What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

User avatar
8000 Saiyan
I Live Here
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:03 am

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by 8000 Saiyan » Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:57 pm

Frankly, I've never been impressed with Mignogna in anything, maybe except Bubsy. That grating, nasal voice of his fit that annoying character perfectly. And as Edward Elric, well, I already posted a clip comparing both Japanese and English versions of two scenes of FMA 2003, and he just made Edward come across like a spoiled whiny brat like the script did.
"It was deemed to be too awesome." - Scott McNeil on Dragon Ball Kai not being aired yet in Canada.

User avatar
Scsigs
I Live Here
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:55 am
Location: NY, USA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Scsigs » Mon Oct 28, 2019 6:31 pm

8000 Saiyan wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:57 pm
Frankly, I've never been impressed with Mignogna in anything, maybe except Bubsy. That grating, nasal voice of his fit that annoying character perfectly. And as Edward Elric, well, I already posted a clip comparing both Japanese and English versions of two scenes of FMA 2003, and he just made Edward come across like a spoiled whiny brat like the script did.
Well, no one likes Bubsy. However, if you say that the script made the '03 anime's take on Edward sound like a brat, that's more so a fault of the script writers & the directors & not so much his fault. As well, if he fit playing the character that way, that means he's actually good at acting the part, doesn't it? It seems your problems lie in the production as a whole & you're just focusing all your anger on Vic for something that he was instructed to do & delivered on as opposed for something he did completely on his own.

Even then, Brotherhood is the superior anime in every sense of the word, so I think something more modern & not at the start of his career would be better. That'd be like taking Sean Schemmel's recordings from Z & saying, "Look! Sean can't act! And the script is terrible!" Even though he was a rookie getting terrible direction & the scripts were out of his control, which, even HE hates those old scripts, & has gotten noticeably better over time & delivering a mostly consistently fantastic performance in everything since Kai. Though, Vic entered at a better time in FUNi's history than Sean & the FMA dub is pound-for-pound a better dub than Z's.
Only dubs that matter are DB, Kai, & Super. Nothing else.
Vic Mignogna: Good actor & singer, but a MAJOR douchebag & idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Scsigs
https://twitter.com/Scsigs

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2156
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by WittyUsername » Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:11 pm

8000 Saiyan wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:57 pm
Frankly, I've never been impressed with Mignogna in anything, maybe except Bubsy. That grating, nasal voice of his fit that annoying character perfectly. And as Edward Elric, well, I already posted a clip comparing both Japanese and English versions of two scenes of FMA 2003, and he just made Edward come across like a spoiled whiny brat like the script did.
What about his singing?

User avatar
Super Sonic
I Live Here
Posts: 4976
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:45 pm

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Super Sonic » Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:21 pm

Broly was the first thing I knew him for, and I liked it. Back in 2007, when I had him sign my dvd of the first Broly movie, he was surprised to see it, and happy to sign. Had a few times when something similar to happen of having actors sign things they weren't expecting after mainly signing some things they were more known for at places. Ten years ago, was at a Canadian con and a lot of folks had Sam Vincent signing Gundum stuff, and when I handed him Ed, Edd n Eddy season 2, he was surprised, and asked if I was from the States.

User avatar
8000 Saiyan
I Live Here
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:03 am

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by 8000 Saiyan » Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:35 am

Even if his performance in Brotherhood is better than his 2003 performance, I'm still not fond of it as he just sounds too old for Edward's age. I wouldn't even say Brotherhood is the best Funimation dub ever, that in my opinion belongs to My Hero Academia.
WittyUsername wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:11 pm
8000 Saiyan wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 3:57 pm
Frankly, I've never been impressed with Mignogna in anything, maybe except Bubsy. That grating, nasal voice of his fit that annoying character perfectly. And as Edward Elric, well, I already posted a clip comparing both Japanese and English versions of two scenes of FMA 2003, and he just made Edward come across like a spoiled whiny brat like the script did.
What about his singing?
I haven't exactly heard a lot of his songs, but I liked whatever I've heard of his singing. So I guess he's a good singer.
"It was deemed to be too awesome." - Scott McNeil on Dragon Ball Kai not being aired yet in Canada.

User avatar
Scsigs
I Live Here
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:55 am
Location: NY, USA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Scsigs » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:13 am

8000 Saiyan wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:35 am
Even if his performance in Brotherhood is better than his 2003 performance, I'm still not fond of it as he just sounds too old for Edward's age. I wouldn't even say Brotherhood is the best Funimation dub ever, that in my opinion belongs to My Hero Academia.
I mean, I don't even think FMAB is their best dub. I'd need to sample more of their dubs to make that call. I'm partial to the 2009 on DB dubs & the One Piece dub, honestly. Brotherhood's is definitely great, though, no question.
Only dubs that matter are DB, Kai, & Super. Nothing else.
Vic Mignogna: Good actor & singer, but a MAJOR douchebag & idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Scsigs
https://twitter.com/Scsigs

User avatar
Yuli Ban
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Yuli Ban » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:45 pm

MetaMoss wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:24 pm
The way I see it, you're doing yourself a disservice with the tone you convey in these posts.
Then let me take a crack at it:
There is an animation age ghetto in the world. In most places, cartoons are seen as children's entertainment. This started in the 1950s when television boomed and cartoon budgets dropped. Whereas some places like Russia kept animation as a cross-age thing, in the West (and Japan for a short time), animation was either for kids or "for the family/everyone".
Then in the '80s, mainstream Western cartoons started dabbling with "more mature" themes: e.g. the shows were no longer just an endless procession of jokes, gags, and easy-to-follow plots with no consequences. In the 90s, anime started being dubbed in very large numbers and, unlike Western shows which were quasi-mandated to never have plots that lasted longer than two episodes, they were closer to telenovelas in animated form, and they often featured characters who did things you otherwise only saw in PG-13 & R-rated movies like swear, kill, get sexually aroused, and whatnot. This was confused for "being mature adult-oriented entertainment" even though these same anime shows were literally children's after-school programming in Japan.

