Unpopular DB opinions

[Noah]

Dragon Ball > Marvel

And before anyone asks, no this is not about power scaling but rather the stories and characterization.

As a hardcore DB fan as myself I say this statement is beyond forced. I mean there's not even a comparison, ignoring the comics and only speaking about the MCU. The stories, character development and depth are on a stage that unfortunatelly Dragon Ball will never be.

The author says this series is only about fighting, meaning that he's not really into exploring other aspects on the series.

You can't compare Broly to Endgame, it would be asinine to do so. I can only dream that one day Toriyama/Toyotaro might try to different with Dragon Ball, but that's very unlikely.

The Japanese dub while wonderful is not infallible. (Looking at Mr. Satan forgetting Dende in BoG as just "smh" moment.)

To be fair this is most a script error than a dub one.

[ruler9871]

Even with an amazing acting, I think James Marsters was a miscast for Zamasu's voice. Does anyone agree with that? Or is just another unpopular opinion?

I also agree (even though James Marsters is a good actor).

I always thought Liam O'Brian, Brad Swaile or Yuri Lowenthal would be perfect for Zamasu.

[Scsigs]

Even with an amazing acting, I think James Marsters was a miscast for Zamasu's voice. Does anyone agree with that? Or is just another unpopular opinion?

I also agree (even though James Marsters is a good actor).

I always thought Liam O'Brian, Brad Swaile or Yuri Lowenthal would be perfect for Zamasu.

I mean, I always thought Matthew Mercer would've been a better pick, personally, but I'm not let down by Marsters' performance. Once he got a handle on dubbing & the episodes gave him more material to work with, he got a LOT better & I was completely sold on him.

[Kataphrut]

Speaking or Matt Mercer, I don't like him much as Hit. It's a good performance, but it's very standard for him and doesn't capture the cool thing about Hit, which is that he's a hardened old man.

I actually wish they'd kept the Xenoverse 2 guy. Not necessarily because he'd have been better suited for the role, but because I'd rather see a relative unknown get some runs on the board playing a major character and making it his own than just having it be another Matt Mercer role. Nearly all the dub debuts in Xenoverse 2 were awful, but they all got the chance to learn from it and improve for the main product except Aaron Roberts.

[Melee_Sovereign]

As a hardcore DB fan as myself I say this statement is beyond forced. I mean there's not even a comparison, ignoring the comics and only speaking about the MCU. The stories, character development and depth are on a stage that unfortunatelly Dragon Ball will never be.

What exactly is so special about the MCU? MCU is good and all, but it uses a lot of cliches and, while it has well developed characters (sort of), they don't feel nearly as genuine as DB characters. It's far too influenced by the mainstream. What DB has over MCU is it's written from the heart by someone with passion. All of the characters and story feel a lot more personal. MCU, while great movies, are too focused on being big budget mass appeal movies. It doesn't feel personal.

DB has a lot of things over MCU, and it doesn't get enough credit for it.

As for the comics, well its history and library is extremely expansive. I would say that Marvel comics have greater highs and worse lows than DB. Meaning its best comics (in the canon Earth-616 verse) are better than anything in canon DB. But its worse comics are worse than DBs worst moments (in canon).

You can't compare Broly to Endgame

I saw both movies. Broly is way better. And I wouldn't even say Endgame is the best MCU movie.

The author says this series is only about fighting

There's a lot of things out there that are just about fighting that are not nearly as popular as DB. People tend to naturally connect with DB characters. The characterizations, while relatively simplistic, have a charm to them that, quite frankly, I don't see in MCU.

[Shaddy]

I believe Toriyama still understands his series very well, but I think he's always been kinda bad at talking about it.

[ABED]

I saw both movies. Broly is way better. And I wouldn't even say Endgame is the best MCU movie.

Endgame was funny and emotional. The action is also a highlight. Not one of those things applies to Broly which is a mixed bag at best.

