2869
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 7:33 am
Location: Poland

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by coola » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:52 am

I'd say Super is better than GT, but as a manga, anime have way too much problems, inconsistent power levels, make some characters annoying (Goku being dumb like TFS Goku, Chi-Chi becoming soccer mom again, Buu turned into jerk) When anime continues, please, have less writers, and fire people who wrote episodes were Piccolo got ringed out because he didnt hear enemy and one where they tried beat God Toppo by throwing rocks at him.
My Twitter: @kamil198811
Bulma fan
Thanks to Discotek:
Magic Knight Rayearth get DVD release in 2015 and Blu-Ray release on 2016
Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas get DVD release in 2015

User avatar
sunsetshimmer
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Poland/Equestria

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sunsetshimmer » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:17 am

DBS:
-Fights
-Some characters had a bit more spotlight

GT:
-Story
-Characters
-Music
-Villains
-Buu, Goten and Trunks actually existed in GT

Overall GT stomps. The worst GT arc (Super 17) is still at least equal to the best DBS arc (Battle of Gods).
Universe Survival was complete trash. 30 episodes of forgettable characters fighting other forgettable characters in completely boring scenery.
Before there were like 15 episodes of Goku meeting people and inviting them for tournament after (of course) fighting them.
Zamasu was the only big villain of DBS and he was complete failure being rehash of everything we've already seen.
The only good character DBS introduced was Hit.
And the only character DBS didn't ruin was Android 17. Piccolo was babysitter and gardener. Vegeta dancing and cooking + holding a pacifier in mouth.

Broly with lipstick perfectly describes how bad DBS is. Just a fanservice and rehashing everything they can.
Entire arcs were advertised with returning of old and popular characters like Trunks and 17 and (of course) giving them bullshit plot armors.
"I will concede that your feelings are worthy of the mightiest of Saiyans. However, there is more to my power than just this. Before you die, I will show it to you. This is the difference in power, between the primitive Saiyans and the evolved Tsufruians." ~Baby Vegeta

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 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:06 am

sunsetshimmer wrote:DBS:
Vegeta dancing and cooking + holding a pacifier in mouth.
I'll take that over Vegeta dickriding Goku like he did in GT anyday :P

User avatar
sunsetshimmer
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Poland/Equestria

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by sunsetshimmer » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:15 am

Saturnine wrote:
sunsetshimmer wrote:DBS:
Vegeta dancing and cooking + holding a pacifier in mouth.
I'll take that over Vegeta dickriding Goku like he did in GT anyday :P
Just because he wasn't getting angry at Goku's superiority doesn't man he was dickriding.
GT, unlike DBS, followed what Buu saga did to him. In Super, he often behaves like his Cell saga self, always in armor and crying that someone surpassed him.

I will agree that Vegeta in DBS was far more useful than in GT, but personality-wise, he was bad.

Let's look at this example:
DBS - Vegeta cook, sing and dance for Beerus and begs him for life.
GT - Vegeta orders everyone to leave Earth while he fight Omega alone even tho he will die, but he wants to buy time for them. He also orders everyone to avenge Goku. Not him, Goku.

Maybe it depends on what you prefer. Personality or being more useful.
I prefer personality, so i prefer GT Vegeta.
"I will concede that your feelings are worthy of the mightiest of Saiyans. However, there is more to my power than just this. Before you die, I will show it to you. This is the difference in power, between the primitive Saiyans and the evolved Tsufruians." ~Baby Vegeta

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Timetraveller » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:19 am

Saturnine wrote:
sunsetshimmer wrote:DBS:
Vegeta dancing and cooking + holding a pacifier in mouth.
I'll take that over Vegeta dickriding Goku like he did in GT anyday :P
Would you really? I couldn't imagine the response GT would've gotten if they showed him dancing around with a pacifier in GT. They built on the character development Vegeta got from the Buu saga. He's got his own family now. I don't see why he would continue to obsess over Goku for decades like Broly did. All of Goku's past rivals went from foe to friend. This includes Vegeta.

User avatar
dnavenom
Not-So-Newbie
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:12 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by dnavenom » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:04 am

A bit more time must past for us to evaluate DBS rightfully. We are still hyped from the last 2 episodes. Honestly before TOP I would say GT.

Story:
1. GT - a mix of DB and DBZ. Playing it safe an homage to Toriyama`s story. A real continuation of the Buu saga. A more solid structure. Space arc, android arc, demon arc, almost a copy of DBZ. Enjoyable none the less.
2. DBS - new story. A bit of a debacle in the Trunks arc with all the time travel theory, but enjoyable.

