What do you guys think of Brian Drummond's Vegeta?

[Ajay]

I've honestly never seen that argument made, not once. It's definitely not uncommon to find people who prefer the different actors at two different points, but I've never heard someone say they should switch voices in the same series.

Yeah, it is a strange wish, but I guess a lot of it may come from the fact they did originally switch actors in the same series. Either fans think this way as a justification for it, or as a way to say they like aspects of both performances, I don't really know.

[ABED]

That's great and all, but that's not the definition I'm using. So why are you bringing this up? I can bring up irrelevant definitions as well if you'd like, but why?

I'd rather not be falsely accused of lying when that's not what I did. I didn't knowingly say something false, I have never heard the argument that some people want two different actors for the same role in the same show. I think it's perfectly sensible for someone to not like having their honesty called into question.

Ajay, that's interesting. I've heard people say Keaton was a better Batman and Bale was a better Bruce Wayne. I've never heard anyone say they want to have two different actors in the same film simply because someone is better suited for different aspect. Not saying that you're wrong, simply that I've never come across the argument. If that's the case, then yes, it's absurd, but not what I think most people mean when they say Drummond was better as early Vegeta and Sabat was better as later Vegeta.

Vegeta didn't give up fighting. If he did, why would he train constantly for seven years?

He did, he literally says that he won't ever fight again because Goku and Gohan surpassed him. And training isn't fighting.

I'm not claiming Vegeta is an ethical person, just that he changed. Early on, Vegeta would never have shown any affection for his son nor die in attempt to save him.

He sounds bored half the time in Kai, kind of how Drummond often sounds bored or lackluster in the Boo saga and GT.

That's fair, but Horikawa is excellent in Z.

Trivial semantics. This definition is found in countless dictionaries. It doesn't matter if I specify.

Important distinction because there isn't one definition and some definitions are better than others. You said that you prefer using a dictionary to anyone's opinion, so I quickly found one in another dictionary.

A subtle change of heart doesn't somehow alter the physiology of your vocals and never is it implied it should in DBZ

Implying that a change in character shouldn't change the voice, but that is rarely if ever the argument people make. I don't think most people argue for two different actors in the same series. Just get one actor to play the same role that can fit both. Horikawa does it wonderfully.

[Sayo-chan]

I'd rather not be falsely accused of lying when that's not what I did. I didn't knowingly say something false,

That's completely irrelevant to the definition I used. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

I have never heard the argument that some people want two different actors for the same role in the same show. I think it's perfectly sensible for someone to not like having their honesty called into question.

The definition and clarified definition has nothing to do with honesty. You're grasping straws.

He did, he literally says that he won't ever fight again because Goku and Gohan surpassed him. And training isn't fighting.

But he didn't, because he fights again. Vegeta says things he doesn't follow through with all the time. There'd be no point in rigorously training if he didn't have some intention to do something with it.

I'm not claiming Vegeta is an ethical person, just that he changed. Early on, Vegeta would never have shown any affection for his son nor die in attempt to save him.

I didn't say he didn't change, I stated it was minute, because it's hardly significant, especially considering how little it is (his affection).

Important distinction because there isn't one definition and some definitions are better than others. You said that you prefer using a dictionary to anyone's opinion, so I quickly found one in another dictionary.

It's not important for that very reason: there are multiple definitions of words in dictionaries. Some aren't objectively "better" than others, so I'd like to see your argument. More over, the dictionary's definitions do override opinions in circumstances such as these, because they are the words we use. It's not my opinion that the definition fits the word I'm using or that it is the definition I'm using. Which again, makes your posting of another definition pointless.

Implying that a change in character shouldn't change the voice, but that is rarely if ever the argument people make. I don't think most people argue for two different actors in the same series. Just get one actor to play the same role that can fit both. Horikawa does it wonderfully.

