What do you want with Broly?

[Zeon_Grunt]

Dragon Ball has been frozen in amber since the Buu Saga and I don't know if the fanbase understands how much of modern DB is built on the smallest sliver of the story. Before then the status quo changed with every new arc.

I might get hate for this but, Vegeta is the original sin here. Part of what kept the story constantly evolving was mixing up the cast; who Goku's new rivals would be and how his relationship with those rivals would change. When Vegeta became Goku's permanent number 2 the stories haven't had the room to grow they otherwise would. At the end of the day each arc has to be about a threat that both Goku and Vegeta can fight and has to end with Goku on top and Vegeta maybe a single step below him. Worse still, because we've been sold on Goku/Vegeta as the core of the show they have to show up everywhere together even when the arc doesn't have room for two bonus main characters (or a bonus main villain for Vegeta to fight).

Pretty much and it's going to be the death of the franchise if that shit doesn't change sooner or later.

No, I totally agree that Vegeta's introduction was the start of it because you're right, once he showed up, the series became about maintaining a status quo rather than telling new and compelling stories. It's only gotten significantly worse since Super started. The series hasn't been allowed to evolve or change in 2 decades, and some people wonder why it's getting stale and others are getting tired of it.

People have things other than Pokemon to watch. Ratings are going to drop over time. Home video sales--a literal collector's format--are going to drop. This is to say nothing of the fact that nobody knows how these things are being eaten-into by streaming.

Pokemon fans old enough to use forums are notoriously loud and stupid, so I wouldn't place any stock into their complaints. People will complain over a Pokemon's personality causing conflict in a story of all things or the series focusing on gags over battles. Hell, people are complaining about Gou from the 2019 series capturing Pokemon as if there should be undue pomp and circumstance for such a thing on every single occasion.

Yes, and people choose those other things to watch because Pokemon isn't even trying to keep them entertained anymore. If Pokemon were releasing multiple different anime series/movies/OVAs that catered to different demographics and told different kinds of stories, this wouldn't really be an issue. Likewise, long running franchise's ratings and viewerships don't HAVE to drop (the film franchises that only get more viewers and make more money with each installment are a testament to that). If the writers and directors can keep things sufficiently different between stories, they can keep just about any story running forever.

Complaining that a franchise whose whole main drawing point for a generation or two of players/viewers was collecting and battling with monsters actively deciding to focus more on being a gag comedy over a battle series isn't a "stupid," or unjustified complaint.

[ABED]

Now I think I've got a handle on you. You LOVE lore and world building, but you aren't most people. People get emotionally attached to characters, not information. All lore and world building are is exposition. They're necessary for the story, but they aren't more important than the story.

If it has any chance at maintaining relevance and popularity as a perpetual franchise, it has to eventually be allowed to evolve past simply being mindless entertainment for 10 year old boys who just want to see explosions and people getting punched really hard.

Does it? It's been doing the same stuff for the better part of three decades. Same with Bond. It's mostly the same story over and over. I say that as a Bond fan. And I absolutely disagree that shows like Supernatural can go beyond The Winchesters. People connect to stories. The reason that show or any show works is because right time, right place. It's lightning in a bottle. How many times have you seen a show go on after the main actor leaves and it's not as good?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but there's NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH WANTING THE THINGS AND SHOWS YOU ENJOYED AS A KID TO GROW UP WITH YOU. Simply because something was originally intended for children's entertainment doesn't mean the only correct way to deal with feeling like the franchise doesn't care about you anymore is to abandon it and any emotional or sentimental ties to it entirely.

Who feels that way? The franchise doesn't care one way or the other. It's a simple matter of maturity. Things you liked as a kid, you likely won't enjoy as an adult, and it's healthy to leave stuff in the past. Your point of never having to stop enjoying the stuff you grew up on speaks to a level of immaturity. People should learn it's okay to let stuff go.