All of the characters and story feel a lot more personal. MCU, while great movies, are too focused on being big budget mass appeal movies. It doesn't feel personal.

I think anyone who says that has some platonic ideal of how movies should be made. What do you mean by personal? Are we really getting some deep insight into how Toriyama thinks about the world? I like DB as much as the next person, but what we get from it isn't deep insight into human behavior, but more what makes the author laugh. If you don't think there's a personal touch in the MCU, I can't convince you otherwise, but it's clearly there. They didn't get to where they are by focusing purely on spectacle. That's there in spades, but what is driving fans into theaters is emphasis on characters.

[Noah]

What exactly is so special about the MCU? MCU is good and all, but it uses a lot of cliches and, while it has well developed characters (sort of), they don't feel nearly as genuine as DB characters. It's far too influenced by the mainstream. What DB has over MCU is it's written from the heart by someone with passion. All of the characters and story feel a lot more personal. MCU, while great movies, are too focused on being big budget mass appeal movies. It doesn't feel personal.

With lot of cliches you mean like

Spoiler:

killing the main antagonist of the arc in less than 15 minutes of movie and have the heroes dealing that all they did acomplished nothing?

because sorry I never saw any of that in Dragon Ball. What it is actually cliché for whoever criticise MCU is that they all use the same ol' arguments.
And to keep this straight: I'm most comparing what is modern Dragon Ball now to MCU, the original 42 volumes are out of this discussion.
Because no, there's no passion while writting DB nowadays, Toriyama said himself that the series is always based on fighting, we don't have much good character moments. It is always the same stuff over and over again: Big bad shows up, we only have Goku and Vegeta to deal with him, Beerus and Whis stays out of the game because of reasons, they suffer, they train, they suffer a lot more than they win. Drop other characters on the plot, some new, some old, give them little moments, but the script follow this same pattern.

I saw both movies. Broly is way better. And I wouldn't even say Endgame is the best MCU movie.

The only thing that I agree with your statement is that Endgame is not the best MCU movie, that place still belongs to Infinity War.

Oh and for sure it's way better a linear movie about a guy that is really strong and both heroes have to deal with him, than another one that gives you excellent character moments, conclusion of their arcs, depth and meaningful scenes.

There's a lot of things out there that are just about fighting that are not nearly as popular as DB. People tend to naturally connect with DB characters. The characterizations, while relatively simplistic, have a charm to them that, quite frankly, I don't see in MCU.

For realsies, what charm? Poop jokes? If you're so close minded to realize that Toriyama/Toyotaro use the same formula over and over again, then this discussion is pointless.

[Scsigs]

I believe Toriyama still understands his series very well, but I think he's always been kinda bad at talking about it.

Oh, Toriyama still understands how the series pretty well, perhaps even better than he used to when he was writing it. If you watch the 3 movies he's directly written; BOG, RF, & S:B, that's clear. It has all his hallmarks of the manga in movie form, lack of tension in RF aside. It's Toei's staff that fundamentally misunderstand the series, which is why Super is wildly inconsistent in quality. Same with Toyotaro's manga, though at least his writing is more internally consistent than the schizophrenic writing of the Toei staff, which changes on a dime if they want it to.

[Melee_Sovereign]

What it is actually cliché for whoever criticise MCU is that they all use the same ol' arguments.

Well there you go.

And to keep this straight: I'm most comparing what is modern Dragon Ball now to MCU, the original 42 volumes are out of this discussion.
Because no, there's no passion while writting DB nowadays, Toriyama said himself that the series is always based on fighting, we don't have much good character moments. It is always the same stuff over and over again: Big bad shows up, we only have Goku and Vegeta to deal with him, Beerus and Whis stays out of the game because of reasons, they suffer, they train, they suffer a lot more than they win. Drop other characters on the plot, some new, some old, give them little moments, but the script follow this same pattern.

Wait, why? This whole thread is about all of Dragon Ball. I'm comparing all of canon Dragon Ball to MCU.