Powerscaling:
1.GT - solid
2.DBS - none :) Frieza (4 mounts training), Black (better knowledge of Goku`s body), Kefla (prodigy theory...), Kale (the Brolly rip-off) Jiren (he was at 100% probably 10 times, each time stronger)

New forms:
1.GT - unlocking the primal ozaru power and uniting it with that of a super saiyan to produce a SSJ4, seems like a good way to transform.
2.DBS - SSGSS, SSJB, UI, SSJR, USSJBVegeta, SSJBKaiokenGoku - too much forms, most of them acquired off screen or by some strange ritual. The only thing that felt like a real DB transformation was Trunk`es SSJRage and maybe UI, although it probably should have manifested in the Zamasu arc first.

ART:
GT - Solid character art, if we don`t count Vegeta`s hair and mustache :). bad backgrounds, solid effects.
DBS - Almost all of the character art was bad, excluding TOP ofc and the last episodes of the main fights in the other arcs. Solid effects, nice backgrounds. Hate the smoke of the Ki blasts, makes them look like normal TNT explosions and not something special.

Character developement:
GT - we see all of the characters grown up, this really feels like a DBZ continuation.
DBS - Cell saga, pre Buu defeat character behavior. Goku is dummer and Vegeta is still arrogant. These are 40-50 year old men. Looks like they forgot what happened when Buu was defeated. Gohan became a weakling. Goten and Trunks didn`t grow an inch.

With all that said: GT > DBS 1-108, but after 109 DBS = GT. If Goku wasn`t turned into a child, GT would have smashed DBS into the ground, but that`s only my opinion :)

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 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:41 am

dnavenom wrote:A bit more time must past for us to evaluate DBS rightfully. We are still hyped from the last 2 episodes. Honestly before TOP I would say GT.

Story:
1. GT - a mix of DB and DBZ. Playing it safe an homage to Toriyama`s story. A real continuation of the Buu saga. A more solid structure. Space arc, android arc, demon arc, almost a copy of DBZ. Enjoyable none the less.
2. DBS - new story. A bit of a debacle in the Trunks arc with all the time travel theory, but enjoyable.

Powerscaling:
1.GT - solid
2.DBS - none :) Frieza (4 mounts training), Black (better knowledge of Goku`s body), Kefla (prodigy theory...), Kale (the Brolly rip-off) Jiren (he was at 100% probably 10 times, each time stronger)

New forms:
1.GT - unlocking the primal ozaru power and uniting it with that of a super saiyan to produce a SSJ4, seems like a good way to transform.
2.DBS - SSGSS, SSJB, UI, SSJR, USSJBVegeta, SSJBKaiokenGoku - too much forms, most of them acquired off screen or by some strange ritual. The only thing that felt like a real DB transformation was Trunk`es SSJRage and maybe UI, although it probably should have manifested in the Zamasu arc first.

ART:
GT - Solid character art, if we don`t count Vegeta`s hair and mustache :). bad backgrounds, solid effects.
DBS - Almost all of the character art was bad, excluding TOP ofc and the last episodes of the main fights in the other arcs. Solid effects, nice backgrounds. Hate the smoke of the Ki blasts, makes them look like normal TNT explosions and not something special.

Character developement:
GT - we see all of the characters grown up, this really feels like a DBZ continuation.
DBS - Cell saga, pre Buu defeat character behavior. Goku is dummer and Vegeta is still arrogant. These are 40-50 year old men. Looks like they forgot what happened when Buu was defeated. Gohan became a weakling. Goten and Trunks didn`t grow an inch.

With all that said: GT > DBS 1-108, but after 109 DBS = GT. If Goku wasn`t turned into a child, GT would have smashed DBS into the ground, but that`s only my opinion :)
Ok so to be clear GT had better powerscaling than Super? There is a reason when people make power level lists thye stop at GT. it is basically impossible to scale things in GT because the power-scaling is so inconsistent and power that you can't realistically make a serious list. Freeza gaining a lot of power in 4 months isn't what has been seen in the series prior to that point but to some extent it makes sense. I have no idea what the contention is with BLack Goku's power is. He literally had the body of Goku after his god-power up. I have no idea why it would be unreasonable to have Goku Black be on par or stronger than Goku. No idea what you are referring to by "prodigy theory" but given Kefla's power of their components the strength of the fusion made perfect sense. If anything she should have been stronger than what she was rather than weaker. Actually, Jiren never stated he was at full-power not sure where you got this "10 times each time getting stronger" notion. Goku had a larger power-boost at the beginning of DBGT than he ever got in the history of the series up until that point for absolutely no reason other than "I've been training" even though he wouldn't have been training any differently than the way he has been training for the previous several years. Makes no sense. They made Pan stronger than almost the entire cast in DBZ for absolutely no reason. Pan is just a little girl that whines there is absolutely no reason she should have been close to the power that she was at.