The frequency of an argument doesn't matter. I'm addressing that one because I feel the need to, because it bothers me. And again, you can think that, but it's still a common sentiment regardless, even if that's a reach off my initial statement. And again, Horikawa is not without flaw. All the Japanese voice actors/actresses blow it from time to time, which was why I brought him up.

[ABED]

That's completely irrelevant to the definition I used. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

No, I don't like being called a liar, especially when you use a flimsy definition in order to justify it.

The definition and clarified definition has nothing to do with honesty. You're grasping straws.

The opposite of lie is the truth. Honesty is about the truth, how is that grasping?

But he didn't, because he fights again.

Yes, after 7 years when Goku is back from the dead, and Vegeta before wouldn't have even entertained the notion of quitting.

There'd be no point in rigorously training if he didn't have some intention to do something with it.

To stay in shape and become as strong as he can. He's still a Saiyan.

I didn't say he didn't change, I stated it was minute, because it's hardly significant, especially considering how little it is (his affection).

I disagree, that's huge for him.

So

me aren't objectively "better" than others, so I'd like to see your argument.

You have, it's unobjective to lump two unlike concepts together since it causes confusion. You wouldn't define music as "when sounds are made". You shouldn't lump in people who are simply wrong about something with someone who intentionally deceives someone else.

but it's still a common sentiment regardless,

It's not that common. Yes it's common to find people who think one actor is stronger at one point, and another actor is stronger at something else even if it's the same character, but it's rare to find people who think they should mix and match in the same show.

[Sayo-chan]

No, I don't like being called a liar, especially when you use a flimsy definition in order to justify it. The opposite of lie is the truth. Honesty is about the truth, how is that grasping?

There's nothing flimsy about the definition I've used. It's a definition present in various dictionaries. I used it accordingly. Because truth and honesty aren't used interchangeably in this context. The definition is void of whether or not you're honest. You providing any other definition is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the legitimate definition I've decided to use. This is nothing short of derailing the topic.

Yes, after 7 years when Goku is back from the dead, and Vegeta before wouldn't have even entertained the notion of quitting. To stay in shape and become as strong as he can. He's still a Saiyan.

I disagree, that's huge for him

That doesn't affect anything I've stated. It still invalidates his statement as being truthful. To stay in shape for what? Gohan was still "in shape" after all. With Cell and Goku gone, who would there be to fight? If the opportunity arose, and I mean, it did, Vegeta would fight. So he's full of it. Regardless, this change is hardly significant. He's still a petty, evil person. A significant change would be Trunks developing in a dead world, or Imperfect to Perfect Cell.

I'd agree with you if Vegeta was mentally defunct or something. He's a grown man. I don't, nor will I ever, view Jeffery Dahmer's minute changes in prison as being huge. I see this as no different.

You have, it's unobjective to lump two unlike concepts together since it causes confusion. You wouldn't define music as "when sounds are made". You shouldn't lump in people who are simply wrong about something with someone who intentionally deceives someone else.

I have what? What is that even referring to? "Unobjective"? That doesn't even make sense. The definitions give the words their meanings. Often, very often, words have multiple concepts defined in them. So that isn't a problem, at all. You got confused, that doesn't make the definition of one word objectively better than another; that's subjective. You also have no credence to say how I would define music, especially since everything is subject to context. You say I shouldn't, I say I should. The definition is completely valid, this is not going to change.

It's not that common. Yes it's common to find people who think one actor is stronger at one point, and another actor is stronger at something else even if it's the same character, but it's rare to find people who think they should mix and match in the same show.

Again, that's a reach off my statements, so I don't even know why you're harping on it. It's still common though. I hardly had to search for Ocean videos to find similar sentiments. Just because you don't see it, for whatever reason, doesn't make it uncommon.

[ABED]

Again, that's a reach off my statements, so I don't even know why you're harping on it. It's still common though. I hardly had to search for Ocean videos to find similar sentiments. Just because you don't see it, for whatever reason, doesn't make it uncommon.

