Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

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

Toxin45
Beyond-the-Beyond Newbie
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:35 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Toxin45 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:12 pm

I don't think Dragon Ball is bankrupt I mean it is a literal cash cow franchise that has been successful I doubt it would be considered bankrupted.

User avatar
Super Sayian Prime
I Live Here
Posts: 2282
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:26 pm
Location: Hail

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Super Sayian Prime » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:10 pm

It's been creatively bankrupt for years. Some could argue it always has been. The powers that be are so strapped for story threads they recycle earlier villains and arcs like it's something to be proud of. We've gotten increasingly lazy transformations. Super takes place during a timespan that was originally deemed so unremarkable that it was skipped in the story.
"I like the money it brings in, but Dragon Ball Heroes is the worst. That's actually the real reason I decided to start working on new material. I was afraid Bandai would make something irredeemably stupid like Super Saiyan 4 Broly." - Akira Toriyama, made up interview, 2013.

User avatar
Thunderbird
Banned
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:20 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Thunderbird » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:30 pm

SupremeKai25 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:52 am
But then yours is an oversemplification too of the Future Trunks arc, because it's not Androids arc 2.0. Yes, the crux of the conflict is the same, but the plot develops in a very different way and is much larger in scope, despite being a much shorter arc.
It's a pitifully uncreative arc.

Bringing back Trunks for the second time. An evil Goku lookalike for the second time. Super Saiyan Rose is just yet another colour palette swap. Time travel for the second time. Vegito being formed to face another fused villain for a second time. Spirit Bomb being randomly used out of the blue. Trunks completely uncreative new transformation.

And many more.

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 18281
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by ABED » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:58 pm

The Genki Dama sword was a deus ex machina, but thematically relevant, so I cut it a break.
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
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:01 pm

Thunderbird wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:30 pm
SupremeKai25 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 3:52 am
But then yours is an oversemplification too of the Future Trunks arc, because it's not Androids arc 2.0. Yes, the crux of the conflict is the same, but the plot develops in a very different way and is much larger in scope, despite being a much shorter arc.
It's a pitifully uncreative arc.

Bringing back Trunks for the second time. An evil Goku lookalike for the second time. Super Saiyan Rose is just yet another colour palette swap. Time travel for the second time. Vegito being formed to face another fused villain for a second time. Spirit Bomb being randomly used out of the blue. Trunks completely uncreative new transformation.

And many more.
If bringing back Trunks for the second time is bad, then so is making another story centered around a destructive force from space (Saiyan arc, Buu arc).

Goku Black and Turles are completely different characters. One is a fallen God who stole Goku body out of jealousy, the other has no connection to Goku aside from the fact that they look similar because they are both from a lower class of warriors.

Time travel was used twice, so the arc is bad, okay. Then I guess that the ending of the Buu arc is also terrible, since they used Genkidama YET AGAIN (it wasnt enough that they already used it in the Sayians and Freeza arcs). Or I guess Gohan transformation in the Cell arc was also trash, since they once again had the main villain push the protagonist to the edge by killing an innocent person close to them.

Vegito never faced a fused villain like Fused Zamasu before. Super Buu was not the same type of "fusion" at all.

Trunks new form was still more creative than SS2, which is literally just SS1 but with spikier hair and some lightning around it.
And so by incorporating Goku's flesh into my being, I have assumed both the sins of mortal kind and the failure of divinity so they may never be repeated! That is the duty of a true God. That is why I do this. For the good of the cosmos. For a creation!

User avatar
Thunderbird
Banned
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:20 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Thunderbird » Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:39 pm

See you're trying to individually break each one down to get around the fact that the arc as a whole was incredibly uncreative.

It's not that they brought back Trunks again, but they once again had to rely on bringing back a popular character from the past, which started with Frieza, then Trunks, then Android 17 and now Broly.

It doesn't matter that Goku Black and Turles are different characters, it is another evil portrayal of Goku.

