I Prefer the Dragon Ball Super Trilogy to Nolan’s

[wolflonnie]

Odd comparison, but I always found the Nolan Batman trilogy VASTLY overrated. Begins is meh. Dark Knight is pretty good. Rises is terrible.

+1

[Nickolaidas]

If I had to choose between the three Dragon Ball movies or the three Nolan Batman movies, I'd pick the Nolan movies so fast that people would mistake me for the Flash. There is absolutely no comparison in the satisfaction and emotions the two first Batman movies gave me with those of BoG (which I find incredibly, INCREDIBLY overrated), RoF (indifferent) or Broly (ehh … *tilts hand in hesitation*).

Batman Begins was amazing, The Dark Knight was HOLY FUCK THIS IS GODLIKE, and Rises was meh.

[Shad73]

To be sure, I speak these criticisms as a Nolan trilogy fan. It’s just that the Broly film cemented these three films as being capable of payoff worth my salt. The Nolan trilogy kind of solicited potential the MCU picked up on, and WB didn’t. The Nolan trilogy destroyed WB’s DCEU before it arrived. Dragon Ball Super Broly, however, gives an ultimatum.
If Toei doesn’t perform good Dragon Ball to the effect of making excellent animation for DB, I’m done with them for anything but Z. I’ll follow Toyble’s manga instead, while occasionally chiming in to see where they fuck up.

That is, if they don’t pick up on Broly as the type of Dragon Ball that SHOULD be made.

[supersaiyanZero]

This is one of the most absurd threads on this board. When it comes to craftsmanship, storytelling in ALL areas from the cinematography to the actors' choices to the script, not to mention sheer production value - there is literally NO comparison. Anyone who chooses anything but the nolan films has incredibly poor and low hanging fruit taste.

[PFM18]

This is one of the most absurd threads on this board. When it comes to craftsmanship, storytelling in ALL areas from the cinematography to the actors' choices to the script, not to mention sheer production value - there is literally NO comparison. Anyone who chooses anything but the nolan films has incredibly poor and low hanging fruit taste.

Or in other words, you disagree? Okay great. Doesn't make it an absurd thread, and it doesn't make them have poor taste. Lol, "If you think differently you have poor taste!" What kind of ass-backwards ridiculous logic is that?

[Speedster]

This is one of the most absurd threads on this board. When it comes to craftsmanship, storytelling in ALL areas from the cinematography to the actors' choices to the script, not to mention sheer production value - there is literally NO comparison. Anyone who chooses anything but the nolan films has incredibly poor and low hanging fruit taste.

Or in other words, you disagree? Okay great. Doesn't make it an absurd thread, and it doesn't make them have poor taste. Lol, "If you think differently you have poor taste!" What kind of ass-backwards ridiculous logic is that?

There is objective truth even on things that are considered subjective. For example, physical beauty is subjective but we can all agree that the trio of Megan Fox, Margot Robbie and Kate Upton, regardless of whether they are overrated or not, is far more beautiful than say the trio of Elizabeth Warren, Angela Merkel and Susan Boyle. Sure, there might be out there some poor guy with either a super-weird fetish or defect of vision or malfunctioning brain that thinks the opposite but that’s about it.

[PFM18]

This is one of the most absurd threads on this board. When it comes to craftsmanship, storytelling in ALL areas from the cinematography to the actors' choices to the script, not to mention sheer production value - there is literally NO comparison. Anyone who chooses anything but the nolan films has incredibly poor and low hanging fruit taste.

Or in other words, you disagree? Okay great. Doesn't make it an absurd thread, and it doesn't make them have poor taste. Lol, "If you think differently you have poor taste!" What kind of ass-backwards ridiculous logic is that?

There is objective truth even on things that are considered subjective. For example, physical beauty is subjective but we can all agree that the trio of Megan Fox, Margot Robbie and Kate Upton, regardless of whether they are overrated or not, is far more beautiful than say the trio of Elizabeth Warren, Angela Merkel and Susan Boyle. Sure, there might be out there some poor guy with either a super-weird fetish or defect of vision or malfunctioning brain that thinks the opposite but that’s about it.

You trying to say this thread's premise is akin to comparing Margot Robbie to Susan Boyle?

This person just doesn't know what "subjective" and "objective" actually mean. He's displayed it in a collection of cases at this point.

[Speedster]

You trying to say this thread's premise is akin to comparing Margot Robbie to Susan Boyle?

This person just doesn't know what "subjective" and "objective" actually mean. He's displayed it in a collection of cases at this point.

