Is Akira Toriyama more hated than loved? And by whom?

[Doctor.]

I don't quite get the bolded point.

He's talking about the over-the-top melodrama in long-running Shounen like One Piece and Naruto which have had plot points and entire arcs planned from their inception.

Of this generation's so called big three I've only read Naruto & Bleach and I never got the impression that they were all that planned out. Bleach is basically the same set of events repeating over and over and Naruto has a lot of concepts that Kishimoto clearly didn't think of when he first started like Tailed beasts, the Rinnegan, RIkudo Sennin etc. Basically most of the late game stuff.

Bleach is garbage.

One Piece has been planned from the beginning, at least most of it. Or, at the very least, Oda is good at backtracking and picking unfinished plot points and useless characters and using them in the future arcs. Though he admits he has the ending of One Piece planned already and it's only 65% in according to him.

Naruto clearly does have a lot of planned concepts. The tailed beasts were planned from the start, Kurama is already in the first page of the manga. All the stuff with Itachi was probably planned from the start too, and Tobi's identity was being built-up from the halfway point. It's still trash, but you could tell a degree of planning went into it that didn't go into a series like Dragon Ball.

But yea, I assume he was talking more-so about One Piece, since that's the majorly planned one and the one with really annoying melodrama (they try to make an emotional scene out of a fucking boat burning in flames).

[ABED]

In an ideal world, the stories might be planned out unless some better idea occurred to the writer(s), but in serialized mediums, it's not possible. They can plan things but there's still a lot of making it up as you or constantly having to make plans as you go.

[Cipher]

I was indeed throwing hella shade at series like One Piece and Naruto that tend to be held up by Toriyama-dismissing corners of internet as examples of superior writing in the genre.

Not because I actually have an axe to grind with them -- I don't -- but because I frequently see their approaches to serialized shonen action writing being used as the sort of thing a series like Dragon Ball is supposed to strive toward, goals or tone be damned.

And that writing comparison is often used to brush aside all of Toriyama's artistic and comic-crafting talent, as well as his work outside the action genre.

[TheUltimateNinja]

He's talking about the over-the-top melodrama in long-running Shounen like One Piece and Naruto which have had plot points and entire arcs planned from their inception.

Of this generation's so called big three I've only read Naruto & Bleach and I never got the impression that they were all that planned out. Bleach is basically the same set of events repeating over and over and Naruto has a lot of concepts that Kishimoto clearly didn't think of when he first started like Tailed beasts, the Rinnegan, RIkudo Sennin etc. Basically most of the late game stuff.

Bleach is garbage.

One Piece has been planned from the beginning, at least most of it. Or, at the very least, Oda is good at backtracking and picking unfinished plot points and useless characters and using them in the future arcs. Though he admits he has the ending of One Piece planned already and it's only 65% in according to him.

Naruto clearly does have a lot of planned concepts. The tailed beasts were planned from the start, Kurama is already in the first page of the manga. All the stuff with Itachi was probably planned from the start too, and Tobi's identity was being built-up from the halfway point. It's still trash, but you could tell a degree of planning went into it that didn't go into a series like Dragon Ball.

But yea, I assume he was talking more-so about One Piece, since that's the majorly planned one and the one with really annoying melodrama (they try to make an emotional scene out of a fucking boat burning in flames).

The tailed beasts actually weren't planned, initially Kurama and Shukaku were just random demons.

[Doctor.]

I was indeed throwing hella shade at series like One Piece and Naruto that tend to be held up by Toriyama-dismissing corners of internet as examples of superior writing in the genre.

Not because I actually have an axe to grind with them -- I don't; they just aren't for me -- but because I frequently see their approaches to serialized shonen action writing being used as the sort of thing a series like Dragon Ball is supposed to strive toward, goals or tone be damned.