Does anyone understand how Japanese ratings work? Are they different than the Nielsen ratings used in the US? How are their numbers measured? I want to know because I find so much of the analysis on this forum to be reductive. Even industry insiders in the US have a hard time interpreting those numbers.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Now I think I've got a handle on you. You LOVE lore and world building, but you aren't most people. People get emotionally attached to characters, not information. All lore and world building are is exposition. They're necessary for the story, but they aren't more important than the story.

I'm not saying that most people do, but the amount that do love lore and world building aren't an insignificant portion of the fiction's fans. Fantastic lore and world building are explicitly why Tolkien is hailed as a master by anyone who studies or gives a shit about the quality of literature and fiction. It's not necessarily because the children's book about a Hobbit going on an adventure that has a dragon in it is an amazing story, but because the took what was literally intended to be a bedtime story for his children and crafted one of the most complex, detailed world fantasy world anyone had ever seen up to that point (up to the point of even inventing legitimate languages with different, distinct dialects. On top of that, he followed up his children's book by expanding his target audience to teens and adults with The Lord of the Rings.

Does it? It's been doing the same stuff for the better part of three decades. Same with Bond. It's mostly the same story over and over. I say that as a Bond fan. And I absolutely disagree that shows like Supernatural can go beyond The Winchesters. People connect to stories. The reason that show or any show works is because right time, right place. It's lightning in a bottle. How many times have you seen a show go on after the main actor leaves and it's not as good?

Yes, people connect with stories, but many are also fascinated by interesting premises and lore enough to want to explore certain fantasy worlds beyond the story of the main character. That said, the departure of a main character isn't a death sentence for any show or franchise, writers failing to replace the old cast with equally interesting or likable characters is generally their downfall. Supernatural absolutely has franchise potential and the CW is well aware of that fact and has tried spinning it off into other shows a few times, but they keep failing to give the backdoor pilot episodes good writers or stories or try and focus the whole episode on the new characters in the middle of a plotline about Sam and Dean it's not narratively connected to at all.

If you need any confirmation that a show or franchise can live past it's main character, look at soap operas before their fall (which had almost nothing to do with boring the audience away and entirely to do with it's sole demographic entering the workforce in increasing numbers and spending less time at home during the afternoons like the previous 30 or so years). General Hospital has been running and maintaining a fanbase since before TV broadcasts ere in color.

Who feels that way? The franchise doesn't care one way or the other. It's a simple matter of maturity. Things you liked as a kid, you likely won't enjoy as an adult, and it's healthy to leave stuff in the past. Your point of never having to stop enjoying the stuff you grew up on speaks to a level of immaturity. People should learn it's okay to let stuff go.

An increasing number of people feel that way in modern societies. Just because the older generations taught that the only correct way to display maturity in relation to the things you enjoyed as a kid is to lose passion and interest in them entirely(unless it was something they enjoyed too like sports, then keep it up forever), doesn't mean that's objectively the correct way to go about things.

There's also a difference between "growing to not like something, and thus wanting it to be different" and "wishing it would care about and respect legacy fans too." Some franchises might not give a shit about expanding, and some straight up shouldn't. Like, obviously Mickey Mouse should never be rolling around in any official Disney product blasting away with guns or something, but setting a side story in the Dragon Ball universe with a different target audience then the initial one can work. That doesn't mean that no franchise should ever consider doing it if they decide they want to continue making money off their fanbase or want to keep legacy fans engaged and buying stuff.

Yes, it's healthy to learn to let things go, but it's not unhealthy to hold on to things you love either if it isn't hurting anyone.

Does anyone understand how Japanese ratings work? Are they different than the Nielsen ratings used in the US? How are their numbers measured? I want to know because I find so much of the analysis on this forum to be reductive. Even industry insiders in the US have a hard time interpreting those numbers.

Ratings are calculated using a percentage or point system that is based on the episode's viewership numbers divided by the market size. Or so Wikipedia says. It's not that hard to understand what that means in relation to seeing something like "Pokemon holds a 3% ratings." It means it's anime is only being watched by a tiny portion of the market.