Before the '90s, if you wanted something a show whose consequences lasted longer than a single episode or two-parter (like a sitcom or episodic action program), then you tended to watch programs that were made for some more serious purpose, like a miniseries or something on HBO. That, or you read a book. Comics had only just recently moved out of their own ghetto the previous decade, but generally, if you wanted a story with serious and mature elements, you read John Updike or William Faulkner— whose books (mostly) were free of "silly" plots of exaggerated caricatures doing cartoonishly over-the-top things. Otherwise, you read some thriller that paid lip service to bigger themes but was not meant as high literature that seriously discussed heavy topics (e.g. Stephen King or Ian Fleming). Literature types recognized this. Tom Clancy talks heavily about when geopolitics go wrong and how military weaponry functions (to the point some wondered if he had somehow compromised the military), but the literati was never going to say he was an amazing authority on geopolitics or social ideologies.

Superheroes were just men and women in tights with flashy names fighting to save the city/world/universe from men & women in tights and flashy names who wanted to destroy or conquer these things. By nature, superhero comics and movies weren't going to compete with even Ian Fleming.

That didn't make these things "childish" necessarily, especially after we got things like The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, and whatnot. People were putting V For Vendetta in a roughly similar league as Nineteen Eighty-Four and We. But these were works deliberately intended on invoking more literary themes, and even then they're not the end-all-be-all of dystopian literature by far.

And then you get to things like the Matrix. Certainly it deals with a profound topic, but it's not some grand literary gesture about it.

For youths who grew up in the '90s and '00s, seeing cartoons & heavily merchandised media suddenly start referencing bigger things, themes, and ideas that used to be stuff just for the stuffy adults created a sort of equivalency, as if animation had finally "grown up". Therefore, a show that's intended for 8-year-olds should be treated with the exact same critical examination as one for college-educated 24-40s because both reference the Cold War and the ideological clash between capitalism and communism.

And don't get me wrong: cartoons from before the '90s not being allowed to be anything more than silly gag collections & toy commercials is always going to be much more "bullshit" than cartoon fans thinking Rick & Morty is a nuanced examination of the human psyche and physics.



To get to the central point: people who grew up with post-90s media largely haven't read or watched media whose main conceit is delving into deep & "mature" topics because so many works since then have been "middle-brow". They think that One Piece referencing geopolitical organizations & occasionally showing their function is the equivalent of Leo Tolstoy because as far as they know, it might as well be. But One Piece is a children's show from Japan, meant to entertain. Tolstoy also meant to entertain, but for a different audience that was more capable of understanding nuance and reflecting on that nuance. That's just fact, it's not being elitist— a child isn't going to understand the complexities of interfamily drama or angst over social class structures beyond a shallow level that has to be direct & show as much as possible so that it's understood. But it's certainly fine for them to be introduced to these concepts. No one's against children's media talking about these things. It's just when someone seriously and unironically thinks that Kill La Kill is actually one of the deepest & emotional examinations of feminism and gender roles in Japanese society out there that it becomes... iffy. But at least you're thinking about it, so why not use what you've experienced to find more works like it? Works that do an even better job at expressing these big ideas? KLK isn't going to suddenly not exist just because you're doing so, and no one's saying you have to stop enjoying it.


TLDR: these works are all children's media. They're meant for children or the family. The standards for children's media have, thankfully, changed because it turns out people under the age of 13 aren't unevolved troglodytes who can't follow a plot longer than 22 minutes or won't care about something if they can't laugh at it at all times. But they do have different preferences and understanding of things as a result of brains that are still developing.
However, as a result of standards for children's media rising, a very large number of people now think that children's media is basically high art and there's no need to expand beyond it.
I.e. Harry Potter has themes of friendship, self-doubt, political corruption, and lust for power, therefore Harry Potter is a standard for these themes and is just as deep as any other work that features them, even though entire classic and modern novels have gone into greater depth on each singular theme. This suggests a sense that people refuse to grow beyond what they read as children or what they think is complex and layered storytelling— a common rebuttal is "well what if I think Harry Potter is better and deeper than those other novels?" when 999 times out of 1,000, these same people haven't even heard of these novels before you bring them up.

I can see how this might be taken for elitism until it's something you're familiar with. It's not an equivalent, but an analogy would be an experienced historian who specializes in Renaissance Italy & the Medici family circa 1440-1540 trying to have a conversation with someone whose entire knowledge of the Renaissance comes from high school textbooks and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
May or may not be writing a Dragon Ball-inspired serial.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 16296
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by ABED » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:14 pm

To be fair, the biggest reason TV was episodic until rather recently is because you couldn't count on people (adults included) having seen every episode or even most of them. It wasn't a reasonable expectation. I guess the reason stories based on manga could be so serialized is because people could always find past issues or volumes.
Then in the '80s, mainstream Western cartoons started dabbling with "more mature" themes: e.g. the shows were no longer just an endless procession of jokes, gags, and easy-to-follow plots with no consequences.
What shows are your alluding to here?
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.