The Buu arc used its Spirit Bomb in a very creative way, gathering energy from humans to overcome an evil force. They did the exact same thing again with Goku Black as opposed to something original but to a vastly worse degree.

Super Buu was a merger of multiple characters just like Fused Zamasu and it requires the merger of the protagonists to battle against him. Absorbtions. Fusions. Doesn't matter, it's semantics, it's the same idea yet again.

Just because Super Saiyan 2 had an uncreative design doesn't stop the fact that Trunks' new form was not only uncreative too but a random ass pull.

Don't try to bring Dragon Ball Z down all of a sudfen to try and make up for the Goku Black arcs severe shortcomings.

User avatar
Thunderbird
Banned
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:20 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Thunderbird » Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:41 pm

ABED wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:30 pm
They aren't the same genre. One Piece is a show about pirates with extraordinary powers, whereas the point of DB is the martial arts.
Last I checked, "Pirates" wasn't a genre.

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:30 am

Thunderbird wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:39 pm
See you're trying to individually break each one down to get around the fact that the arc as a whole was incredibly uncreative.

It's not that they brought back Trunks again, but they once again had to rely on bringing back a popular character from the past, which started with Frieza, then Trunks, then Android 17 and now Broly.

It doesn't matter that Goku Black and Turles are different characters, it is another evil portrayal of Goku.

The Buu arc used its Spirit Bomb in a very creative way, gathering energy from humans to overcome an evil force. They did the exact same thing again with Goku Black as opposed to something original but to a vastly worse degree.

Super Buu was a merger of multiple characters just like Fused Zamasu and it requires the merger of the protagonists to battle against him. Absorbtions. Fusions. Doesn't matter, it's semantics, it's the same idea yet again.

Just because Super Saiyan 2 had an uncreative design doesn't stop the fact that Trunks' new form was not only uncreative too but a random ass pull.

Don't try to bring Dragon Ball Z down all of a sudfen to try and make up for the Goku Black arcs severe shortcomings.
But you yourself admitted that you're just breaking down the arc and not counting it as a whole, and indeed you ignored the main villain and said you only cared about the ground covered, which you then simplified (because yes, it's a new threat in the Future timeline, but it's much more than the Androids and Cell were).

There's nothing wrong with bringing a character back. Otherwise, Z did that too, remember Mecha Freeza? And at least Super waited decades before bringing Trunks back, Z didn't even wait one story arc.

It does matter that Black and Turles are very different characters, if you stop at how they look, you only consider, what... 50% of the character? You ignore their personality, backstory, abilities..... While character design is the most important aspect of the character, he's not just that. Besides, Black and Turles don't even look that similar. They wear completely different outfits and their bodies are quite different too, with Turles having darker skin complexion and being a lot bulkier than Black. Since, you know, Turles is not actually Goku, he's just someone who resembles him as far as hair is concerned.

The Buu arc didn't use Spirit Bomb in a creative way, because the Saiyans and Freeza arc did the exact same thing. Also, do you know why the writing for Trunks spirit bomb sword thing was "bad" ? Because they tried to do something different. They didn't just have Goku fire the Spirit Bomb at Fused Zamasu, they wanted to do something more creative involving Trunks this time and a form of absorption technique involving a sword. If they had gone the classic way, barely anyone would complain, because obviously Goku knows how to use a spirit bomb, so why would anyone complain?

Super Buu and Fused Zamasu are completely different types of fusion, they are not even comparable. Super Buu forcefully absorbs other people into his own being but stores them as separate entities within his body, whereas Fused Zamasu is a Potara fusion, who also had immortality (the only other villain who had immortality was Garlic Jr.).

Let's not pretend that DBZ did not have any asspull or plot hole, because it had several of them. Trunks' new form is neither the first nor the worst asspull in the franchise. Yes, it was terribly explained, and yes it makes sense only with headcanon (cause it's never explained in the show itself), but it doesn't bring down the whole arc, that's just absurd.

