Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.
Nozawa should use this tone of voice more often, instead of the cutesy, high-pitched tone she uses for Goku in the lighthearted, slice-of-life scenes nowadays. You could say that she uses that because Super Goku's is more infantile than his Z counterpart, but I don't think that's the reason, since she used the same tone that she uses now back in Kai.
Can someone tell me whether is it true that Ginyu is still alive as a frog in the manga canon? Or was Ginyu Frog being transported to Earth entirely anime-only, and he actually died way back on Namek?
Xeogran wrote:Can someone tell me whether is it true that Ginyu is still alive as a frog in the manga canon? Or was Ginyu Frog being transported to Earth entirely anime-only, and he actually died way back on Namek?
I think that was just anime filler. An attempt to give the anime version of Resurrection F some new ideas. It doesn't really make sense, though. When Buu destroyed Earth, the people were wished back, except for the "really bad ones." So even if Ginyu were transported to Earth with the Namekians, even though no other animals were transported with him, Buu's destruction would have killed him. So did the dragon just not consider Ginyu a bad person? Unlikely.
I'm personally not a fan of how poorly the Saiyans were treated by a lot of the Frieza soldiers. I also wish new Broly had the same skin tone as old Broly. Then again the tanned skin does have the barbarian or jungle man appeal.
"We became like friends, we became like good friends." Broly to Cheelai and Lemo about his fur pelt.
SaiyanGod117 wrote:Hopefully, the next DB series has more worldbuilding and builds upon the existing lore the franchise has, since the worldbuilding in Super was nothing more than a footnote.
Sadly I don't think that will happen any sooner. Toriyama himself acknowledges that DB is basically just fighting, so if not Toyotaro, he might not really be interesting of introducing things beyond that.
Are we too old to enjoy new Dragon Ball movies/series?
Spoiler:
Nickolaidas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:10 am
Guys, I'm going to be straight with you. If you feel the show has gotten 'silly' ... it hasn't. You're just 'too old for this shit'. Seriously, 95% of the people in those boards do not fit the target demographic of the show, so don't expect the show to be 'everything you hoped for'. I'm referring to the people here who expect Super to be rich with dark moments, serious storytelling, meaningful characters etc etc. It won't. It's a show for kids. A show for kids being kids. Everyone in those boards has a manchild in him/her, clamoring to get out, and that's fine. But having unrealistic expectations (such as believing the show grew up alongside you) is naïve at best. Honestly, do you take seriously a story where the supposed God of Destruction halts his urges to blow up stuff in order to eat ice cream sundae? That's the show's silliness at full force, take it for what it is. The show hasn't matured one bit, so don't expect it too. Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying *that* is DB and always will be.
SaiyanGod117 wrote:Hopefully, the next DB series has more worldbuilding and builds upon the existing lore the franchise has, since the worldbuilding in Super was nothing more than a footnote.
Nah, worldbuilding is fine and to be honest, it's a concept that easily gets very boring. It's just exposition.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Noah wrote:
Sadly I don't think that will happen any sooner. Toriyama himself acknowledges that DB is basically just fighting, so if not Toyotaro, he might not really be interesting of introducing things beyond that.
I hope not, otherwise, the DB universe would stay extremely boring and flat.
ABED wrote:
SaiyanGod117 wrote:Hopefully, the next DB series has more worldbuilding and builds upon the existing lore the franchise has, since the worldbuilding in Super was nothing more than a footnote.
Nah, worldbuilding is fine and to be honest, it's a concept that easily gets very boring. It's just exposition.
It's definitely not, DB's is worldbuilding is bare and bland, and that is your opinion and exposition is great as long as it's used right. Besides, worldbuilding isn't just exposition.
SaiyanGod117 wrote:It's definitely not, DB's is worldbuilding is bare and bland, and that is your opinion and exposition is great as long as it's used right. Besides, worldbuilding isn't just exposition.
It is what it needs to be in order to tell a very simple story. More than that and it slows things to a crawl. Exposition CAN be great, but in small doses, unless you're telling a more complex story like a mystery. World building is exposition. If you don't think I'm right, instead of telling me I'm wrong, explain why.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
SaiyanGod117 wrote:It's definitely not, DB's is worldbuilding is bare and bland, and that is your opinion and exposition is great as long as it's used right. Besides, worldbuilding isn't just exposition.