User avatar
Yuli Ban
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Yuli Ban » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm

ABED wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:14 pm
To be fair, the biggest reason TV was episodic until rather recently is because you couldn't count on people (adults included) having seen every episode or even most of them. It wasn't a reasonable expectation. I guess the reason stories based on manga could be so serialized is because people could always find past issues or volumes.
I intended on referencing this, but the post was already ballooning in size. But yes, this is the reason why sitcoms and episodic structures were dominant for so long: advertisers and marketers saw that audiences would get frustrated if they had to keep up with a show to follow an ongoing plot. Since they wanted to keep viewers coming back, making them think they couldn't jump into the current episode & should wait until a later rerun of earlier episodes is probably going to hurt your bottom line.
What shows are your alluding to here?
It didn't really get going until the '90s with the likes of Swat Kats, Sonic SatAM, Gargoyles, Batman: The Animated Series, and whatnot. Anime was growing fairly large during this time as well, so it's not like there was no awareness of Macross, Speed Racer, or The Rose of Versailles. But at the time, anime was still "niche imported cartoons" that would get bandied around networks (often in butchered forms), and it wasn't until a dedicated block with Toonami that we got a meteoric and self-perpetuated ongoing awareness (unless you were watching channels dedicated to international television).
Once upon a time, Sonic the Hedgehog in 1993 was considered a deep, dark, and unusually well-connected animated program, and when Swat Kats: The Radical Squadron was canceled, one reason was because Ted Turner (i.e. the man in charge of Turner Broadcasting) thought it was way too dark and violent for children.
A couple years later, we got (a heavily censored) sci-fi/wuxia toon featuring sexual predators, death treated seriously, dismemberment on screen, a fair amount of swearing, and much more— and even this show is considered to be for kids of a slightly younger age back in its home country, the same age to those who'd be watching Ed Edd n Eddy and SpongeBob here in America at the time. But even though we were allowing shows like Ren & Stimpy to get away with being children-oriented but getting loads of things past the moral guardians' radar, those old dubs often tried to make anime suitable for ages 3+ (which is where so many now classic and memetic dubisms came from).
Last edited by Yuli Ban on Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May or may not be writing a Dragon Ball-inspired serial.

User avatar
8000 Saiyan
I Live Here
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:03 am

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by 8000 Saiyan » Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm

G.I. Joe comes to mind as one of those shows that began telling more mature stories than most 80's cartoons. For example, there's a two-parter where a Joe is supposedly a traitor and another two-parter where Cobra has taken over the world and the Joes there are dead. You can even see skeletons of three dead Joes. It wasn't as mature as the Larry Hama Marvel comics, but it sure tried to do mature stories from time to time.
"It was deemed to be too awesome." - Scott McNeil on Dragon Ball Kai not being aired yet in Canada.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 16296
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by ABED » Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:27 pm

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm
I intended on referencing this, but the post was already ballooning in size. But yes, this is the reason why sitcoms and episodic structures were dominant for so long: advertisers and marketers saw that audiences would get frustrated if they had to keep up with a show to follow an ongoing plot. Since they wanted to keep viewers coming back, making them think they couldn't jump into the current episode & should wait until a later rerun of earlier episodes is probably going to hurt your bottom line.
Are you couching this as a negative? I honestly can't tell. From the audience's perspective, having a super serialized show you didn't see from the beginning and didn't have access to what came before, that does tend to put a damper on any emotional investment one might have.

Occassionally 80s cartoons MIGHT feature something that was a little more intelligent, but by and large if the cartoons weren't long toy commercials (not a criticism, just the facts) they were edu-tainment.

Wait, what does this have to do with Mignogna's take on Broly? Regardless, it's infinitely more interesting than a mediocre actor's mediocre performance.
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.

User avatar
Yuli Ban
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Yuli Ban » Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:41 pm

VegettoEX wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:37 am
Cursed Lemon wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:08 am
Oh, I don't know.
I've never seen this dubbed with the replacement music before.

I'm gonna need a few minutes here. On, like, multiple levels.

Just. Fucking. What. Wow.
It's been nearly 20 years, and you've never seen this in this form? I'm probably going to give you an aneurysm saying this, but this is unironically one of the most iconic scenes in all of Dragon Ball Z... In America, I mean. If you ask an American fan to point out one of Dragon Ball Z's biggest and best moments (including the movies), I wouldn't be surprised if this was at least #5. Broly's scream & transformation + Pantera kicking in is, for quite a lot of people, everything right about Dragon Ball Z.

I mean personally, I unironically like it. It's undeniably badass. The problem is, of course, it's absolutely not "Dragon Ball". It's a foreign bastardization of Dragon Ball called "American Dragon Ball Z." It's about as outrageously unfitting as if Black Sabbath's "Children of the Grave" suddenly started blasting halfway through Drunken Master during the restaurant fight scene (or maybe if someone put the Ramones's "Blitzkrieg Bop" in Star Wars when the Stormtroopers are chasing the heroes ). But it is what I grew up with, and even distancing myself from it, I can't say they didn't make it seem exactly like what you'd imagine early 2000s DBZ to be: hypermasculine and badass. The only reason I even realize it's unfitting is because of information on Kanzenshuu leading me to do more research on the series and realize it's actually much more related to those kung fu movies I watched growing up (and still watch on YouTube) than I ever thought.

Like, if you want to understand why "Dragon Ball Z" and pre-Super Broly in the West is the way it is, just watch this scene. It basically sold Broly to millions of fans, for better or worse.
May or may not be writing a Dragon Ball-inspired serial.

User avatar
Yuli Ban
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Yuli Ban » Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:48 pm

8000 Saiyan wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm
G.I. Joe comes to mind as one of those shows that began telling more mature stories than most 80's cartoons. For example, there's a two-parter where a Joe is supposedly a traitor and another two-parter where Cobra has taken over the world and the Joes there are dead. You can even see skeletons of three dead Joes. It wasn't as mature as the Larry Hama Marvel comics, but it sure tried to do mature stories from time to time.
And I think this is the issue right here.
These "mature" stories are completely bog-standard for shonen and shojo anime, demographics that basically amount to "school-age children". Hell, there's nothing in them that's any darker than what you might find in an unadulterated Brothers Grimm fairy tale. It's often shocking to people to learn that these old pre-Disney fairy tales were so "violent" or "sexual" or "realistic" because of that aforementioned swath of history where multiple generations grew up thinking there was child-friendly "escapism" and there was adult "realism" and the two should never meet (and even the realism was unrealistic most of the time). Realism (and that's actual realism as in "actions have realistic consequences and characters grow beyond caricatures", not "darker, edgier, grittier, sexier, browner and greyer" edgelord-approved pseudo-realism) has been adopted into escapism once again. When it first came to America, Dragon Ball had an unprecedented amount of realism for a cartoon as far as most people were concerned.