The link you showed me before where people were saying "i think Sabat is better in the Buu arc" and "I think Drummond is better in the Saiyan arc" doesn't imply that two actors should play the same part in the same show. It's just stating a preference.

I have what? What is that even referring to? "Unobjective"? That doesn't even make sense. The definitions give the words their meanings. Often, very often, words have multiple concepts defined in them. So that isn't a problem, at all. You got confused, that doesn't make the definition of one word objectively better than another; that's subjective. You also have no credence to say how I would define music, especially since everything is subject to context. You say I shouldn't, I say I should. The definition is completely valid, this is not going to change.

If a word lumps two fundamentally unlike things together on the basis of some inessential shared characteristic. A definition is used to distinguish it from other concepts. In this case, a false statement, is inessential because saying something wrong because you are misinformed isn't the same as saying something wrong with the intent to decieve. Hell, you can technically say something right and still lie. How does unobjective not make sense?

When I wrote "You wouldn't define music as "when sounds are made"." I didn't mean you specifically, i meant in a general sense.

That doesn't affect anything I've stated. It still invalidates his statement as being truthful.

Absent Goku, Vegeta wouldn't have fought. It was the biggest reason he went to the tournament to begin with.

[Sayo-chan]

The link you showed me before where people were saying "i think Sabat is better in the Buu arc" and "I think Drummond is better in the Saiyan arc" doesn't imply that two actors should play the same part in the same show. It's just stating a preference.

Because neither of them were meant to (hence being a reach), but the latter image suits it just fine.

If a word lumps two fundamentally unlike things together on the basis of some inessential shared characteristic. A definition is used to distinguish it from other concepts. In this case, a false statement, is inessential because saying something wrong because you are misinformed isn't the same as saying something wrong with the intent to decieve. Hell, you can technically say something right and still lie. How does unobjective not make sense?

If it does, then what? Tons of words do this. The word proposition does this, it's just a basic tenet of how words work in English. A definition is used to give an exact meaning of a word too, so what? That has nothing to do with this context. I also don't care what's "inessential", so that's none of my concern, especially seeing that most sentence structures are inessential. The definitions are what they are. You don't get to say one definition is "objectively" better than another, that's the exact opposite of objectivity. It doesn't make sense because it has no baring in this discussion. Mainly because what you're saying is entirely subjective.

Absent Goku, Vegeta wouldn't have fought. It was the biggest reason he went to the tournament to begin with.

Unless something happened or prompted him to, which is my point: he's a liar. He would've, he did fight.

[ABED]

Then it causes confusion, which is the reason we have words with definitions, so you can be clear in your own head and when you are communicating.

I also don't care what's "inessential", so that's none of my concern

It is if you want to use the correct word. Sure, words can have different meanings but there's a world of difference between Lie mean both "to say something false to deceive" and "assuming a horizontal position" vs. "to say something false with the intent to deceive" AND "to say something false". Getting the answer wrong on a test isn't a lie.

Because neither of them were meant to (hence being a reach), but the latter image suits it just fine

Neither were meant to what?

Unless something happened or prompted him to, which is my point: he's a liar. He would've, he did fight.

But in this context, he still has changed, and he didn't lie. The context changed. Goku was back. The reason he stopped was because Goku was no longer around. He was in conflict. He desperately wanted to prove that he was his old self who would kill without pity and cared for nothing except how strong he was. Now he had a home and a wife and child whom he was willing to give his life to defend. It's all there in his speech to Goku. Even Goku calls him out on his lie. Vegeta's still evil, but he has good people in his life whom he cares for. I think the sound of Sabat's voice reflects that than Drummond's more "Saturday morning cartoon" (for lack of a better term) villain voice.

[Sayo-chan]

Then it causes confusion, which is the reason we have words with definitions, so you can be clear in your own head and when you are communicating.

To you, but I've clarified my usage several times now, making this whole "confusion" spiel meaningless. I really don't care if you have an issue with some random connotation, it doesn't affect the denotation whatsoever. More over, words have definitions for multiple reasons, not just the one you're cherry picking, which I'm pretty sure is only partially valid.