As far as new forms go the main cast of Goku and Vegeta used the same best form for 3 entire arcs and almost a 4th. I would hardly call that "too many transformations." But in the Zamasu Arc Goku Black and Trunks each got a new form specific to them with Goku and Vegeta each achieving a new form at the end of the series. In terms of the story Super had transformations less often than Z and I don't see Z getting any flack for having too many transformations.

There was absolutely no characterr development in GT. Having Goku as an idiot and Vegeta as arrogant is consistent with the rest of the series and Vegeta's arrogance defines his identity as is made very clear against Jiren when they first fought. Goku was never meant to be written as this hero who is particularly intelligent. He was always meant to be a bit dub, like Toriyama said he hated how Goku was portrayed as a hero in DBZ because that isn't what he was really meant to be. Gohan became a "weakling" for most of the series but became strong again during the ToP. However, this makes perfect sense because Gohan was never meant to be a fighter, he said that himself several times that he didn't like fighting. So now Gohan's natural progression is to be relegated to a weaker character because fighting doesn't interest him and he doesn't dedicate his life to fighting like Goku and Vegeta do. For him to have been any stronger would have been completely asinine. And "character development" doesn't refer to people literally growing in size in the case of Goten and Trunks. It was strange but it wasn't a problem of character development.

Honestly, GT's art being better than Super is just laughable to me. Freeza for example, looks hideous in GT and amazing in Super. They made Vegeta's look compltely inaccurate and contradicted what was said during EOZ. Goku's "art" as being a child was just stupid. The models were superior in Super in general.

Not to mention the fact that GT is literally "Goku's time" and Goku literally does everything that could possibly have been done.

GT is inferior in literally every conceivable way except MAYBE the ending. The only good things to come out of it were the Baby Saga(and by extension Super Saiyan 4) and the ending.
SuperCyan2 wrote:
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 the 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:
You completely missed what I said. The transformations in Super had the quality of having transformations unique to the character not neccessarily unique in general.

User avatar
Avenant
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:55 am
Location: The Room of Spirit and Time
Contact:

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Avenant » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:14 am

Super blows GT out of the water in leaps and bounds. The storytelling in Super is overall so much better than GT, and you can take that to the bank.

Jiren is such a different foe for DragonBall and it's quite refreshing in my opinion. He's not an evil villain yet he's the most powerful opponent that had to be defeated. That's very fresh and I can't wait to see how they top it moving forward. Also, Zamasu's motivations were genuinely refreshing as they offered a much more tragic and realistic villain, so to speak. I truly hope we didn't see the last of him, though that may be wishful thinking. Plus, Frieza's arc was incredible! And despite fan worries, he stayed very consistent with his character. I can't wait to see what they do with him as well!

Overall, I've been consistently happy with Super and can't wait for the movie and whatever else comes next!
"Tell me, is it slavery if you get what you want?"

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 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:28 am

Avenant wrote:Super blows GT out of the water in leaps and bounds. The storytelling in Super is overall so much better than GT, and you can take that to the bank.

Jiren is such a different foe for DragonBall and it's quite refreshing in my opinion. He's not an evil villain yet he's the most powerful opponent that had to be defeated. That's very fresh and I can't wait to see how they top it moving forward. Also, Zamasu's motivations were genuinely refreshing as they offered a much more tragic and realistic villain, so to speak. I truly hope we didn't see the last of him, though that may be wishful thinking. Plus, Frieza's arc was incredible! And despite fan worries, he stayed very consistent with his character. I can't wait to see what they do with him as well!

Overall, I've been consistently happy with Super and can't wait for the movie and whatever else comes next!
I read of people calling things in Dragon Ball "fresh" and "refreshing" so often that they have not just become inflationary in their meaning but I really hate the word "fresh" now. I would really like to know why apparently everything in Dragon Ball is fresh. For Jiren I at least can somewhat see that but the word(s) keep(s) getting so overused.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy

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

Jord
OMG CRAZY REG
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:13 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Jord » Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:52 am

GT is not just a bit better than Super, it completely crushes it.