It is what it needs to be in order to tell a very simple story. More than that and it slows things to a crawl. Exposition CAN be great, but in small doses, unless you're telling a more complex story like a mystery. World building is exposition. If you don't think I'm right, instead of telling me I'm wrong, explain why.
While DBS stories are straightforward, that doesn't take anything away from the flaws of its worldbuilding which is either underutilized or barebones. Just because a story uses its downtime for the chance to expand it's world, abilities, or characters doesn't mean it's unnecessary or takes away from its overall importance. I don't know what stories you've seen or read where a story slows to a crippling crawl, as a result of worldbuilding but that doesn't apply to all accounts. Since good worldbuilding actually enhances the story and provides more opportunities for it to be told in various ways. While exposition can be used to explain worldbuilding, doesn't mean that's the only form of it. A character using a new ability or going to a new location can be an implementation of worldbuilding from an in-universe perspective while using a new area or character to set the theme or tone can be an application from an out of universe one. There are many ways for writers to utilize worldbuilding, I'm just scratching the surface, and can only be heightened in visual pieces of media such as DB.
Lord of the Rings slows to a damn crawl for world building and exposition. Much of it adds NOTHING to the story except page count. I guess that's to be expected given Tolkien created the stories of Middle-earth for his Elvish language to exist in instead of the other way around. Good worldbuilding happens organically within the story and provides NECESSARY context for the story and the characters.
What world building in DB are you looking for?
DB's world building is just fine. It's simplistic, but effective.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
ABED wrote:Lord of the Rings slows to a damn crawl for world building and exposition. Much of it adds NOTHING to the story except page count. I guess that's to be expected given Tolkien created the stories of Middle-earth for his Elvish language to exist in instead of the other way around. Good worldbuilding happens organically within the story and provides NECESSARY context for the story and the characters.
Just because it was like that in LOTR doesn't mean it will be like that in other stories, you can't generalize a whole category off one or a few examples.
What world building in DB are you looking for?
To put it simply new locations, characters, power systems, and unique concepts. So, overall what I said above, provide new routes for the stories and characters to go, while also applying concepts in exciting ways. As well as, of course providing a necessary context for the story and characters.
DB's world building is just fine. It's simplistic, but effective.
I'm only about Super, DB-Z's worldbuilding is decent. As far as Super goes it's worldbuilding is trash.
There are whole new universes, there are more gods, there's angels, god ki. All this stuff has happened in Super. How is Super lacking in world building?
My problem with all this is that this isn't actually providing new places for the characters to go. Physically, yes, but how have they developed? What are the obstacles in the way or their goals? Those are questions that should be answered.
Just because it was like that in LOTR doesn't mean it will be like that in other stories, you can't generalize a whole category off one or a few examples.
It's a significant example, and one many people point to as the premiere example of great fantasy world building.
I think we should make this its own thread.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
ABED wrote:There are whole new universes, there are more gods, there's angels, god ki. All this stuff has happened in Super. How is Super lacking in world building?
Almost six years later they have done practically absolutely nothing with, yes, what amazing worldbuilding and lore expansion.
It's a significant example, and one many people point to as the premiere example of great fantasy world building.
I don't think that's fair, that was one written by one author and in a different period. Just as there're different people, there's different style of writing too, everyone has something unique to them. Not everyone is going tackle worldbuilding in the same way Tolkien did; likwewise, some writers may not even like him.
Grimlock wrote:
From what I have observed from you and Doctor. discussions, he just disagrees with your extremely optimistic stance about modern Dragon Ball.
I'm not extremely optimistic. I'm not biased one way or the other.
It's fine to dislike modern DB. That's not the point. But if you criticize it you should at least try to hide your underlying bias. He would criticize modern DB for certain aspects of it, and act as though it is exclusive to modern DB when the same aspect exists in the original series to a similar extent. It was a blatant double-standard, that shows his bias towards pessimism of modern DB.
Spoiler:
Super carries on much of Dragon Ball and Z's charm in ways that might not immediately be obvious, while also bringing something new to the table. I certainly can't think of any previous arcs like Goku Black, and, for all its problems, the Tournament of Power is possibly the most ambitious storytelling endeavor in series history as far as how its narrative unfolds. It's also a thrill ride, which is all I wanted and exactly what I got. Super also canonizes decades old fan theories in ways that very naturally tie into the overall fabric of Dragon Ball's world in satisfying ways. All in all, Dragon Ball, Z, and Super are all well worth experiencing.