It is if you want to use the correct word. Sure, words can have different meanings but there's a world of difference between Lie mean both "to say something false to deceive" and "assuming a horizontal position" vs. "to say something false with the intent to deceive" AND "to say something false". Getting the answer wrong on a test isn't a lie.

I did use the correct word. It adheres to the definition and there's no debating it, it's objective. By definition a wrong answer is a lie, it doesn't matter if you don't like it; that's the way it is.

Neither were meant to what?

To quote you, "imply that two actors should play the same part in the same show."

But in this context, he still has changed, and he didn't lie. The context changed. Goku was back. The reason he stopped was because Goku was no longer around. He was in conflict. He desperately wanted to prove that he was his old self who would kill without pity and cared for nothing except how strong he was. Now he had a home and a wife and child whom he was willing to give his life to defend. It's all there in his speech to Goku. Even Goku calls him out on his lie. Vegeta's still evil, but he has good people in his life whom he cares for. I think the sound of Sabat's voice reflects that than Drummond's more "Saturday morning cartoon" (for lack of a better term) villain voice.

He did lie. He said he wouldn't, but then he did. That's a falsehood, therefore he lied. And again, the change is insignificant. The context changing is irrelevant to falsehoods. Giving his life to defend? Oh yeah, ignoring how he almost killed Bulma in the blast, or how he knowingly endangered everyone by battling Goku. Actually, let's take it a step further. He got Bulma and himself killed. Yeah, that's defending them all right. Vegeta can say whatever he wants, it doesn't mean he's significantly changed. I maintain the position he's still the same shitbag until the laws of nature govern otherwise later in the arc. I don't thinK Sabat's voice reflects anything really, it still sounds like a melodramatic chain smoker's voice.

[Ree]

what does it mean to be a Saturday morning cartoon villain? that can sound like anyone.

[ABED]

"imply that two actors should play the same part in the same show."

But why does it bother you that some people prefer different actors for different aspects/timeperiods?

What about this bothers you?
http://puu.sh/k6jjl/52084b678a.png

He did lie. He said he wouldn't, but then he did. That's a falsehood, therefore he lied.

It wasn't a lie, he didn't say it to decieve anyone. He honestly believed that sice Goku was dead, he wouldn't fight again. And he stuck to that. Goku was "alive" so he didn't break that promise. He's still a piece of garbage, but he didn't lie.

Oh yeah, ignoring how he almost killed Bulma in the blast, or how he knowingly endangered everyone by battling Goku.

Not at issue. Yes he's cleaning up his mess, but older Vegeta wouldn't have. I think you think I'm saying he's good. I'm not, I'm saying he's changed.

what does it mean to be a Saturday morning cartoon villain? that can sound like anyone.

The stereotpyical evil voice from characters like Snidely Whiplash, Skeletor, The Joker, Cobra Commander... The kind of voices that shout "i am evil."

I don't thinK Sabat's voice reflects anything really, it still sounds like a melodramatic chain smoker's voice.

I disagree, I think he makes him sound like an arrogant dick which is who Vegeta is. I don't mind the rasp now that it's under control.

[Sayo-chan]

But why does it bother you that some people prefer different actors for different aspects/timeperiods?

Did you not read my post? I gave paragraphs of reasoning for why it bothers me. I don't care who they like, but saying one suits the other makes no sense for his voice to change.

It wasn't a lie, he didn't say it to decieve anyone. He honestly believed that sice Goku was dead, he wouldn't fight again. And he stuck to that. Goku was "alive" so he didn't break that promise. He's still a piece of garbage, but he didn't lie. Not at issue. Yes he's cleaning up his mess, but older Vegeta wouldn't have. I think you think I'm saying he's good. I'm not, I'm saying he's changed.

He doesn't have to. We've been over this, there are multiple definitions to words. The definition was literally cited in the post you quoted. There's no reason for this.