I am actually curious which other past cases you had in mind when you bogusly claimed that I have displayed ignorance about the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective' in a "collection of cases to this point". In any event there was nothing wrong with my usage of 'objective' and 'subjective' in my previous post. As I said, even for subjective matters like beauty, taste, morals, etc there still is objective truth through consensus reality. I explained exactly what I meant via an example that is simple to visualise. What is more, counter-arguing about the supposed proper usage of the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ instead of addressing my actual point is an example of strawman fallacy. I usually don't bother to reply to responses that fail to address my argument, but as I see you resorted to ad hominem through bogus claims about me I decided to make an exception.

[PFM18]

I am actually curious which other past cases you had in mind when you bogusly claimed that I have displayed ignorance about the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective' in a "collection of cases to this point". In any event there was nothing wrong with my usage of 'objective' and 'subjective' in my previous post. As I said, even for subjective matters like beauty, taste, morals, etc there still is objective truth through consensus reality. I explained exactly what I meant via an example that is simple to visualise. What is more, counter-arguing about the supposed proper usage of the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ instead of addressing my actual point is an example of strawman fallacy. I usually don't bother to reply to responses that fail to address my argument, but as I see you resorted to ad hominem through bogus claims about me I decided to make an exception.

Seriously? I wasn't even talking about you. Why would I use the phrase "this person" when talking to you and when you had just quoted me talking about someone else?

[supersaiyanZero]

Or in other words, you disagree? Okay great. Doesn't make it an absurd thread, and it doesn't make them have poor taste. Lol, "If you think differently you have poor taste!" What kind of ass-backwards ridiculous logic is that?

There is objective truth even on things that are considered subjective. For example, physical beauty is subjective but we can all agree that the trio of Megan Fox, Margot Robbie and Kate Upton, regardless of whether they are overrated or not, is far more beautiful than say the trio of Elizabeth Warren, Angela Merkel and Susan Boyle. Sure, there might be out there some poor guy with either a super-weird fetish or defect of vision or malfunctioning brain that thinks the opposite but that’s about it.

You trying to say this thread's premise is akin to comparing Margot Robbie to Susan Boyle?

This person just doesn't know what "subjective" and "objective" actually mean. He's displayed it in a collection of cases at this point.

It sounds like you don't know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and their place in art. But you also pretend like Super was some sort of deep, nuanced show with many layers and themes that go beyond what little surface value it carries so I'm really not surprised.

The comparison between the "trilogies" is so asinine it's insulting. It's not about "if you think differently you have poor taste", it's more "if you really think there is anything in Super that holds a candle to the Nolan trilogy in anything from pre-production, storytelling, world building, etc. than you objectively haven't matured your taste enough to know the difference or are just flat out unable to."

[Baggie_Saiyan]

This is one of the most absurd threads on this board. When it comes to craftsmanship, storytelling in ALL areas from the cinematography to the actors' choices to the script, not to mention sheer production value - there is literally NO comparison. Anyone who chooses anything but the nolan films has incredibly poor and low hanging fruit taste.

Or in other words, you disagree? Okay great. Doesn't make it an absurd thread, and it doesn't make them have poor taste. Lol, "If you think differently you have poor taste!" What kind of ass-backwards ridiculous logic is that?

There is objective truth even on things that are considered subjective. For example, physical beauty is subjective but we can all agree that the trio of Megan Fox, Margot Robbie and Kate Upton, regardless of whether they are overrated or not, is far more beautiful than say the trio of Elizabeth Warren, Angela Merkel and Susan Boyle. Sure, there might be out there some poor guy with either a super-weird fetish or defect of vision or malfunctioning brain that thinks the opposite but that’s about it.

But.... again that is subjective.... beauty is subjective as it gets regardless of if you group things or not. And calling someone that chose the latter group as having "malfunctioning brain" or "super weird fetish" or having "defect vision" is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. Talk about discrimination.

[Shaddy]

Subjectivity here is the recognition that there's no way to determine objective rules to what is good and what isn't, otherwise everything would follow them to a T, and all art would be exactly the same. The only leverage anyone can debatably use to call their opinion more or less "objective" is how many people agree with them, and by that logic the best movie ever is just whatever sold the most tickets. This means that there is no such thing as provably superior or inferior taste, there is no objective quality or criticism. The only reason anyone uses words like "objective" and "factual" when talking about their own opinions is to bully anyone who doesn't think the way they do into agreeing with them, and even then, they look like petulant children in the process. Nobody is an authority on these things, nobody is above anyone else on this forum, and no matter how much you disagree with someone else's taste, there's nothing that makes yours better.