Children's media in America between the mid-50s and the 90s was so incredibly neutered and saccharine that our perception of what's "child-friendly" is completely skewed. Children can handle much heavier topics than American media gives them credit for— as we've seen in Japanese children's media. Whether it was the Hays Code, Comics Code Authority, or the general restrictions on animation & children's programming, American media wanted to shield its young citizens from any harsh reality. And this in itself was building off moralizing established during the Victorian era that wanted to promote the idea of children as being innocent and uncorrupted by the world.

That's why it was easy to grow out of cartoons. Once you realized they existed in a state of total, absolute escapism with only fleeting references to reality ever so often (usually through a celebrity cameo or basic family dynamics), there was nothing keeping you watching other than personal preference (which, before the '90s, could get you labeled a schizophrenic infantile loser if you were so much as rumored to still watch cartoons after you were 13).

That's why so many things in pop culture are celebrated as great pieces of mature storytelling and, thus, why it's so hard for some to grow out of children's entertainment. They are ultimately escapist stories, but adding even a modicum of "realism" into them suddenly makes them more "mature" to a large subset of people— and once they are in any slight way "mature", they are suddenly seen as on par with any other form of middle-brow or high-brow art because post-Victorian mid-20th century Western moral guardians went out of their way to sell a horrifyingly unrealistic & immature fantasy version of the world to kids.


I don't mean to say that you can't enjoy these things or that they have no value. Because conversely: compare how people would feel about a grown-up who views the Adventures of Gulliver, Hong Kong Phooey, and The Amazing Chan and the Chan Clan as artistic milestones through which they could view as high watermarks of pop culture. Now compare how people would feel about someone who does the same for Avatar: The Last Airbender or Neon Genesis Evangelion. The latter seems much more acceptable simply because those shows possess far more realism (though they'd still be stunted in their references to media), whereas we'd probably consider the former to be mentally challenged.
May or may not be writing a Dragon Ball-inspired serial.

User avatar
Kunzait_83
I Live Here
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:19 pm

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Kunzait_83 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:41 pm

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm
It didn't really get going until the '90s with the likes of Swat Kats, Sonic SatAM, Gargoyles, Batman: The Animated Series, and whatnot. Anime was growing fairly large during this time as well, so it's not like there was no awareness of Macross, Speed Racer, or The Rose of Versailles. But at the time, anime was still "niche imported cartoons" that would get bandied around networks (often in butchered forms), and it wasn't until a dedicated block with Toonami that we got a meteoric and self-perpetuated ongoing awareness (unless you were watching channels dedicated to international television).
This is without a doubt me entering into fully-fledged "broken record" mode by now, but this entire narrative you just outlined here regarding the history of anime in the U.S. is PRECISELY the completely mistaken & flat out factually incorrect (or at least EXCEEDINGLY incomplete) assumption that's made about it on sites & communities like this one: its a horribly skewed perspective of the medium's Western history that's borne of a flagrantly widespread media bias/hyper-awareness of children's television (in all its detailed history, trivia, and minutia) at the near total expense of any semblance of perspective or awareness toward what was happening in NON-children's media during that same exact time. Up to, and including the status of anime outside the kids' TV realm, where a LOT MORE was happening with it.

While everything you outlined is more or less totally in line with the history of anime in America with regards to broadcast children's television programming, that side of the U.S. anime industry is only just ONE of several sides and facets of it from during that same time period. Anime's impact and spread into Western/American culture IS NOT solely or primarily relegated to heavily edited broadcast children's TV airings, and in point of fact its pervasiveness into the video/VHS market (for an almost strictly adult audience who were aware of anime as a Japanese medium) was of FAR infinitely greater significance in the pre-Toonami years.

This is precisely the realm where titles like Akira, Ninja Scroll, Ghost in the Shell, Vampire Hunter D, Golgo 13, Crying Freeman, Gunbuster, Devilman, Guyver, Fist of the North Star, and countless others had first made their mark on Western/American popular culture, and many of those titles were of substantially greater notoriety and notability within the video/VHS market among much older audiences of that time than were a majority of the titles that were edited for kids' TV (save for some particularly notable exceptions like Macross/Robotech and Sailor Moon and such).

In other words, you had comparatively FAR greater odds in say, 1992, of coming across people in their 20s and 30s who had seen and become fans of something like Akira or Vampire Hunter D or even Fist of the North Star via stumbling across them in their local video store (or seeing them on late night cable channels like HBO or Showtime) than you would random kids who were REALLY big into something FAR more relatively obscure at the time like G-Force: Guardians of Space, Dragon Warrior, or even Ronin Warriors just a few years later.

Basically, within communities like this when it comes to discussions of basic history of anime in North America in the 1980s and 90s, FAR too much absurd degree of emphasis is often put on treating the broadcast children's television end of the North American market (down to plumbing for even the most apocryphal, obscure details of it) as if its the one and only thing that had ever happened or was of any significance, whilst all but COMPLETELY ignoring the entire EXISTENCE of the far, far more expansive and noteworthy adult VHS market for anime that was quickly and consistently growing during those same years.

I'd go so far as to argue that even Toonami, for as almost completely detached as its typical choices in anime titles often were from the kind most often focused on in the VHS market throughout the previous decade, still owed a LOT to that same previous VHS anime industry: the adult-aimed anime VHS market that had ballooned exponentially in size and success from the mid/late 80s up through into the late 90s, had basically all but single-handedly created the foundations and infrastructure for the anime DVD industry of the 2000s to thrive in the way that it initially did during the early Toonami era. The target audience and the material may have shifted significantly, but the building blocks for selling anime on home media was already well in place by then and had been long-established.

Same exact principal by the way, goes for the Western/American Manga market as well, but that's a whole other tangent entirely.