He's not really cleaning up much of anything. He's attempting to stop one potential threat, that doesn't somehow make up for anything he's done. He's changed, barely. That's been my position. He developed weak attachments, and they are weak based on his actions. That doesn't say much.

...The Joker...
I disagree, I think he makes him sound like an arrogant dick which is who Vegeta is. I don't mind the rasp now that it's under control.

Mark Hamil's Joker is anything but stereotypical. Drummond's voice isn't necessarily the problem, it's the direction he's given to inflect. This is why there's times where he sounds really sharp, and others where it's a wonder he got out of bed to read his lines into the microphone. Otherwise Drummond fits the character well, like the psychotic, mentally unstable murderer he is. I think this quote from earlier in the thread sums it up perfectly:

every bit of dialogue that Drummond's Vegeta had, it sounded like Vegeta was in love with himself and the sound of his own voice. And on top of that...Drummond did a masterful job of conveying Vegeta's anger.

Also, the perfect example of a bad voice is Brian Dobson's Dr. Gero. That's exactly to the syllable what you'd expect from a Saturday morning cartoon voice. Beep bop I am a robot.

[90sDBZ]

Drummond was awesome in the Saban dub. I know not everyone will agree with me, but I loved how he played up Vegeta's crazy psychopathic side more in them days. He sounded like a complete maniac and had the most incredible screams.

In the Westwood dub he took a more level grounded approach to the character, which I suppose could be argued is truer to the original. My only problem is that it takes away some of the best aspects of his performance, like the over the top crazy side. He's still decent, and gives one of the few acceptable performances in the Westwood dub, but he's no longer doing what I would call his signature Vegeta. What made his Vegeta so damn awesome and memorable to begin with was that he sounded like a believable maniac. Without that he doesn't really shine as much. I suppose it wouldn't have been practical for him to keep voicing Vegeta that way, considering the change in the character.

The thing is, Drummond did such a great job at making Vegeta sound insane that it's hard to believe he could ever turn good, and when he does it's almost like listening to a different character. I wouldn't go as far as to say Drummond no longer suits Vegeta in the later sagas. I just think doing good Vegeta is more Sabat's strength, in that he doesn't have to tone down the best aspects of his performance to keep it believable.

[ABED]

They aren't saying his voice needed to change, at least not as far as one can tell from the quotes alone.

Multiple definitions doesn't mean all are equal. I guess you could argue that he was decieving himself.

No, it doesn't make up, but it does stop further damage, or would had be been successful. Anakin Skywalker is still evil (despite what Lucas claims), but killing the Emperor does show change and it was cleaning up his mess. He can't make up for what he did, nor can Vegeta, but both did make big changes. Vegeta put aside his insecurities to create Vegetto, he admitted Goku was the best, came up with the plan to save the universe, and helped buy Goku time to gather energy.

I didn't say Hamill's Joker was bland, but it does scream evil. Plus, I didn't specify his Joker.

[Lord Beerus]

Drummond played a damn good Vegeta. He sounded so sinister and evil, but ultimately, the style of which he voiced started to sound less natural and fitting as the story progressed and Vegeta character started to calm down. He was the perfect English voice for Vegeta up until the Freeza arc.

[Sayo-chan]

They aren't saying his voice needed to change, at least not as far as one can tell from the quotes alone.

Anakin Skywalker is still evil (despite what Lucas claims), but killing the Emperor does show change and it was cleaning up his mess.

Some are, some aren't; that's irrelevant to what I've stated. I don't know why you keep drilling on that, when it really has nothing to do with my original post.

Vader's change was far more significant than Vegeta's "lol guess I fucked up" atonement. There's a reason Vader gets to come back as a Force spirit while Palpatine doesn't.

[ABED]

They aren't saying his voice needed to change, at least not as far as one can tell from the quotes alone.

Anakin Skywalker is still evil (despite what Lucas claims), but killing the Emperor does show change and it was cleaning up his mess.