The only thing that I agree with your statement is that Endgame is not the best MCU movie, that place still belongs to Infinity War.

I wouldn't even put Infinity Wars at the top. But that's a matter of opinion I guess.

Oh and for sure it's way better a linear movie about a guy that is really strong and both heroes have to deal with him, than another one that gives you excellent character moments, conclusion of their arcs, depth and meaningful scenes.

The problem that I have about the MCU is, while it has these things, the pacing and presentation isn't the best. Everything happens a bit too fast and is just thrown in there. I feel far less connected to it because of this. I appreciate it all the same in an objective sense, but I don't feel it.

Dragon Ball actually knows how to slow this down, keep it simple, and make scenes like this feel way more personal. And this is still present in the Broly movie, although it has its hick-ups too. But I don't just appreciate its meaningful scenes. I feel them.

Frieza killing Krillin for example, felt way more dreadful, personal, frightening and sickening than when Thanos killed Gamora.

For realsies, what charm? Poop jokes?

Yeah, poop jokes. Totally. How did you know I was referring to that?

I'll give you some examples of charm that I like in Dragon Ball. You have someone like Beerus who is godly powerful. Yet he retains his cat-like demeanor, where he's lazy, uncaring, loves to eat and is deceptively unimposing looking (a common design trope in Dragon Ball, and it's one that works well).

Actually, what I say in parentheses is a good general example of a common trope seen in Dragon Ball, where characters have these very contrasting qualities within them. And it's a formula I, quite frankly, never get tired of. So I hope Toriyama and Toyotaro continue to reuse it over and over. Marvel likes to reuse formulas all the time as well. Some good, some bad.

There's nothing wrong with reusing formulas if it's a good formula.

[Melee_Sovereign]

Are we really getting some deep insight into how Toriyama thinks about the world?

I would argue yes. The fact that Toriyama is shy, doesn't like interviews, and is introverted didn't surprise me at all. His mindset and personality definitely seeps into his work. I guarantee you if Toriyama had an opposite personality, Dragon Ball would be dramatically different.

I don't get that out of MCU, at least not as much. The movies are great. Don't get me wrong. The writing is good and everything. But you can tell the writing and overall production of the movie series, is done as a job that needs to get done. It's designed explicitly to be popular, draw in a crowd and make profit off of it.

Dragon Ball feels way more like a personal project.

[ABED]

Are we really getting some deep insight into how Toriyama thinks about the world?

I would argue yes. The fact that Toriyama is shy, doesn't like interviews, and is introverted didn't surprise me at all. His mindset and personality definitely seeps into his work. I guarantee you if Toriyama had an opposite personality, Dragon Ball would be dramatically different.

I don't get that out of MCU, at least not as much. The movies are great. Don't get me wrong. The writing is good and everything. But you can tell the writing and overall production of the movie series, is done as a job that needs to get done. It's designed explicitly to be popular, draw in a crowd and make profit off of it.

Dragon Ball feels way more like a personal project.

I get that his personality shines through but what is he saying?

I absolutely see the same thing shining through in the MCU. The films the Russos make are vastly different from those Gunn made. Branagh's Thor is very different from Taika Waititi's. Your assertion that these films were designed to be popular holds very little weight seeing as how every blockbuster is designed to do that, but not as many hit the mark as you would think. Toriyama also designed DB to be popular. He initially wanted to make a Journey to the West parody, but when that wasn't striking a chord with audience, he added the tournament element because that was selling better.

Ultimately I think you are using a few talking points that sound good but without thinking through the argument. How specifically is the MCU designing its films to be popular? More to the point, why is that a bad thing?

[Melee_Sovereign]

The films the Russos make are vastly different from those Gunn made. Branagh's Thor is very different from Taika Waititi's.

That's probably why the overall film series feels way less personal. Because it varies between movies. I don't like that Thor feels different in one movie than in another when he's suppose to be the same character. That creates a disconnect for me.