I am not bringing Z down. I am not interested in which series was better, because I'm here just to enjoy the characters. If Zamasu was a Z villain instead, it's not like I'd suddenly say "Ew, I hate Zamasu cause he appears in Z!". I am showing you how many arguments used against Super can also be turned against Z.
And so by incorporating Goku's flesh into my being, I have assumed both the sins of mortal kind and the failure of divinity so they may never be repeated! That is the duty of a true God. That is why I do this. For the good of the cosmos. For a creation!

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 18281
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by ABED » Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:32 am

Thunderbird wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:41 pm
ABED wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:30 pm
They aren't the same genre. One Piece is a show about pirates with extraordinary powers, whereas the point of DB is the martial arts.
Last I checked, "Pirates" wasn't a genre.
It definitely is. How would it not be? Genre just means "sort". There aren't hard and fast rules. If cop movies, or medical dramas, are genres, pirate stories are definitely their own genre.
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
Xell
Beyond Newbie
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:21 am

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Xell » Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:32 am

There is no denying the formula Dragonball came up with has been done countless times over the last few decades.
It has been honed and refined by the works that it has inspired.
It will forever be a beautiful piece of art, held as one of the greats for its achievements.

However, in this modern day it’s like an old musician who’s passed their prime trying to grasp at their former glory and occasionally succeeding but often failing.

I think it is creatively bankrupt.. it rakes in the money, I’m sure, but it’s an established brand working off of the fact it’s Dragonball. It is not in the business of changing things up or trying to dazzle viewers with new ideas.. Just recycling the same old same old. Even then it doesn’t do that particularly well..

There may be hope as Toei have only just started trying to make the show a feast for the eyes by gradually attempting to ditch the Yamamuro designs. Until then it will remain stuck in the same rut it has been in for the last decade.

User avatar
Thunderbird
Banned
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:20 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Thunderbird » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 am

SupremeKai25 wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:30 am
and said you only cared about the ground covered
I didn't say that at all, I said even though each major arc in Z followed certain story beats it introduced a whole other unique layer to keep it interesting either by dealing with threats from another world, travelling to other worlds or dealing with Time Travel.

Dragon Ball Super does not have anything like that. The only thing comparable is having the multiple universes which is just a further expansion of a past idea.
There's nothing wrong with bringing a character back. Otherwise, Z did that too, remember Mecha Freeza? And at least Super waited decades before bringing Trunks back, Z didn't even wait one story arc.
Bringing Z down again. I didn't say it was wrong, it's just something to show how uncreative they are. Rather than introduce new popular protagonists and antagonists, they've had to resort bringing back previous ones.

Two movies in a row where they couldn't even make up a new villain. They had to bring in an old popular villain just to create interest.
The Buu arc didn't use Spirit Bomb in a creative way, because the Saiyans and Freeza arc did the exact same thing.
No they didn't. Goku may have took the first from animals and the second from his few allies nearby but the idea to use a move that was previously unsuccessful but use all of humanity so that they all beat him together and the way it was executed was completely different.

They did the same thing with Trunks but it made no sense because was a couple humans left. Even the idea of absorbing it into himself was already done in Super Android 13.
Super Buu and Fused Zamasu are completely different types of fusion, they are not even comparable. Super Buu forcefully absorbs other people into his own being but stores them as separate entities within his body, whereas Fused Zamasu is a Potara fusion, who also had immortality (the only other villain who had immortality was Garlic Jr.).
Again nothing but semantics. Both characters were powered up from merging with other characters so Goku and Vegeta also merged together to confront them. It's executed differentky but it's the same general idea.
Let's not pretend that DBZ did not have any asspull or plot hole, because it had several of them. Trunks' new form is neither the first nor the worst asspull in the franchise.
Bringing Z down again. Once more just because Z had asspulls doesn't mean it's ok when Super does it. The form didn't look awful but was entirely uncreative and is yet another thing in a list of things that make for an entirety unoriginal arc.