If someone thinks Dragon Ball's last 3 movies are 3 better movies than The Dark Knight trilogy, then that is absolutely true for that individual. There's no universal definition of what is "better" that allows anyone to tell them they're wrong for thinking that, and the only reason anyone here thinks there is, is by narcissistically overrating their own taste.

Personally, I find the types of movies that these films are to be way too different to be worth comparing in the first place, so I don't think there's any reason to argue about it, beyond the usual ignorant and egotistical attitude that comes to these forums every once in a while when these topics are breached.

[PFM18]

There is objective truth even on things that are considered subjective. For example, physical beauty is subjective but we can all agree that the trio of Megan Fox, Margot Robbie and Kate Upton, regardless of whether they are overrated or not, is far more beautiful than say the trio of Elizabeth Warren, Angela Merkel and Susan Boyle. Sure, there might be out there some poor guy with either a super-weird fetish or defect of vision or malfunctioning brain that thinks the opposite but that’s about it.

You trying to say this thread's premise is akin to comparing Margot Robbie to Susan Boyle?

This person just doesn't know what "subjective" and "objective" actually mean. He's displayed it in a collection of cases at this point.

It sounds like you don't know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and their place in art. But you also pretend like Super was some sort of deep, nuanced show with many layers and themes that go beyond what little surface value it carries so I'm really not surprised.

The comparison between the "trilogies" is so asinine it's insulting. It's not about "if you think differently you have poor taste", it's more "if you really think there is anything in Super that holds a candle to the Nolan trilogy in anything from pre-production, storytelling, world building, etc. than you objectively haven't matured your taste enough to know the difference or are just flat out unable to."

No, I literally just understand what the word "objective" means. Somebody's opinion cannot be objectively wrong, that contradicts the very meaning of what an opinion is and it's relationship with objective facts. You constantly throwing around your opinion as an objective fact or saying other people's objectively wrong just shows you quite clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.

Oh, and nice little strawman about claiming that I've said Super is all of that stuff.

[Shad73]

If I may, my opinion is quite a fallible thing. In all humility, it is only my opinion, and experientially so. Therefore, I definitely don’t want to impose it on any of you. It is subjective on the level that while it is true for me, it couldn’t be true for everyone else.
I think the reason I made this post was to have a conversation into the world of perspective; objectivity in one person’s opinion must conform to that person’s employment of subjectiveness if he or she wants to make an argument or debate. And I think I can provide the perfect example.
Someone I once fraternized with as a Dragon Ball fan once told me he wanted to make a thesis as to why Naruto was better than Dragon Ball. He did not demonstrate the proper ability to vary between one’s opinion of objective and how to display it as subjective, most encapsulated by how a great portion of this thesis (that he wanted to make a YouTube video, mind you) would be him just gushing over Naurto.
It demonstrated to me that this individual wasn’t prepared to politely acquiesce his perspective to a more peer-oriented unit, one that if rendered through the subtleties of humble presentation could communicate his point without all the interruptive aspects of his bias.
He didn’t view objective where it might be subjective as can totally exist outside of perspective. I think that if I were going to make a qualitative video approaching the DB vs. Naruto argument, I would’ve first stopped looking at Naruto in relationship to Dragon Ball except from a sociological level to posit that (figuratively speaking) “while DB resembles Bruce Lee, Naruto resembles MMA.” Obviously I mean that to say that while Dragon Ball could get people into martial arts through a sense of icon, Naruto deals to where everyone in the modern world might do martial arts.
I could go on all day, but you get the point.

[DBZfan29]

It kinda works as a trilogy. There are some common tropes. The second film was not as great the first, and the third took us back and revealed something that was supposed to somehow be true all along (namely that there are at least 5 more Saiyans who survived). I think Broly is a good follow up to Resurrection F (what would Freeza do if he still had his empire?). If Freeza survived in Resurrection F, Broly would work well without Super.

I don’t get the point of this thread, and I can’t really compare the two series. TDK was great, it got me really excited about film making, so it’s got a special place in my heart. But DB has a bigger place.

[Shad73]

It kinda works as a trilogy. There are some common tropes. The second film was not as great the first, and the third took us back and revealed something that was supposed to somehow be true all along (namely that there are at least 5 more Saiyans who survived). I think Broly is a good follow up to Resurrection F (what would Freeza do if he still had his empire?). If Freeza survived in Resurrection F, Broly would work well without Super.

I don’t get the point of this thread, and I can’t really compare the two series. TDK was great, it got me really excited about film making, so it’s got a special place in my heart. But DB has a bigger place.