-First of all, Super had the misfortune of getting shoehorned it between Z episodes. Therefore, we knew the ending. No one of the cast was ever in any danger because we know that they'll end up alright judging by the final Z episodes. This completely removes any danger and/or tension from the big fights? Goku black killing Goku? Nope, since Goku end up alright in the final Z episodes. Universe 7 erased? Nope, we see the main cast alive and well at the end of Z. The only ones who could have been killed were the newly introduced characters but they were never really in any danger.

-But let's say that Super took place a the end of Z, then still there's no sense of danger since now we gods and angels who can simply reverse time when a bad guy is winning, revive or erase people and this is actually how some storylines in Super end. Freeza's winning? Whoops. Let's reverse time so we have another shot. Goku Black gets too strong? Let's have another god just erase him in the nick of the time. These deus ex machina's are a a bad way to end a long series of episodes and insult to the viewer's intelligence.

-Being set in such a (relatively) short times span also eliminated any growth and some characters, like Goku even degenerated. What characters have changed between the first and last episodes of Super? Meanwhile we see Goku act like a mature and sensible warrior in GT, even though he shrunk down to size. We see how the lifes of the cast continued after Z with some characters stepping up like Pan and some stepping down from the action like Kuririn. In a series where growth is such an important feature, this is one of the key elements as to why I like GT.

-While GT got less transformations, the big one it DID get, SSJ4 not only looked awesome (opinion) but also looked new and original (fact). In Super, characters simply got their hair dyed and that's it. The word lazy gets thrown around but when you've got a term like Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan and all you is get is turquoise hair it's a let down.

-Super ran about twice as long as GT. That being said, it's pacing with notable exceptions like the Goku Black part was atrocious. The last '5 minutes' during the TOP made the final 30 seconds of the Freeza fight in Z seem short. GT did a lot and kept up the pace during episodes. During every episode progress was made which makes for a better viewing experience.

-I really like the GT BGM. It has it's own flavour but really fits the series and has a lot of diversity. Super meanwhile has fewer memorable bgm but did have that awesome insert song during the tournament.

-The animation in GT is better and is far less reliant on reused animation, shortcuts and cuts to the "other people reacting to the fight while stating the obvious" trope.

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Timetraveller » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:20 am

Avenant wrote:Super blows GT out of the water in leaps and bounds. The storytelling in Super is overall so much better than GT, and you can take that to the bank.

Jiren is such a different foe for DragonBall and it's quite refreshing in my opinion. He's not an evil villain yet he's the most powerful opponent that had to be defeated. That's very fresh and I can't wait to see how they top it moving forward. Also, Zamasu's motivations were genuinely refreshing as they offered a much more tragic and realistic villain, so to speak. I truly hope we didn't see the last of him, though that may be wishful thinking. Plus, Frieza's arc was incredible! And despite fan worries, he stayed very consistent with his character. I can't wait to see what they do with him as well!

Overall, I've been consistently happy with Super and can't wait for the movie and whatever else comes next!
Storytelling's something that most people would agree DBS executed poorly. For most of the tournament, Jiren stands still with his arms folded not doing or saying anything (although this probably had to do with Toriyama not making it clear what Jiren's character was supposed to be). It's not until there are 3 minutes left in the tournament that we finally learn something about him through a rushed generic "I lost my parents and friends" flashback. By comparison, Baby's motivations make sense and can be sympathized with (I won't spoil what it is just in case you haven't watched GT at all or recently). He's not just evil for the sake of being evil like most other villains and the saiyans aren't the usual good guys. Frieza's arc was incredible? Ya mean the Resurrection of F arc with all the animation issues and the weak plot? Toyotaro didn't even feel the need to cover it in the manga and I don't think anyone faulted him for it. And Zamasu's motivations were genuinely refreshing but his story arc was also a little rushed. The god vs mortals trope is a really common one that's been done much better. Another criticism is that Dragonball Super had 2 tournament arcs, which is Toei's method of introducing many fighters and showing many fights without needing to tell an actual story. It's almost non-stop action for 40 episodes with very little plot progression and a lot of fan service. I wouldn't have minded it if the tournaments led to a bigger story like in the Buu saga. That would've made the arc a little less unpredictable. I wish we had more villains/antagonists like Zamasu instead of them bringing back Frieza every other arc or silent strong characters like Hit or Jiren.