The bigger point though is that there's a GARGANTUAN historical blindspot that this community has always, always, ALWAYS had when it comes to understanding even VERY basic, rudimentary history and crucial details behind just how exactly anime first grew into popularity in the Western world in the 80s and 90s: and that blindspot is almost 100% due to a hyper-focus on children's broadcast television compounded by in a great many cases a near ZERO baseline intellectual curiosity for what pop culture OUTSIDE OF that realm was also going through during those same years. And this most certainly extends to anime, whose U.S./Western history is, I cannot stress enough, SO much bigger and denser (and FAR more interesting) than simply what happened to it in the realm of children's broadcast TV.

At the risk of belaboring what should be a beyond obvious point (and this next part isn't necessarily commenting on Yuli's posts, since he's by quantum leaps and bounds shown himself to be of endlessly greater pop culture/media awareness and literacy than this): PLENTY of other - vastly more significant - things were happening in pop culture and media in general during and throughout the 1980s and 90s outside of the likes of Fox Kids, Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, and other kids' programming blocks of the 80s and 90s. Even well apart from things like adult prime time television, there was an entire UNIVERSE of media that existed during those years that WASN'T in ANY way dependent on television broadcast whatsoever. Entire (sometimes sizeably large and vast) audiences and subcultures had developed around things like VHS and pirated cable stations during those same years.

It is a COMPLETE (and easily demonstrable) fallacy and gross misreading of the cultural & media landscape of the time that's often made by present day fandoms like this one that pop culture in the "pre-internet" era (and even THAT'S a misnomer in its own right, since the internet WAS technically still around even then) were SO slavishly dependent upon what was allowed to air on mainstream television. Its simply not at all remotely true that TV airings were in any way the be-all, end-all of how many notable titles and franchises became culturally significant in the way that its often painted as in discussions like this one.

The entire 80s horror landscape, for just ONE noteworthy example, wasn't in ANY WAY contingent upon network/mainstream TV broadcast airings of those movies: those fandoms and subcultures (which were in NO WAY small or insignificant during those years) largely lived and died on not just theatrical runs, but much moreover on VHS releases. The same goes for even something like the Godzilla franchise: while it certainly had exposure on broadcast television, it was FAR more widely spread and FAR more notable culturally via VHS releases: some official, but many of them bootleg. This same principal extends to whole other entire genres of film and animation: Japanese anime certainly among them.

For all the historical emphasis that gets placed on the likes of Harmony Gold and Saban's butchered renditions of children's TV anime in the 80s and early 90s, I would contend that the likes of AnimEigo, Central Park Media, U.S. Renditions, Streamline Pictures, and the earlier incarnations of Viz and ADV (all via straight to VHS releases aimed at audiences that were A) largely full grown adults and B) were fully aware of Japanese anime as a foreign medium), had all done FAR more significant work for raising awareness of anime in the West during that time and had licensed & released titles that were, again at that point in time, MUCH more comparatively widely seen and had a far bigger impact at the time than did many of the then-far more obscure children's syndicated TV airings, many of whose significance to the medium's awareness in the U.S. has only been retroactively over-inflated with hindsight.

The post-Toonami Western anime fandom of the past 15+ years has long had an issue with needing to step back from SOLELY focusing on the role that children's broadcast TV played in anime's Western/American development, and putting much more of a critical eye on the VASTLY more substantial role that the VHS market (the same one aimed at selling hard R action, horror, fantasy, martial arts, sci fi, and bizarre art house films & foreign oddities to adult audiences of the time) had played in pushing anime into the mainstream in the years prior to Toonami and the radical reshifting/realignment of anime's primary target audience (grade school children weaned on Saturday morning cartoons, rather than grown adults weaned on actual movie-movies) that Toonami had ushered in.

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm
Once upon a time, Sonic the Hedgehog in 1993 was considered a deep, dark, and unusually well-connected animated program,
By who exactly?

Obviously I'm (sadly) well aware that the '93 Sonic cartoon has had an exceptionally dedicated, ride-or-die fandom attached to it over the years... but this goes to further highlight what a VAST gulf there exists between audience & generational perspectives here, and that there exists a VERY thick membrane of a "bubble" surrounding certain fandoms and audience persuasions.

I myself was a fairly ordinary kid in 1993 (I would've been around 10 by then), who owned a Sega Genesis and extensively played & enjoyed the Sonic games that were on it at the time: and I would say that there were a VAST preponderance of kids back then (myself being only one of them) who were in NO WAY interested in nor impressed by that particular Sonic cartoon (or much of anything else of its ilk on kids' TV), even at the time.

This is where this topic gets into INCREDIBLY dicey and delicate waters for a lot of people: but its pretty much impossible to further unravel this particular - and fairly critical - thread here without drawing some pretty important distinctions. Namely that for every (for lack of a better way of putting this) "media-insulated" kid there was in the late 80s and early 90s who would be of the persuasion to not only get hooked in by something like the 1993 Sonic cartoon, but find it to be so mind-blowingly "dark" and "sophisticated" and whatnot (in no small part because their parents had their media diet on a VERY super strict and regimented leash)...

...for every one kid of that persuasion, there were roughly maybe a dozen more who were FAR more broadly exposed to more non-children's media, who snuck into R rated films (or had parents who were lax enough to take them), who stayed up late and watched prime time & cable television, who regularly frequented video stores, who god-forbid maybe actually READ real books from time to time (not "young adult" grade school book fair fodder: like ACTUAL literature), and so on and so forth.

The latter type of kid, I would argue, was FAR more relatively commonplace culturally at least in the mid/late 80s and early/mid 90s than was the more insulated, cartoon-fixated sort.

Not that there couldn't be SOME overlap between the two: maybe the latter type still might have SOME more outwardly "childish" interests, maybe the former might secretly sneak in or stumble across a stray adult/mature work here or there... but broadly speaking overall, there seems to be a VERY clear and stark divide here between these two "kinds" of childhood experiences.

And I would say that online fandoms and communities like this one FAR over-represent the more "media insulated" type of kids, to a point where it GREATLY skews not only the broader discussion about the history of media during those prior decades, but REALLY fucks over the entire framing that we're coming at this stuff from on a VERY fundamental, baseline level.