This is exactly my point. I love the Dark Knight Trilogy very much! Still, Dragon Ball has a bigger place in my heart than the Nolan trilogy by itself will; the Nolan trilogy won’t ever be seen in a vacuum from Batman or DC, and I will always critically evaluate it along those lines.
That said, I look at Super’s anime as it went from zero to hero as being second place to Broly, if we’re only looking at the Tournament of Power. I love watching the TOP; mark my words, I prefer watching GT to the vast bulk of pre-TOP Super nonetheless. However, Broly provides me an experience that is better than the TOP and better than both Super and GT combined.
I think the purpose of this thread is for me to personally demonstrate how I respond to Broly having felt more like where I’ve picked back up from when I finished Resurrection ‘F’ than anything between except the TOP. The U6, The Future Trunks Saga, those honestly deserve OVA remakes or something. I flat-out only read the manga versions of those.

[supersaiyanZero]

You trying to say this thread's premise is akin to comparing Margot Robbie to Susan Boyle?

This person just doesn't know what "subjective" and "objective" actually mean. He's displayed it in a collection of cases at this point.

It sounds like you don't know the difference between subjectivity and objectivity and their place in art. But you also pretend like Super was some sort of deep, nuanced show with many layers and themes that go beyond what little surface value it carries so I'm really not surprised.

The comparison between the "trilogies" is so asinine it's insulting. It's not about "if you think differently you have poor taste", it's more "if you really think there is anything in Super that holds a candle to the Nolan trilogy in anything from pre-production, storytelling, world building, etc. than you objectively haven't matured your taste enough to know the difference or are just flat out unable to."

No, I literally just understand what the word "objective" means. Somebody's opinion cannot be objectively wrong, that contradicts the very meaning of what an opinion is and it's relationship with objective facts. You constantly throwing around your opinion as an objective fact or saying other people's objectively wrong just shows you quite clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.

Oh, and nice little strawman about claiming that I've said Super is all of that stuff.

When you start talking about craftsmanship and all that entails telling a compelling story cohesively, effectively, and technically then there is a level of subjectivity that goes out the window. That is the artform. I'm sorry, it's a fact - not only are there so many more moving parts in the Nolan trilogy because filmmaking is a very involved process, that entire production team effectively told a more compelling and cohesive story than anything to come out of Dragonball, ever. The level of artistry in those films, both technically and creatively, is fucking light years above whatever Toei has produced. It is not an "opinion". You can take half of the lines the Joker has in the second film, and it is more layered, complex, and contains more depth than any line uttered in Dragonball, Super or otherwise. That is why the comparison is stupid. The only comparison that's valid is "You know what, I actually enjoy two super saiyans mindlessly beating the shit out everything more than I do watching a more involved film like that. That's just my opinion." That is FINE. There are days where I'd much rather watch Vegeta take on Android 19 than watch the Dark Knight, but no way in hell do I ever believe for a nanosecond that it comes close to the artistic feats presented in Nolan's Batman trilogy.

[Shaddy]

Actually, it's still an opinion. What you're calling "facts" and "objective" are only such because they play into your idea of objectivity and quality -- that is to say, there is no universal standard for what is "objectively" good or bad, you're just substituting your standards because you can't fathom that other people have a different idea of what is good than you.

But of course, you know this. You're just declaring everything you say "factual" because you want an easy-out to bullying people into agreeing.

EDIT: Wow, this is almost exactly the same as my last post in this thread. Guess that's what happens when you have obstinate-bordering-on-toxic behavior to this degree.

[Shad73]

Actually, it's still an opinion. What you're calling "facts" and "objective" are only such because they play into your idea of objectivity and quality -- that is to say, there is no universal standard for what is "objectively" good or bad, you're just substituting your standards because you can't fathom that other people have a different idea of what is good than you.

But of course, you know this. You're just declaring everything you say "factual" because you want an easy-out to bullying people into agreeing.

EDIT: Wow, this is almost exactly the same as my last post in this thread. Guess that's what happens when you have obstinate-bordering-on-toxic behavior to this degree.

Once again, I hope I as the OPoster have made clear I am only presenting opinion, and respectfully so. I realize some of the above posts can fail to take that into context when considering reply. I don’t expect you to agree with me, I just want to start a conversation! Should this thread die a ridiculous death, I hope we all had fun.

[Shaddy]

Hey you're fine, no worries. My post was not directed at you. It wasn't even really directed at any opinion I agree or disagree with (after all, I never watched the Dark Knight films, I have no stance on their quality), it was directed at a specific user's attitude and school of mind used to justify bullying the people who do disagree.