[ABED]

Okay, so populations change, so it's hard to really tell how many eyeballs are exactly on a given episode and given the changes in viewing habits (e.g. streaming) it's not surprising that numbers have dropped. When Cheers premiered, it had 15 million viewers and it was last in the ratings and in threat of being cancelled. These days, those numbers would make it easily Top 5.

Fantastic lore and world building are explicitly why Tolkien is hailed as a master by anyone who studies or gives a shit about the quality of literature and fiction.

And it all means nothing if the stories aren't compelling. It's not the lore that draws in generation after generation, it's the stories. What makes it fascinating is that it was one guy who did all that. However, I think his stories are highly overrated. His world building gets in the way. His first love is linguistics. He backed into the story for his languages and cultures to exist and in many places it's very obvious. There are passages of little but exposition and it gets BORING. The movies did the smart thing and kept the exposition to a minimum. When he doesn't lose sight of the story, he is a compelling storyteller with something to say. Even the people who are more fascinated by worldbuilding and lore are drawn in by the stories. If people don't care about Frodo, Bilbo, Samwise, or Gandalf, then the languages and the lore would be footnotes in literary history. LOTR doesn't become a MASSIVE film franchise because people are willing to give up their time and money for exposition.

There are a bunch of stories that have martial artists shooting energy blasts from their palms, so what is it about this one that appeals to you if not for the stories?

the departure of a main character isn't a death sentence for any show or franchise, writers failing to replace the old cast with equally interesting or likable characters is generally their downfall.

It is a death sentence. It's not easy or in my estimation possible to replace main cast members. It's all about chemistry and lightning in a bottle. Any story that goes on for any length of time will lose that magic and freshness. It's always about lightning in a bottle, and it only lasts for so long.

But they keep failing to give the backdoor pilot episodes good writers

It would be SO easy for you if that was true, but it's not. Jeremy Carver is a very talented writer and wrote some of the series' best episodes. The problem with Bloodlines is it was premise based. The best spin offs are centered on characters. If DB were to ever do a spinoff, it should be about a character, preferably one we know and already care about.

Letting go can be very healthy, and hell, still enjoying things you liked as a kid is fine as well as long as you can keep a healthy perspective and not feel as though you are owed a franchise grow with you.

If you need any confirmation that a show or franchise can live past it's main character

Really, soaps are your big go to? And when I talk about living on, I don't mean just existing, but being as good as it was with the original main character(s). Look at how many shows went on without a main character and were worse off for it. Your ONE example is from a genre with a captive audience.

[Zeon_Grunt]

And it all means nothing if the stories aren't compelling. It's not the lore that draws in generation after generation, it's the stories. What makes it fascinating is that it was one guy who did all that.

You're right that all the lore in the world means nothing without a compelling story, but that's a given and not being argued... It could very well be argued that it isn't the inherent quality of the stories so much as the quality of wanting to experience stories in that world. In fact, there are many people who stick with certain franchises specifically because they're interested in stories in the purposed world than because they think the characters or storytelling are top tier.

However, I think his stories are highly overrated.

That's neither here nor there about the discussion. It's not about what YOU personally find interesting or compelling.

It would be SO easy for you if that was true, but it's not. Jeremy Carver is a very talented writer and wrote some of the series' best episodes. The problem with Bloodlines is it was premise based. The best spin offs are centered on characters. If DB were to ever do a spinoff, it should be about a character, preferably one we know and already care about.

Andrew Dabb wrote the Bloodlines episode (and the Wayward Sisters episode), what are you talking about? Beyond that, none of the writers for that show have a perfect record. That said, they handled it awfully for the most part. Instead of handling it the way, say JAG handled pitching NCIS, where the characters showed up as support cast for the main cast who were having character development episodes, Dean and Sam were barely in it and took a back seat. It wasn't an episode of Supernatural introducing us to the cast of the new show, it was just an episode of that different show with the main characters of the show they're guest starring in being relegated to support for most of the time. It also didn't help that it premiered during the period in the show's life when the overall writing quality hadn't recovered from Kripke's departure yet.