One Piece is superior, in almost every way. It gets annoying at times with its repetitive nature (but, then again, "repetitive nature" is also a flaw you can throw at Dragon Ball) and with the ridiculous melodrama, but it's the better work if you're looking it from an "objective" point of view, in regards to purely and strictly the writing. Not necessarily the most charming or entertaining one, though. Dragon Ball is the Happy Meal to One Piece's Big Mac menu: you can get everything you want from both, but the latter can leave you nauseous due to how overwhelming it is, which would make the former the better choice. Terrible anology but I'm sticking with it.

Naruto is awful though. It's not even charming because it contradicts its own message halfway through the story.

[TheUltimateNinja]

I was indeed throwing hella shade at series like One Piece and Naruto that tend to be held up by Toriyama-dismissing corners of internet as examples of superior writing in the genre.

Not because I actually have an axe to grind with them -- I don't; they just aren't for me -- but because I frequently see their approaches to serialized shonen action writing being used as the sort of thing a series like Dragon Ball is supposed to strive toward, goals or tone be damned.

One Piece is superior, in almost every way. It gets annoying at times with its repetitive nature (but, then again, "repetitive nature" is also a flaw you can throw at Dragon Ball) and with the ridiculous melodrama, but it's the better work if you're looking it from an "objective" point of view, in regards to purely and strictly the writing. Not necessarily the most charming or entertaining one, though. Dragon Ball is the Happy Meal to One Piece's Big Mac menu: you can get everything you want from both, but the latter can leave you nauseous due to how overwhelming it is, which would make the former the better choice. Terrible anology but I'm sticking with it.

Naruto is awful though. It's not even charming because it contradicts its own message halfway through the story.

This point specifically is one of the main reasons I feel it wasn't planned, initially it's about creating your own destiny and whatnot but later on Naruto literally becomes the child of prophecy, thereby proving Neji completely right about his destiny stuff.

[ABED]

This point specifically is one of the main reasons I feel it wasn't planned, initially it's about creating your own destiny and whatnot but later on Naruto literally becomes the child of prophecy, thereby proving Neji completely right about his destiny stuff.

Groan. I'm not a fan of destiny as a concept or in stories. If an author is going to change his mind, change in the right direction. Going from "it's all destiny" to "create your own future" is not the right direction.

[sintzu]

Planning ahead to a certain degree is a good idea which Toriyama did like thinking about Namek during the 23rd Tenkaichi arc but I think setting up plot points VERY early on then building up to them for years can end up ruining a story cause if said plot point didn't live up to expectations then all that build up will seem like it was for nothing.

In DB, each arc is self contained until it's over. when we were on Namek it was all about Namek, we didn't have some behind the scenes plan going on with Gero or Babidi to build those arcs up. by doing that he made sure that each arc had its own identity, got his full attention and he didn't put too much pressure on what was to come next nor did he have the success of the arc he was writing depen on a pay off way later down the line.

Now let's look at Naruto, everything in Naruto was the result of Madara and Obito's actions and we found out about this pretty early on so what happened ? The reason behind why Obito did what he did and Madara being taken out in favor of a completely new final villain pretty much ruined the whole story for some fans, fans who loved it or most of it until that point.

Now, some fans don't like the RRA arc in DB but because it doesn't hold the weight of the entire franchise like the above points in Naruto, people don't hold it against the rest of the story cause like the other DB arcs, it's its own story, it starts and ends as its own thing and when it's over something completely new starts.

Don't get me wrong, DB's arcs are certainly connected to one another but not in a way where if one goes wrong then everything else before and after fall apart as a result.

[Cipher]

One Piece is superior, in almost every way. It gets annoying at times with its repetitive nature (but, then again, "repetitive nature" is also a flaw you can throw at Dragon Ball) and with the ridiculous melodrama, but it's the better work if you're looking it from an "objective" point of view, in regards to purely and strictly the writing. Not necessarily the most charming or entertaining one, though. Dragon Ball is the Happy Meal to One Piece's Big Mac menu: you can get everything you want from both, but the latter can leave you nauseous due to how overwhelming it is, which would make the former the better choice. Terrible anology but I'm sticking with it.