Omega Shenron was a great villain imo. With the shadow dragons, Toei finally introduced consequences to abusing the Dragonballs. The execution of the other shadow dragons could've been better but a few of the dragons like Nuova and Omega Shenron were done really well. With Nuova, it was refreshing to see a villain with a strong sense of honor and integrity (this clearly had something to do with him tying in with the 4-star ball). He's also the first villain to go gold.

User avatar
RedHeat
Regular
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by RedHeat » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:25 am

The fact that people here feel the need to compare GT to Super is mind-boggling to me. There's a reason why GT was shitcanned at 64 episodes and Super ended with a whopping 131 and a direct movie sequel and was directly responsible for the this new Dragon Ball renaissance.
Feels over Reals.

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 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:30 am

RedHeat wrote:The fact that people here feel the need to compare GT to Super is mind-boggling to me. There's a reason why GT was shitcanned at 64 episodes and Super ended with a whopping 131 and a direct movie sequel and was directly responsible for the this new Dragon Ball renaissance.
Yeah and this reason is called Internet Hype.
"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
Saturnine
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:45 am

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Saturnine » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:45 am

I wouldn't be so quick to praise GT's powerscaling compared to Super. I'll remind you that base Trunks killed Mutchy, who had just defeated SSj Goku. Super glaring if you ask me.

I also wouldn't compare the search for the blackstar DB arc to early Dragon Ball. The premise was similar, but that doesn't mean the execution in any way evoked early Dragon Ball. It felt more like a tame and timid kids' show with generic adventures, very poor humor and situations hard to justify given the protagonists' powers than anything we've seen in early DB. It utterly lacks its precedessor's spirit. For its defense I can say that at least it lacks references to earlier filler and theatricals, but taht's something Toei caught up on big time in later arcs.
Cetra wrote:
RedHeat wrote:The fact that people here feel the need to compare GT to Super is mind-boggling to me. There's a reason why GT was shitcanned at 64 episodes and Super ended with a whopping 131 and a direct movie sequel and was directly responsible for the this new Dragon Ball renaissance.
Yeah and this reason is called Internet Hype.
This "internet hype" you speak of is nothing compared to the hype people got for AF back when you couldn't disprove any rumor within minutes by browsing the web. Also, any excitement and hype tends to die down much quicker than it used to, for this precise reason. You can't go and claim that Super was carried all the way through on the hype generated before it even began.

User avatar
The Patrolman
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:46 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by The Patrolman » Mon Mar 26, 2018 11:53 am

Professor Freeza wrote:
The Patrolman wrote:
Professor Freeza wrote:

Not at all. Storytelling, grand spectacle? Epic Transformations.. it has it all.

Storytelling? No


Grand Spectacle? Yeah

Epic Transformation? I mean Ultra Instinct was cool

You sure you saw Z and Super?
Yes and the only thing close to great storytelling Super had was the Future Trunks Arc
The Last Jedi is a terrible movie

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

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by Timetraveller » Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:15 pm

RedHeat wrote:The fact that people here feel the need to compare GT to Super is mind-boggling to me. There's a reason why GT was shitcanned at 64 episodes and Super ended with a whopping 131 and a direct movie sequel and was directly responsible for the this new Dragon Ball renaissance.
Social media combined with nostalgia had a lot to do with it. As many fans put it "I'm just happy we get more dragonball". If DBS were a show by itself, it wouldn't have been such a hit. Same with GT. Also episode count and longevity have very little to do with the quality of the show. The Simpsons have been on a downward spiral in quality for years.

User avatar
RedHeat
Regular
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: Which did it better, GT or Super?

Post by RedHeat » Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:58 pm

Timetraveller wrote:
RedHeat wrote:The fact that people here feel the need to compare GT to Super is mind-boggling to me. There's a reason why GT was shitcanned at 64 episodes and Super ended with a whopping 131 and a direct movie sequel and was directly responsible for the this new Dragon Ball renaissance.
Social media combined with nostalgia had a lot to do with it. As many fans put it "I'm just happy we get more dragonball". If DBS were a show by itself, it wouldn't have been such a hit. Same with GT. Also episode count and longevity have very little to do with the quality of the show. The Simpsons have been on a downward spiral in quality for years.
But there is a correlation between quality and longevity in a lot of different other shows, like Marvel's Agents of Shield and South Park. And if nostalgia was strong enough to carry a franchise for several years, then GT wouldn't have ended up as it did. But maybe that's why Dokkan is so popular :wave: .

Lastly, "I'm just happy we get more Dragonball" is obviously the minority reason for watching the show. Almost everyone else likes it enough to give solid critiques of it and enjoys what it has to offer.
Feels over Reals.

Post Reply