By which I mean, there's a sense of a "universal perspective" on certain 80s and 90s works of children's media - i.e "We ALL grew up thinking this or that was the most awesomest thing ever back then!" and whatnot - that people across these kinds of communities (be it on places like here on Kanzenshuu, or more broad "online nerd communities" like TV Tropes, Channel Awesome, etc.) often share that aren't in actuality NEARLY as universal as they're often portrayed as, due to the often extreme over-representation of people with more "media-insulated" upbringings in these kinds of communities.

For example, when someone like you Yuli says "At one time such-and-such featherweight kids' cartoon was seen as incredibly dark and mature for its time"... that is a perspective that was IN NO WAY universally shared by a VAST majority of people even back during the original time in which said cartoon or show was actively new and recent.

Maybe said cartoon (in this particular case, the '93 Sonic one) had SOME segment of kids watching it who were more media insulated and were REALLY blown away by it... but for all of those kids, there were (I would certainly contend) FAR more overall who simply didn't pay attention nor give a shit in the slightest because they were already watching (and in some cases maybe even *gasp* reading) FAR more genuinely and actually mature works. To the point where if they saw the '93 Sonic cartoon, they'd laugh it off (I would say quite correctly) as absolute and utter crap.

Like... lets say out of every kid who was around in the U.S. in 1993, maybe a certain percentage were kids who were SO under-exposed to other media at the time (even fairly mainstream), that something like that Sonic cartoon would absolutely blow their brains out with how "dark" and "mature" its storytelling was. For every kid within that perspective, I can assure you, as someone who was both alive back then, a kid himself, and was fairly plugged into broader pop culture at the time... there were a LOT of kids also back then who had LONG already moved on to bigger and better things with their time. And this was VERY reflected by where the broader pop cultural focus was at the time: which, believe me, was NOT in ANY which way on shows like this.

Its almost downright COMICAL the absolute and utterly absurd DISPARITY that is demonstrable between what the current online nerd zeitgeist views as "notable milestone works" from the 1980s and 90s versus what most people back during those actual years (both adults and even a vast chunk of kids at the time) had ACTUALLY viewed as "notable milestone works" of the time. And no points for guessing which of the two had/has the more genuinely "mature" and "sophisticated" focus by way of comparison.

So when the retrospective online "consensus" about these kinds of cartoons in today's day is that "they were once seen as REALLY mature and edgy and challenging for their time!"... I am forced to once again ask "By WHOM exactly?"

Because contrary to what some folks on this forum might think, it is in NO WAY "elitist" or "snobbish" to point out the fact that there is a GARGANTUAN difference between what people who were actively engaged and tuned into broader pop culture were focused on in the early 90s versus what especially introverted, sheltered, and hyper-insulated small children were most actively engaged with and focused on during that time, and that those kids' still hyper-skewed perspective on those years even today as adults online is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER reflective of the actual reality of where pop culture actually was during those years.

Drawing that distinction, even clearly and starkly, isn't "elitism": its a reality check.

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:51 pm
and when Swat Kats: The Radical Squadron was canceled, one reason was because Ted Turner (i.e. the man in charge of Turner Broadcasting) thought it was way too dark and violent for children.
Setting aside the absurdity of discussing rightly-forgotten crap like Swat Kats in 2019... I would contend that Ted Turner's appraisal of it as "too dark and violent for children" back then was in NO WAY whatsoever reflective of the on-the-ground reality of where most kids in the early 90s ACTUALLY were in their media diets (which was trucking amongst LIGHTYEARS more "dark and violent" content than fucking Swat Kats) and much more reflective of how absurdly out of touch Ted Turner's ilk of stuffed suits were, along with the uptight "Parental Moral Watchdog" groups he and his were relentlessly pandering to.

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:48 pm
I don't mean to say that you can't enjoy these things or that they have no value. Because conversely: compare how people would feel about a grown-up who views the Adventures of Gulliver, Hong Kong Phooey, and The Amazing Chan and the Chan Clan as artistic milestones through which they could view as high watermarks of pop culture. Now compare how people would feel about someone who does the same for Avatar: The Last Airbender or Neon Genesis Evangelion. The latter seems much more acceptable simply because those shows possess far more realism (though they'd still be stunted in their references to media), whereas we'd probably consider the former to be mentally challenged.
Image

The only thing I really have to add to that is that I think there are a good plenty of definite latter/modern day examples of so-called "more mature/sophisticated" kids' cartoons that people today still seriously and unironically cite as being of "vastly more evolved" quality (some real examples I've seen thrown around frequently and continuously for the past decade+ include: Ed, Edd & Eddy, Danny Phantom, Ben 10, Pokemon, Digimon, Bakugan, Yu Gi Oh, Teen Titans, just to name a few) that unquestionably and without argument belong squarely within the former "Adventures of Gulliver/Hong Kong Phooey" camp.

Oh, and so do the '93 Sonic cartoon and Swat Kats. :P
http://80s90sdragonballart.tumblr.com/

Kunzait's Wuxia Thread
Journey to the West, chapter 26 wrote:The strong man will meet someone stronger still:
Come to naught at last he surely will!
Zephyr wrote:And that's to say nothing of how pretty much impossible it is to capture what made the original run of the series so great. I'm in the generation of fans that started with Toonami, so I totally empathize with the feeling of having "missed the party", experiencing disappointment, and wanting to experience it myself. But I can't, that's how life is. Time is a bitch. The party is over. Kageyama, Kikuchi, and Maeda are off the sauce now; Yanami almost OD'd; Yamamoto got arrested; Toriyama's not going to light trash cans on fire and hang from the chandelier anymore. We can't get the band back together, and even if we could, everyone's either old, in poor health, or calmed way the fuck down. Best we're going to get, and are getting, is a party that's almost entirely devoid of the magic that made the original one so awesome that we even want more.
Kamiccolo9 wrote:It grinds my gears that people get "outraged" over any of this stuff. It's a fucking cartoon. If you are that determined to be angry about something, get off the internet and make a stand for something that actually matters.
Rocketman wrote:"Shonen" basically means "stupid sentimental shit" anyway, so it's ok to be anti-shonen.