Your assertion that these films were designed to be popular holds very little weight seeing as how every blockbuster is designed to do that, but not as many hit the mark as you would think. Toriyama also designed DB to be popular. He initially wanted to make a Journey to the West parody, but when that wasn't striking a chord with audience, he added the tournament element because that was selling better.

My point is it shows more in MCU.

The fact that the series jumps between main writers means the overall project is in fact, not a personal project.

Ultimately I think you are using a few talking points that sound good but without thinking through the argument. How specifically is the MCU designing its films to be popular? More to the point, why is that a bad thing?

Thinking about the argument? Why does everyone want things like this to be explained in terms of argumentative deduction?

This is ultimately about entertainment and enjoyment. It's like how you would criticize food at a fancy restaurant. You wouldn't come up with an "argument" to describe why you don't like it.

MCU ultimately doesn't leave the same "taste in my mouth" so to speak that Dragon Ball does. How specifically is the MCU designed to be popular? I don't know objectively. But that's the taste it leaves in my mouth after I watch it. That's the impression I get from it. That's how I feel about it. Dragon Ball feels way more personal, way more sentimental, and way more like I'm getting to know the writer's personality.

Toriyama had to make decisions to make the series more popular? Sure okay. But that didn't really show in his work. He managed to make the series remain personal despite having to do that. In other words, I wouldn't know about this decision without explicitly finding out about it.

[ABED]

Now you're changing your argument to one of subjective preference. That's fine and all, but it wasn't clear before.

The fact that the series jumps between main writers means the overall project is in fact, not a personal project.

Quite the opposite. It's because the different films have different authors that you can see the personality shine through. Maybe it's not all one single author, but that's not a bad thing at all.

But that didn't really show in his work. He managed to make the series remain personal despite having to do that. In other words, I wouldn't know about this decision without explicitly finding out about it.

Really? You couldn't tell the difference between a clear parody and something that was for a lack of a better phrase, slightly more grounded? Toriyama has Goku take those bunny henchmen to the moon where they make marshmallow treats. Not something you'd see later down the line.

If you don't like that the MCU is basically taking its cues from the source material, down to how each author is putting their own stamp on the material, then that's fine. I think it's one of the MCU's greatest strengths. Go with what works, discard what doesn't. Why should Thor be stuck with a characterization that everyone felt wasn't quite working just so they could maintain continuity? Why not craft something that plays to the strengths of the actor?

Why does it leave a bad taste in your mouth that the MCU or any story is designed to be popular? What's so bad about that? It's not easy to actually hit that mark, so regardless of whether that is their overriding goal, why have they been able to do it and so consistently whereas most haven't had the same luck? We can all point to plenty of TV and films cynically built to draw in mass audiences, but we often see that doing so often backfires like Batman & Robin, BvS, or the numerous factors that caused the boom and bust of the comics industry in the 90s (e.g. the speculator bubble and the glut of grimdark and event stories).

Thinking about the argument? Why does everyone want things like this to be explained in terms of argumentative deduction?

Not sure what that means, but all I'm asking is that you understand what you're saying and not simply spouting talking points that seem to make sense but don't really because you don't understand them. If someone can't articulate their point, they don't understand it. And in case you think I'm pointing the finger, I'm not. I find myself falling into this category as well. It's something I'm trying to get better at, and it's why I can see the signs.

[Melee_Sovereign]

Now you're changing your argument to one of subjective preference. That's fine and all, but it wasn't clear before.

It's the entire point of the thread.

And yes, let me be clear. I'm not trying to argue that Dragon Ball is objectively better than Marvel. What I'm arguing is, there are reasons to like it better, and that it's a valid position to take. Someone earlier expressed that opinion, and was met with a reply that was basically trying to be dismissive of that viewpoint. I jumped in to object.

I see this all the time when it comes to Dragon Ball. If you say you think it has better characterizations and writing than something else, you're met with replies like "Dragon Ball is just about fighting, wtf are you talking about". It's really not.