The premise of the show (exploring the territorial tensions between different monster tribes and the hunters in a major US city) isn't inherently bad or boring, the execution and writing were just fucking awful.

If you can't see how limiting a DB story to only the characters we already know is incredibly creatively restrictive, I just don't know what to say.

Letting go can be very healthy, and hell, still enjoying things you liked as a kid is fine as well as long as you can keep a healthy perspective and not feel as though you are owed a franchise grow with you.

There's a huge difference between feeling you're owed something and making a request or expressing a desire. The problem here is that you're assuming that everyone who wishes to see a franchise grow and expand do so out of some misplaced sense of entitlement when that's usually not the case.

Really, soaps are your big go to?

For the context of whether a show can continue to succeed after main characters leave, yes. It's the most prominent and successful example of it working.

[ABED]

Dabb is also a talented writer Ihe got sole writing credit, but he wasn't the sole writer of the episode. Carver and Singer helped develop the spinoff) and NO duh that no writer has a perfect track record. That's the point. It's not lack of talent that's the factor. And you clearly don't know how backdoor pilots work. They are basically episodes of an entirely different show on an already popular show. Empty Nest started as a backdoor pilot on The Golden Girls and that episode and the golden girls are barely in it. Empty Nest went 7 seasons.

The overall quality never recovered after Kripke left. That's my point. The magic of the show was gone. It had long since past the point where it should've ended.

The premise of the show (exploring the territorial tensions between different monster tribes and the hunters in a major US city) isn't inherently bad or boring, the execution and writing were just fucking awful.

The premise isn't bad but that's because ideas are relatively easy. It's the story and execution that matter. The second spinoff was much better because it was centered around characters we did know and care about, but again, the magic wasn't there.

To keep this DB related, DB is still popular and will continue to be popular but it's long since past the point where it should've ended. They can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle. Spinoffs about Broly, Videl, or whomever aren't the answer to keeping it going or creatively vibrant. Those years are long since gone.

It's the most prominent and successful example of it working.

It's the only example, and my guess is there's more going on there.

There's a huge difference between feeling you're owed something and making a request or expressing a desire. The problem here is that you're assuming that everyone who wishes to see a franchise grow and expand do so out of some misplaced sense of entitlement when that's usually not the case.

I'm begging you to really think through what you really mean. What reason could someone really want something to grow up with them? What healthy reason is there for wanting to never let go of something from their childhood even if it changes what that something is at that very core? It's not mere passion, it's unhealthy attachment.

[MyVisionity]

If DB wants to end, let it end. But then allow Videl or whomever to flourish in their own show. With the right amount of care, the spinoff could take on a life of its own and then you might not have so many "should DB end?" "is the magic gone?" concerns because the spinoff would transcend the original.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Dabb is also a talented writer and NO duh that no writer has a perfect track record. That's the point.

That was not remotely the point you were making...

It's not lack of talent that's the factor.

It really is. The right talent with the right

And you clearly don't know how backdoor pilots work. They are basically episodes of an entirely different show on an already popular show. Empty Nest started as a backdoor pilot on The Golden Girls and that episode and the golden girls are barely in it. Empty Nest went 7 seasons.

The overall quality never recovered after Kripke left. That's my point. The magic of the show was gone. It had long since past the point where it should've ended.

The premise isn't bad but that's because ideas are relatively easy. It's the story and execution that matter. The second spinoff was much better because it was centered around characters we did know and care about, but again, the magic wasn't there.

You literally just said that they failed because the premises were bad in the previous post... And you're exactly right, it is the story and execution that matter most in launching a successful spin off or sequel, and the story and execution of the pilot episodes wasn't up to snuff.