User avatar
Polyphase Avatron
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5761
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:48 am

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Polyphase Avatron » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:23 am

Hey now, if you're going to talk shit about EEnE, we're going to have a problem. :evil:


But seriously, what it lacked in plot, depth, or character development, it more than made up for in pure humor.
Cool stuff that I upload here because Youtube will copyright claim it: https://vimeo.com/user60967147

User avatar
Scsigs
I Live Here
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:55 am
Location: NY, USA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Scsigs » Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:57 am

Kunzait_83 wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:41 pm
The only thing I really have to add to that is that I think there are a good plenty of definite latter/modern day examples of so-called "more mature/sophisticated" kids' cartoons that people today still seriously and unironically cite as being of "vastly more evolved" quality (some real examples I've seen thrown around frequently and continuously for the past decade+ include: Ed, Edd & Eddy, Danny Phantom, Ben 10, Pokemon, Digimon, Bakugan, Yu Gi Oh, Teen Titans, just to name a few) that unquestionably and without argument belong squarely within the former "Adventures of Gulliver/Hong Kong Phooey" camp.

Oh, and so do the '93 Sonic cartoon and Swat Kats. :P
Bro, what? Have you actually watched the majority of these shows for more than a few episodes or clips each?
Ed, Edd, N Eddy's a pure comedy with some more mature humor than you'd expect thrown in.
Danny Phantom, Ben 10, & Teen Titans are superhero shows that (prior to season 3 for DP, since the showrunner changed before that season went into full production, & some things in Ben 10 Omniverse that not a lot of people liked) don't talk down to their audience & are actually more mature than you're giving credit here.
Pokemon is made for kids even in Japan & hasn't been good in years.
Digimon holds up really well & is really good, but the dub kinda dumbed some things down for the sake of shitty jokes at times.
Yugioh's somewhere in the middle. If you're talking the dub, the show's not too mature minus some things they kept in the animation, but the Japanese version & the manga are pretty dark, the manga more so since some things were toned down in the anime & the card game was made the focus to sell the merch.

Most of these shows are not readily comparable to each other & to compare most of them to shitty 60s Hannah Barbara cartoons is REALLY doing most of them a disservice towards their actual quality, my guy. Like, watch the fan favorite episodes of each of the more serious shows, or, hell, the first 2 seasons of Ben 10: Alien Force & all of Ultimate Alien & I challenge you to still tell me they're Hong Kong Phooey or Adventures of Gulliver level.
Only dubs that matter are DB, Kai, & Super. Nothing else.
Vic Mignogna: Good actor & singer, but a MAJOR douchebag & idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Scsigs
https://twitter.com/Scsigs

User avatar
Gaffer Tape
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5878
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Gaffer Tape » Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:26 am

Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:41 pm
It's been nearly 20 years, and you've never seen this in this form? I'm probably going to give you an aneurysm saying this, but this is unironically one of the most iconic scenes in all of Dragon Ball Z... In America, I mean. If you ask an American fan to point out one of Dragon Ball Z's biggest and best moments (including the movies), I wouldn't be surprised if this was at least #5. Broly's scream & transformation + Pantera kicking in is, for quite a lot of people, everything right about Dragon Ball Z.
I've been a fan of Dragon Ball for over 20 years, and I'd never seen that before either. I'm fairly apathetic towards Broli, so I don't watch that movie a lot, nor do I consider anything to do with him in my personal lists of "iconic" Dragon Ball moments. I stopped watching the dub a few years before this movie came out in English. Combine those two factors, and I don't find it terribly surprising I haven't seen it. Given the fact that Mike's site is one of the things that pulled me into the Japanese version, I find it even less surprising that he'd never seen it before.
Do you follow the most comprehensive and entertaining Dragon Ball analysis series on YouTube? If you do, you're smart and awesome and fairly attractive. If not, see what all the fuss is about without even having to leave Kanzenshuu:

MistareFusion's Dragon Ball Dissection Series Discussion Thread! (Updated 12/31/19!)
Current Episode: Dragon Ball Z's Four-Hour Movie - DBD TV: The Garlic Jr. Arc

User avatar
Yuli Ban
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Yuli Ban » Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:58 am

@Kunzait: I deliberately wrote that section knowing you'd likely respond with a larger post about anime people before '97 would watch and commonly know, all because I myself am largely unfamiliar with that era but wholly know it was a major thing. I couldn't just not mention it, but I didn't want to do any research and knew you'd fill in the gaps if I just said "Toonami invented American anime" or something of that sort.

As for Swat Kats, Ted Turner being out of touch is exactly my point.

Ted Turner isn't to blame for all of this; I'm not saying that. But in canceling Swat Kats for its "violent" and "dark" themes that were admittedly more violent and darker than what was standard for American children's animation up to that point, he was basically the personification of exactly why the current generations grow up thinking Hunter x Hunter or Naruto are incredibly deep works of art on par with classic literature. At least that's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it.
People for a damn long time were being told that only highbrow literary art was worth your time and it is identifiable for its rich realism and discussions of the human condition in a variety of very human situations, whereas lowbrow art is base and only satisfies the senses through flash, action, and sex with shallow connections to anything realistic. In a time where showing an average working-class family dealing with working-class issues could get your work labeled "pro-communist", escapism was the only way you could do things. It's why movies that actually possessed some modicum of realism (like not pretending that toilets don't exist, and I shit you not [no pun intended] that was a real thing movies and TV shows did) were seen as revolutionary and unprecedented. The whole "movie acting" we know of from the Classic Hollywood age was rooted in that sense of pure, 100% escapism where people were all exaggerated and you could tell who was good, crooked, or morally grey just by looking at them. People would never talk "normally" because they shouldn't talk "normally." And since animation was as escapist as you could get (live-action naturally has a clearer connection to realism for obvious reasons), of course it wasn't going to be respected as a medium of art.
So when realism did start seeping into escapist fantasy, naturally people were either enthralled or confused. It just took a longer time for this to get going for animation because by that point, "cartoons, comics, and video games are for kids!" which would make people actively hostile to realism in them because "it will corrupt the youth!" But the Hays Code didn't die off until the mid-60s, too. That was why people talk about late '60s & '70s Hollywood as being its "grown up" phase before Star Wars "ruined it": movies could actually show a reality that wasn't filtered through moral guardians (something older movies certainly tried to do but always had to do by skirting around these rules).