This is the exact sentiment I take issue with, though, especially the "objective" part. For one, it's clear they set out with different goals; Dragon Ball's out to be a carefree romp, while One Piece seems to have epic ambitions for the start. On top of that, I'm not willing at all in this case to say that the presence of self-serious melodrama makes the better work simply because it's a more present thematic gesture.

If it gets into a plot or complexity comparison, I'm not entirely comfortable calling that deciding factor and ignoring other elements of craft and execution either.

I'm not knocking One Piece, because I think it's probably a great thing to follow for its target audience(?), but I don't think this is a case where an objective comparison between works applies. Dragon Ball's perfectly successful at what it sets out to do, superlatively so in a number of elements. The emotional power of either, which I would normally call a fair area for comparison even between disparate works, is going to depend a lot on your tolerance for melodrama and thematic transparency, given the target age ranges.

[ABED]

I think you can objectively appraise works of art, but comparisons are tricky, especially as Cipher is pointing out.

[TheUltimateNinja]

This point specifically is one of the main reasons I feel it wasn't planned, initially it's about creating your own destiny and whatnot but later on Naruto literally becomes the child of prophecy, thereby proving Neji completely right about his destiny stuff.

Groan. I'm not a fan of destiny as a concept or in stories. If an author is going to change his mind, change in the right direction. Going from "it's all destiny" to "create your own future" is not the right direction.

Kishi did just the opposite, he went from "create your own future" to "it's all destiny."

[Doctor.]

This is the exact sentiment I take issue with, though, especially the "objective" part. For one, it's clear they set out with different goals; Dragon Ball's out to be a carefree romp, while One Piece seems to have epic ambitions for the start. On top of that, I'm not willing at all in this case to say that the presence of self-serious melodrama makes the better work simply because it's a more present thematic gesture.

I don't see why you should take an issue with it. Quality is subjective but there are still objective bases. You can enjoy your friend's poem, which he wrote while drunk about a situation only you and him know about, more than Homer's Iliad, but which one will you claim is better? I don't think people claim One Piece is better because it has things Dragon Ball does not, namely the melodrama. They claim it's better because it does the things Dragon Ball does better, plus more things. At least in their (and my) point of view.

If it gets into a plot or complexity comparison, I'm not entirely comfortable calling that deciding factor and ignoring other elements of craft and execution.

Which is why I said strictly from a writing perspective. A manga is still a visual medium. Dragon Ball's panel flow, art style and choreography are unrivalled.

I'm not knocking One Piece, because I think it's probably a great thing to follow for its target audience(?), but I don't think this is a case where an objective comparison between works applies. Dragon Ball's perfectly successful at what it sets out to do, superlatively so in a number of elements. The emotional power of either, which I would normally call a fair area for comparison even between disparate works, is going to depend a lot on your tolerance for melodrama and thematic transparency.

I disagree, you can make an objective comparison between anything. Dragon Ball is successful at what it sets out to do, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism. 50 shades of grey was sucessful at what it set out to do, are we going to suddenly claim that you can't compare it to Hamlet? Of course you can compare it to Hamlet, Hamlet is better. I know these kinds of discussions, particularly in the anime community, tend to devolve into those kinds of "Your taste is shit!" parties but that's only because the community is ignorant.

But I'm a fan of formalism (and would even call myself a formalist, though not an extreme one), a method of literary criticism which has long since been abandoned by scholars all the way back in the 70s, so I'm probably just being a hipster pseudo-intellectual.

[ABED]

Whoops, I meant the opposite. Going from it's all destiny to your fate is what you make of it IS the right direction. I don't know how I screwed that up.

[Cipher]

I think you can objectively appraise works of art, but comparisons are tricky, especially as Cipher is pointing out.

I should probably clarify that I think critical, comparitive appraisals 100%, absolutely have a place in discussion of art and fiction ("objective" is arguable, but there are nearly universal standards for a reason).