User avatar
Thunderbird
Banned
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:20 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Thunderbird » Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 am

ABED wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:32 am
It definitely is.
No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genres

I'm starting to see why you ended up calling Ace Ventura a thriller lol.

User avatar
SupremeKai25
I Live Here
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:40 am

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by SupremeKai25 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:25 am

Thunderbird wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 am
SupremeKai25 wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:30 am
and said you only cared about the ground covered
I didn't say that at all, I said even though each major arc in Z followed certain story beats it introduced a whole other unique layer to keep it interesting either by dealing with threats from another world, travelling to other worlds or dealing with Time Travel.
Yes, you did:
It's not the villain, it's the ground it covers.
And then proceeded to say the Future Trunks arc didn't offer anything new because it's the same core plot point with a few additions.
Bringing Z down again. I didn't say it was wrong, it's just something to show how uncreative they are. Rather than introduce new popular protagonists and antagonists, they've had to resort bringing back previous ones.

Two movies in a row where they couldn't even make up a new villain. They had to bring in an old popular villain just to create interest.
Okay then. Z was not creative either. That's nice to know. I guess Dragon Ball didn't become "creatively bankrupt" during Super then.

Also, they introduced a ton of popular new protagonists and antagonists. Beerus, Whis, Zamasu, Goku Black, Jiren, Broly (who is basically an entirely different character from the original), Hit, Kefla, etc.
No they didn't. Goku may have took the first from animals and the second from his few allies nearby but the idea to use a move that was previously unsuccessful but use all of humanity so that they all beat him together and the way it was executed was completely different.
Then time travel was also done differently, because:

A) They time travelled between present and future multiple times, which never happened in the Androids arc;
B) They introduced the time rings to add another way to time travel.

Also, if we're bringing execution into this and aren't just talking about concepts/plot points anymore, then it should be obvious that the Future Trunks arc is vastly different from the Androids arc, or any Z arc really. Just the fact that at the end they cant use the dragon balls to bring everyone back is proof of that. The Future Trunks arc is the only arc in Dragon Ball where the actions of the villain are not undone.
Again nothing but semantics.
Oh, but it's not semantics your argument about the Saiyans Spirit Bomb being different from the Buu Spirit Bomb because of the scope of the technique?

Also, that's not semantics. That's a radical difference between two types of merging. Saying that Fused Zamasu and Super Buu are identical because they are both the result of merging, is like saying that apples and oranges are identical because they are both fruits.

And if that's the case, then Super Buu was also not creative at all, since absorbing others to become stronger was already done by Cell.
Bringing Z down again. Once more just because Z had asspulls doesn't mean it's ok when Super does it.
No, but it means that Z was not creative either. Which means that Dragon Ball was creatively bankrupt back then too.

Point is, just because a show has plot holes, does not mean that it is not creative. A lot of creative ideas end up being very flawed in the execution.
And so by incorporating Goku's flesh into my being, I have assumed both the sins of mortal kind and the failure of divinity so they may never be repeated! That is the duty of a true God. That is why I do this. For the good of the cosmos. For a creation!

User avatar
MasenkoHA
I Live Here
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by MasenkoHA » Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:56 am

Toxin45 wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 5:12 pm
I don't think Dragon Ball is bankrupt I mean it is a literal cash cow franchise that has been successful I doubt it would be considered bankrupted.
The question is if its creatively bankrupt not if it’s financially bankrupt
Thunderbird wrote:
Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:41 pm
ABED wrote:
Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:30 pm
They aren't the same genre. One Piece is a show about pirates with extraordinary powers, whereas the point of DB is the martial arts.
Last I checked, "Pirates" wasn't a genre.
Abed’s point that they aren’t the same genre still stands. Dragon Ball is a martial arts series about fighting. One Piece is a swashbuckling adventure