It's like Dragon Ball is not allowed to be held to the same esteem as the likes of Marvel, Star Wars or Disney, even subjectively. But there's a reason why the franchise has accumulated $24 billion.

With all that stated, I would also argue that Marvel is NOT objectively better than Dragon Ball.

Why does it leave a bad taste in your mouth?

It comes off as more contrived and less genuine.

Not sure what that means, but all I'm asking is that you understand what you're saying and not simply spouting talking points that seem to make sense but don't really because you don't understand them. If someone can't articulate their point, they don't understand it. And in case you think I'm pointing the finger, I'm not. I find myself falling into this category as well. It's something I'm trying to get better at, and it's why I can see the signs.

I do explain my points. The issue is, you want an objective explanation to something that is ultimately not objective.

[ABED]

I do explain my points. The issue is, you want an objective explanation to something that is ultimately not objective.

But even subjective feelings have reasons.

It comes off as more contrived and less genuine.

Contrived in what way? Giving Broly a sad back story is arguably a contrived and clichéd way to bring pathos into the story.

It comes off as more contrived and less genuine.

That's fine and all, but why? I'm not asking for an objective reason, just a reason beyond throwing out "it feels less genuine" and leaving us to figure out what you mean by that. If you can't explain why you think Marvel has designed their world to be popular or what you mean by your statement, then why do you think that's a valid criticism? My issue isn't your subjective preference, it's your lack of ability to articulate it and falling back on "because I feel that way". How do you know that's how you feel if you don't even understand your own position?

[ruler9871]

I believe Toriyama still understands his series very well, but I think he's always been kinda bad at talking about it.

Oh, Toriyama still understands how the series pretty well, perhaps even better than he used to when he was writing it. If you watch the 3 movies he's directly written; BOG, RF, & S:B, that's clear. It has all his hallmarks of the manga in movie form, lack of tension in RF aside. It's Toei's staff that fundamentally misunderstand the series, which is why Super is wildly inconsistent in quality. Same with Toyotaro's manga, though at least his writing is more internally consistent than the schizophrenic writing of the Toei staff, which changes on a dime if they want it to.

Toei (and sometimes Toyotaro) has outshined Toriyama when it comes to this franchise numerous times. (Examples include 90's Bardock > DB Minus, the anime Buu saga > the manga Buu saga, many fights, Goku's characterization etc).

This "Toriyama can do no wrong" mentality is extremely annoying, especially since the majority of Super's fundamental problems (both versions) come directly from Toriyama himself, rather than Toei & Toyotaro's interpretations of his outline.

And by the way, BoG was initially a Toei-only project, and RoF (exclusively Toriyama made) sucks all-around.

[ABED]

How was Toei's characterization of Goku better than Toriyama's?

[Melee_Sovereign]

Contrived in what way?

Pfff... okay.

Spoiler:

Hawkeye's whole family is killed. Yes, that's sad and all. But out of no-where he's now a ruthless mercenary. There's, like, no transitional period between that. We don't slowly see him descend into this mindset, or any time taken into giving the audience any real insight into his mind and how he may be transitioning into this behavior. It's just, his family dies in one scene, and the next, he's killing some crimb mob because he's all sad.

Contrived to the fullest.

Need more examples? Or do I need to explain more why this is contrived and forced? This sort of execution of transitional behavior in characters is very recurring in the MCU.

Giving Broly a sad back story is arguably a contrived and clichéd way to bring pathos into the story.

Why?

Why is a sad backstory contrived and cliche? A sad backstory can come in countless different forms. I can agree that certain sad backstories are contrived and cliche (and overused). But why are sad backstories in general contrived and cliche?

[ruler9871]

How was Toei's characterization of Goku better than Toriyama's?

If you compare Toei's DB(Z) Goku to Modern DB's Goku (the most blatantly Toriyama-like version of him), you'll notice that classic Goku is smarter, more competent, more serious (when needed to be), less "poisonious" and has much more grativas to him than modern Goku does.