That 70's Show's final season wasn't bad because Eric was gone, it was bad because the dude they replaced him with was awful and the quality of the writing took a sharp dive. Likewise, That 80's Show, not because the magic of the original show was lost, but because people realized that it wasn't actually a spin-off or sequel to That 70's Show, but rather a complete rip-off made by the production crew and writing staff made to try and bank off the popularity of the other show. On top of being objectively awful.

To keep this DB related, DB is still popular and will continue to be popular but it's long since past the point where it should've ended. They can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle. Spinoffs about Broly, Videl, or whomever aren't the answer to keeping it going or creatively vibrant. Those years are long since gone.

Except if the scene near the end of the original run isn't evidence enough, no, DB will not remain popular forever if it doesn't do something differently than they did before.

Just because you think a franchise can't reignite it's creative spark or draw in new viewers by changing it's approach, doesn't mean it's inherently true.

I'm begging you to really think through what you really mean. What reason could someone really want something to grow up with them? What healthy reason is there for wanting to never let go of something from their childhood even if it changes what that something is at that very core? It's not mere passion, it's unhealthy attachment.

How is wanting a series to mature and expand to reach more fans an "unhealthy attachment?" It's not "accept the situation for what it currently is and move on, or you're immature."

Regardless, the key to a successful perpetual series is to breed lifelong fans, not abandon them every time a batch of fans exit the original target demographic.

If DB wants to end, let it end. But then allow Videl or whomever to flourish in their own show. With the right amount of care, the spinoff could take on a life of its own and then you might not have so many "should DB end?" "is the magic gone?" concerns because the spinoff would transcend the original.

Right. If the main Dragon Ball as the story of Goku wants or needs to end, then there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean the franchise itself has to die.

[MyVisionity]

Another thing about shows failing after the main character is gone is that usually it happens when the actors are being selfish and up and quit on everybody, leaving the writers and producers scrambling. Or some kind of unexpected conflict arises that forces an abrupt exit. So then the future storylines have to be pulled and reworked often within a short time frame, which can affect the overall quality of the series.

The difference with DB would be that the writers can plot Goku's exit far in advance, with genuine intent to replace him from the start. One could argue that in such a case the quality of the series would not drop, nor would viewer interest, resulting in a successful turnover in main characters.

[ABED]

Regardless, the key to a successful perpetual series is to breed lifelong fans, not abandon them every time a batch of fans exit the original target demographic.

THIS is the sort of entitlement mentality I'm talking about. What a gross abuse of language.and good lord, the show isn't abandoning the fans by staying true to itself. The audience is simply growing up. The series isn't abandoning them. It's staying where it is, and the audience is growing up. Everything ends, and that's okay. Nothing gold can stay.

DB doesn't have the problem of keeping lifelong fans. This forum is pretty good evidence of that. Many of us are in our 30s and began watching it before we were teens. There's no key to any of this. If it were a simple matter of something as vague as good writing, it would be so much simpler to keep franchises and stories popular. I don't know how to account for DB being almost more popular than ever, but it's a good indication that what they are doing is working. They shouldn't fix what they don't think is broken. I wish they would end it, but they wont. I'll eat my words if they do change things up drastically and it continues to be a massive success, and admit I was wrong, but I don't think I am.

Ratings are calculated using a percentage or point system that is based on the episode's viewership numbers divided by the market size. Or so Wikipedia says. It's not that hard to understand what that means in relation to seeing something like "Pokemon holds a 3% ratings." It means it's anime is only being watched by a tiny portion of the market.

What's the market size? Is it the total number of households watching TV at that time? What are the population numbers? You say 3%, but percent of how many? Say the market increased, so it's 3% of a larger audience. What if fans are watching it via streaming. Those numbers aren't being captured in that 3%. That statistic you are citing alone tells us very little. Hell, DB's ratings are much larger in the original run than Super's, but if the Japanese market is anything like the US's that's not surprising. Point being, these numbers aren't useful in and of themselves and your analysis of them is simplistic at best.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Regardless, the key to a successful perpetual series is to breed lifelong fans, not abandon them every time a batch of fans exit the original target demographic.