And as I've said, once people realized you could have realism in escapism— that you could show characters legitimately being traumatized by events rather than a snarky jab at the bad guy & a moral lesson at the end or have the bad guy win or even have the good guy be the bad guy all along (or have there be no bad guys but also no good guys) or even show the existence of blood— people took to it like you wouldn't believe because they felt simply showing any sort of realism in fiction counts as maturity and complexity. Not always the "right" kind of maturity: there are still plenty of people that would call Dragon Ball Z a "seinen" just because it has sexual predators, dismemberment, on-screen death, sadism, and so on.
To tangentially bring up Sonic the Hedgehog (as a franchise) again, I've even seen some claim that the adorable 2005 edgelord masterpiece, "Shadow the Hedgehog", could be considered a seinen game just for having swearing, guns, and nü metal. It's a crippling misunderstanding of what "maturity" means precisely because pop culture spent so long presenting a ridiculously false and cleaned up view of the world and how it works (and after the success of those first waves of "realistic" pop fiction, newer creators didn't understand why they were seen as realistic and just jumped on their darkness and "edginess" to get the same effect). It's the idea that simply acknowledging, "hey, the world/sex/violence/politics exists, and we just commented on it" makes something more mature because you've never seen something actually do that before and don't know how "actually" mature works do it. All it really does is reinforce the idea that there's "child-friendly" (aka pure innocence) and "maturity" (aka edgier, sexier, grittier, bloodier, stuff only your parents will get).

Ted Turner was essentially reacting against that. He was one of those types who still believed in cartoons as children's escapism.


Also, Vic Mignogna is a decent voice actor who was probably cast to play Broly because they didn't have anyone else on hand at the time.
May or may not be writing a Dragon Ball-inspired serial.

User avatar
Scsigs
I Live Here
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:55 am
Location: NY, USA
Contact:

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by Scsigs » Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:17 pm

Gaffer Tape wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:26 am
Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:41 pm
It's been nearly 20 years, and you've never seen this in this form? I'm probably going to give you an aneurysm saying this, but this is unironically one of the most iconic scenes in all of Dragon Ball Z... In America, I mean. If you ask an American fan to point out one of Dragon Ball Z's biggest and best moments (including the movies), I wouldn't be surprised if this was at least #5. Broly's scream & transformation + Pantera kicking in is, for quite a lot of people, everything right about Dragon Ball Z.
I've been a fan of Dragon Ball for over 20 years, and I'd never seen that before either. I'm fairly apathetic towards Broli, so I don't watch that movie a lot, nor do I consider anything to do with him in my personal lists of "iconic" Dragon Ball moments. I stopped watching the dub a few years before this movie came out in English. Combine those two factors, and I don't find it terribly surprising I haven't seen it. Given the fact that Mike's site is one of the things that pulled me into the Japanese version, I find it even less surprising that he'd never seen it before.
Given the point at which you stopped watching the dubs, I'm not surprised that you haven't gone out of your way to at least sample it. The Dragon Ball Z & Z movie dubs were legit shit back then (though Broly's is somehow one of the most accurate for the time in terms of translation & direction, weirdly enough) & the movie's legit trash, so I'm not surprised if no one on this side of the globe hasn't seen the dub.
Only dubs that matter are DB, Kai, & Super. Nothing else.
Vic Mignogna: Good actor & singer, but a MAJOR douchebag & idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Scsigs
https://twitter.com/Scsigs

WittyUsername
I Live Here
Posts: 2156
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 12:09 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: What specifically was wrong with Vic Mignogna’s take on Broly?

Post by WittyUsername » Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:36 pm

Scsigs wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:17 pm
Gaffer Tape wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:26 am
Yuli Ban wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:41 pm
It's been nearly 20 years, and you've never seen this in this form? I'm probably going to give you an aneurysm saying this, but this is unironically one of the most iconic scenes in all of Dragon Ball Z... In America, I mean. If you ask an American fan to point out one of Dragon Ball Z's biggest and best moments (including the movies), I wouldn't be surprised if this was at least #5. Broly's scream & transformation + Pantera kicking in is, for quite a lot of people, everything right about Dragon Ball Z.
I've been a fan of Dragon Ball for over 20 years, and I'd never seen that before either. I'm fairly apathetic towards Broli, so I don't watch that movie a lot, nor do I consider anything to do with him in my personal lists of "iconic" Dragon Ball moments. I stopped watching the dub a few years before this movie came out in English. Combine those two factors, and I don't find it terribly surprising I haven't seen it. Given the fact that Mike's site is one of the things that pulled me into the Japanese version, I find it even less surprising that he'd never seen it before.
Given the point at which you stopped watching the dubs, I'm not surprised that you haven't gone out of your way to at least sample it. The Dragon Ball Z & Z movie dubs were legit shit back then (though Broly's is somehow one of the most accurate for the time in terms of translation & direction, weirdly enough) & the movie's legit trash, so I'm not surprised if no one on this side of the globe hasn't seen the dub.
It’s not just “one of the most accurate”. It’s probably the single most accurate Dragon Ball related dub that FUNimation did prior to 2010, and no, I’m not counting the Pioneer dubs of Movies 1-3.

Post Reply