Pretending they’re the same genre is wrong. The only thing they have in common is they’re aimed at young boys in elementary school and I guess Luffy is kind of a Goku rip off (dumb kid that eats a lot which made sense for Goku but not when every shonen manga author started doing it for their main character)

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 18281
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: VA
Contact:

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by ABED » Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:17 am

Thunderbird wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:57 am
ABED wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 5:32 am
It definitely is.
No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genres

I'm starting to see why you ended up calling Ace Ventura a thriller lol.
You looked to a wikipedia entry like it's definitive? FYI, right under the opening paragraph, there's this nugget "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness."

Just using your own argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pirate_films
If there are enough examples and the films share tropes and even cliches, it's a genre. Some are more specific. Some genres are defined by setting. Some are defined by intention (e.g. comedy, drama), and some are defined by profession (e.g., con men, cop, PI, etc.)

I didn't call Ace Venture a thriller. Given the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised you misquote me. I take it back, it's more of a whodunnit than thriller, but these genres share tropes. Bottom line, it's not just a comedy, and we're getting off topic. Your obnoxious laughter is grating, not to mention undeserved.

Bottom line, One Piece isn't in the same fundamental genre as DB. There's some overlap in they are both fantasies.

DB isn't completely bereft of inspiration. It's trading in on nostalgia much of the time, but it's suitably entertaining. Certianly enough to shill out a couple bucks to stream an entire series in a month.
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
JulieYBM
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 13689
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by JulieYBM » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:14 am

Are we really going to masturbate to the idea that Trunks using the hopes of his universe to strike down Gokuu Black once and for all is bad because it's not a new idea, as opposed to simply being incredibly satisfying? Because I feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here.
She/Her | Extremely Online MILF

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6353
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:21 am

Yeah, I see people complaining about Genki-dama sword for some reason. I don't have any problem with that. Liked seeing a different Genki-dama of some sorts and, obviously, Xenoverse 2 did it even better by gathering energy from other dimension and timelines.

Trunks living with himself is the real culprit here.

User avatar
JulieYBM
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 13689
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by JulieYBM » Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:26 am

Grimlock wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:21 am
Yeah, I see people complaining about Genki-dama sword for some reason. I don't have any problem with that. Liked seeing a different Genki-dama of some sorts and, obviously, Xenoverse 2 did it even better by gathering energy from other dimension and timelines.

Trunks living with himself is the real culprit here.
Gosh, like, the scene looks like ass because of Yamamuro Tadayoshi's awful designs and the series' horrible coloring and post-processing, but on paper--not to mention Kusao Takeshi's voice performance--it is an incredibly satisfying thing to behold.

Take it from a novelist: creativity does not satisfaction--for you or your audience--make. The combination of your ingredients reaching a natural, satisfying conclusion is what works best.
She/Her | Extremely Online MILF

User avatar
Grimlock
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6353
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Conton City

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Grimlock » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:21 am

JulieYBM wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:26 am
Gosh, like, the scene looks like ass because of Yamamuro Tadayoshi's awful designs and the series' horrible coloring and post-processing, but on paper--not to mention Kusao Takeshi's voice performance--it is an incredibly satisfying thing to behold.
Tell me what you find of this version.

Dbzfan94
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5480
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:16 pm
Location: Mt. Paozu

Re: Is Dragon Ball creatively bankrupt at this point?

Post by Dbzfan94 » Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:47 am

Grimlock wrote:
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:21 am
Yeah, I see people complaining about Genki-dama sword for some reason. I don't have any problem with that. Liked seeing a different Genki-dama of some sorts and, obviously, Xenoverse 2 did it even better by gathering energy from other dimension and timelines.

Trunks living with himself is the real culprit here.
Sorta how I feel. The Spirit Sword was ridiculous and out of nowhere, but it made sense. If the arc ended there, I would've been far more forgiving. But what came after destroyed any last sembiance of quality.

Post Reply