THIS is the sort of entitlement mentality I'm talking about. What a gross abuse of language.and good lord, the show isn't abandoning the fans by staying true to itself. The audience is simply growing up. The series isn't abandoning them. It's staying where it is, and the audience is growing up. Everything ends, and that's okay. Nothing gold can stay.

DB doesn't have the problem of keeping lifelong fans. This forum is pretty good evidence of that. Many of us are in our 30s and began watching it before we were teens. There's no key to any of this. If it were a simple matter of something as vague as good writing, it would be so much simpler to keep franchises and stories popular. I don't know how to account for DB being almost more popular than ever, but it's a good indication that what they are doing is working. They shouldn't fix what they don't think is broken. I wish they would end it, but they wont. I'll eat my words if they do change things up drastically and it continues to be a massive success, and admit I was wrong, but I don't think I am.

Ratings are calculated using a percentage or point system that is based on the episode's viewership numbers divided by the market size. Or so Wikipedia says. It's not that hard to understand what that means in relation to seeing something like "Pokemon holds a 3% ratings." It means it's anime is only being watched by a tiny portion of the market.

What's the market size? Is it the total number of households watching TV at that time? What are the population numbers? You say 3%, but percent of how many? Say the market increased, so it's 3% of a larger audience. What if fans are watching it via streaming. Those numbers aren't being captured in that 3%. That statistic you are citing alone tells us very little. Hell, DB's ratings are much larger in the original run than Super's, but if the Japanese market is anything like the US's that's not surprising. Point being, these numbers aren't useful in and of themselves and your analysis of them is simplistic at best.

Telling your longtime fans that they don't matter because they aren't your target audience anymore is akin to abandoning them...

That said, there's absolutely a difference between a lifelong fan that just re-watches the old shows on DVD on repeat or just checking out highlights and fights on Youtube and a lifelong fan that continues to support new endeavors the brand/franchise makes. The latter is who I'm referring to and the former are, as much as some of us don't want to admit it, irrelevant to the discussion. GT absolutely did push a lot of aging DBZ fans away from the franchise, as did Super dissuade a lot of older DBZ fans from tuning in and supporting the franchise.

Regardless, at this point it's probably best to just agree to disagree. It's pretty obvious that you're adamantly against the idea of a brand or franchise changing to appeal to a wider variety of audiences, and I'm not going to change my stance that doing so is a better business plan that brings in more viewers and money.

The difference with DB would be that the writers can plot Goku's exit far in advance, with genuine intent to replace him from the start. One could argue that in such a case the quality of the series would not drop, nor would viewer interest, resulting in a successful turnover in main characters.

The Cell arc is a prime example of this playing out before Toriyama decided to change his mind and make Goku the start of the series again partway through the Boo arc. Fans, especially the older ones, were way more accepting of the idea of Gohan taking over the series than Goku going through yet another arc and saving the day again. It's why a lot of people bemoan the current state of the series and complain about it being the "Goku/Vegeta Show."

[ABED]

Telling your longtime fans that they don't matter because they aren't your target audience anymore is akin to abandoning them...

No, no it's not remotely like that. It's telling the audience, the story is the same story it always was. You're welcome to stay with it or move on. It's not leaving them. How could it, it's not changing or going anywhere. It's the fans that are growing out of it. It's like a kid leaving the next. It's not a bad thing at all.

It's why a lot of people bemoan the current state of the series and complain about it being the "Goku/Vegeta Show."

I hate this movie, Batman saves the day again.
What's it called?
Batman.
What were you expecting?

Besides, I don't know how you got the idea that the fans were on their way to accepting the switch over or why Toriyama shouldn't go with his gut.

[Zeon_Grunt]

Telling your longtime fans that they don't matter because they aren't your target audience anymore is akin to abandoning them...