Some are, some aren't; that's irrelevant to what I've stated. I don't know why you keep drilling on that, when it really has nothing to do with my original post.

Vader's change was far more significant than Vegeta's "lol guess I fucked up" atonement. There's a reason Vader gets to come back as a Force spirit while Palpatine doesn't.

I do find it relevant because barring that, I don't see an issue. What irritates you that someone has a preference for a different actor for a characteristic or timeperiod?

How was it more significant?

If we're going to use the force spirit argument, Porunga thinks Vegeta is a good guy.

I think that's absurd. A subtle change of heart doesn't somehow alter the physiology of your vocals and never is it implied it should in DBZ.

This is what I'm confused by because the quote you linked to doesn't even imply changing of someone's vocals.

[Sayo-chan]

I do find it relevant because barring that, I don't see an issue. What irritates you that someone has a preference for a different actor for a characteristic or timeperiod?

How was it more significant?

You can find it relevant, but that doesn't make it relevant, because it has nothing to do with what I said. It's not justified to say minor changes warrant a new voice. I already explained this, numerous times. I'm done repeating myself. If you want to know more and discuss it, read the paragraphs I posted on the first page.

Star Wars has a naturally richer and far more solid narrative, the character development also has more depth to it. Some people prefer Dragon Ball because it does the opposite of these things. Concerning Vader, his atonement is done purely out of the moral implications of his actions. He's moved by the love of his son, which prompts him to destroy his master. The guy he's been loyal to for decades. The guy he slaughtered children for. The guy he murdered his friends for. Vader realizes he screwed up, the moral implications seep in. He's giving up everything for his son. With Vegeta, there's really not much to it. He realizes he fucked up, continues to fuck up by knocking out Goku, shows some meager signs of affection and dies. He winds up in Hell for a reason. His atonement wasn't significant.

Vegeta put aside his insecurities to create Vegetto, he admitted Goku was the best, came up with the plan to save the universe, and helped buy Goku time to gather energy. If we're going to use the force spirit argument, Porunga thinks Vegeta is a good guy.

I think this is confirmation you didn't read my post. That was the point I consistently referred to as Vegeta's only significant turning point. And no, I may have jumped the gun on the Force spirit argument, seeing that I don't remember if it's merely a knowledgeably thing or genuinely only applicable to good guys. It seems to be the former.

This is what I'm confused by because the quote you linked to doesn't even imply changing of someone's vocals.

Yes it does. Drummong /=/ Sabat.

[ABED]

But seeing the error of your ways and even killing Palpatine doesn't make up for decades of murder and tyranny, it couldn't.

It's not justified to say minor changes warrant a new voice.

Agreed, but the quote you gave didn't claim that at all. THat's what's confusing.

His atonement wasn't significant.
Not what I'm arguing. I could be passive aggressive and continue to tell you to read what I wrote, but instead I'll tell you that wasn't my argument. Vegeta and Vader can never atone for what they did. The best they can do is change and try to stop the bleeding. In the case, Vegeta tries to stop Buu and ends up being

if it's merely a knowledgeably thing

Lucas isn't clear. In episode 3, Obi-Wan says that Quigon figured out how to join with the force or something like that.

Yes it does. Drummong /=/ Sabat.

No it doesn't they are simply saying that one voice is better at one aspect, and another is better at something else.

[Kamiccolo9]

I think this is confirmation you didn't read my post. That was the point I consistently referred to as Vegeta's only significant turning point. And no, I may have jumped the gun on the Force spirit argument, seeing that I don't remember if it's merely a knowledgeably thing or genuinely only applicable to good guys. It seems to be the former.

It's both. Knowledge is required, but the inherent nature of the Dark Side prevents it from working, as the person must be selfless and pure and all that Light Side jazz.

If you want to throw in the EU, Palpatine pulls off a twisted version of it, that results in his spirit wandering in torment in search of a host, but he's never able to become "one with the Force."