I shy away from it in this case because comparison depends so much on the goals of the works in question and their relative successes in meeting them. I don't think it's remotely clear that Dragon Ball is any less successful in executing what it sets out to do than One Piece is. And in terms of a matter of which is more impactful regardless of goals (because I'd certainly be willing to say The Great Gatsby is a better work than ... I don't know, a Tom Clancy novel that's a totally successful execution of its genre), the fact that the stories are written toward younger audiences, and the way One Piece goes about conveying its themes, makes it hard to compare them on that front. The kind of melodrama that might make One Piece more emotionally compelling for young readers is exactly the kind of thing that can make it harder to tolerate for adults. Is that good? Bad? Could it simply be a bit more graceful and avoid that kind of disconnect between age ranges? Is Dragon Ball better off for just eschewing purposeful thematic gestures?

I honestly don't know. But I don't think the answer is cut-and-dried.

Since I wrote this while you were queueing up your last post, Doctor., hopefully this gets at some of your responses above.

[TheUltimateNinja]

Whoops, I meant the opposite. Going from it's all destiny to your fate is what you make of it IS the right direction. I don't know how I screwed that up.

It's hilarious because Neji changes his entire worldview based on that fight, back then Naruto was all about how even a failure can surpass an elite through hard work and anyone can change their destiny and Neji believed people could only do what they were predestined to, and he was totally right. The "failure" who beat him was the child of 2 of Konoha's greatest heroes and the reincarnation of Ashura and a descendant of Rikudo Sennin who is basically the god of ninja.

But I'm a fan of formalism (and would even call myself a formalist, though not an extreme one), a method of literary criticism which has long since been abandoned by scholars all the way back in the 70s, so I'm probably just being a hipster pseudo-intellectual.

Being reviewed by a formalist, DB never stood a chance in the first place.

[ABED]

However, I am a fan of the way Harry Potter used destiny. Would Voldemort have come after Harry had he not seen the prophecy? It has its cake and eats it, too.

[sintzu]

One Piece is superior, in almost every way.

It depends on what you're looking for.

One Piece is a complex story that has a lot of things happening at the same time and it requires the reader to remember a lot of characters and plots.

DB on the other hand is a simple story where each arc is its own thing and readers aren't required to remember huge amounts of information.

This doesn't mean one is better than the other, it's just that the authors have different writing styles. I personally prefer Toriyama's cause he doesn't put all his eggs in one basket like what Oda and Kishimoto did and his writing style makes the story feels a lot shorter than it is which is a really good thing. He also leaves the readers wanting more which I can't say about the so called "big 3".

[ekrolo2]

I'd say one of DBs strengths in comparison to Naruto and ESPECIALLY One Piece is that it's as blunt as an atom bomb. Too often does modern Shonen, not always but often enough, get mired in its own tiresome melodrama that it just gets either annoying or unintentionally funny (seriously, Sanji's over the top backstory might just be some of the funniest shit I've seen from a manga in ages).

Dragon Ball, thankfully and frustratingly, doesn't really dwell on this kind of stuff. Vegeta's a barely reformed sociopath? Who cares! Goku keeps putting the universe at risk? Who cares!

[ABED]

What do you consider melodrama?

[Doctor.]

Since I wrote this while you were queueing up your last post, Doctor., hopefully this gets at some of your responses above.

I just feel like if your favorite work doesn't hold up to some other work you may not enjoy as much, then why is that important? It's your favorite work because you enjoy it the most, not because it's intellectually stimulating (well, it can be, but it's not a necessity) or deals with philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness or whatever other crazy, wacky shtuff. Quality and entertainment are different concepts and they can and should be seperated. And bringing in outside factors such as the sociocultural context, the author's backstory or the intention of the work will (to a degree) blur the line between those two concepts to the point where criticism becomes too subjective (though, again, I don't consider myself an extreme formalist, so I'm not advocating for the total exclusion of these outside factors in the critical evaluation and comparison of works; I just think their relevance should be minimal). And why else does criticism exist if not to (try to) be objective and neutral?