No, no it's not remotely like that. It's telling the audience, the story is the same story it always was. You're welcome to stay with it or move on. It's not leaving them. How could it, it's not changing or going anywhere. It's the fans that are growing out of it. It's like a kid leaving the next. It's not a bad thing at all.

It's why a lot of people bemoan the current state of the series and complain about it being the "Goku/Vegeta Show."

I hate this movie, Batman saves the day again.
What's it called?
Batman.
What were you expecting?

Besides, I don't know how you got the idea that the fans were on their way to accepting the switch over or why Toriyama shouldn't go with his gut.

It's abandoning them in the way that they're telling the fans "We care about you and what you want to see... until you've matured more in your life, then you can fuck off and we don't care." If you don't consider it abandonment, that's fine, but it's still not

There's a huge difference between a franchise like Dragon Ball, and one like Batman. The fact that you can't see this is kind of a problem. Beyond that, Batman is a title that can and has successfully changed from person to person so the story hasn't just been about Bruce Wayne. It's part of the reason the whole Batman franchise has managed to stay fresh and interesting over the years. On top of that, even Bruce Wayne differs drastically between Batman products across every medium allowing different writers to write and interpret their own stories for the Dark Knight.

[ABED]

That's pure entitlement. Just because you are a fan doesn't mean the stories you enjoy are supposed to cater to you. Any artist puts their work out there and you either like it or you don't, you don't dictate it's direction. It absolutely is entitlement. You feel a work owes it to its fans to never leave. It's not leaving. It's remaining what it is and you have to decide whether you like it enough to continue enjoying it.

It's part of the reason the whole Batman franchise has managed to stay fresh and interesting over the years.

It hasn't remained fresh and interesting over the years. It goes through ups and downs like any franchise, and it's utterly irrelevant to the point. You were complaining about a story where the main character is the focus. Batman stories are about Batman, and DB is about Goku. Goku getting the bulk of the focus isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[Zeon_Grunt]

That's pure entitlement. Just because you are a fan doesn't mean the stories you enjoy are supposed to cater to you. Any artist puts their work out there and you either like it or you don't, you don't dictate it's direction. It absolutely is entitlement. You feel a work owes it to its fans to never leave. It's not leaving. It's remaining what it is and you have to decide whether you like it enough to continue enjoying it.

It's part of the reason the whole Batman franchise has managed to stay fresh and interesting over the years.

It hasn't remained fresh and interesting over the years. It goes through ups and downs like any franchise, and it's utterly irrelevant to the point. You were complaining about a story where the main character is the focus. Batman stories are about Batman, and DB is about Goku. Goku getting the bulk of the focus isn't a bug, it's a feature.

It's only a sense of entitlement if the artist is explicitly just trying to put his idea on paper. It's a whole different story when they're only writing it and coming up with ideas to entertain an audience... That's how entertainment industries work, you either give the fans something they want to see or they move on to someone who will. For you as an uninvest fan who doesn't care about the future profitability of the franchise, sure, that's irrelevant, but for the shareholders and company who own Dragon Ball, doing the exact opposite is just being stupid.

And if it hadn't found ways to refresh itself, Batman never would have seen those upticks in popularity after the first waning period. Regardless, the point stands, if Dragon Ball is aiming to be a forever franchise like Batman, which is clearly the intent behind the scenes at this point, it has to find a way to not be just the same story over and over again with Goku just reaching absurd levels of power to the point of being incomprehensible.

I'd agree that it shouldn't ever move past Goku if the show was actually called "Goku" or "Kakarot," or something specific to him, but it's not. The series is named after a piece of lore, which gives it much more freedom and ability to explore beyond whoever the initial main character is. Dragon Ball is no longer "the work of Akira Toriyama," any more than Batman is "the work of Bob Kane and Bill Finger," and it's entirely the future Toei and Toriyama want it to take at this point. You not liking that and wanting it to have a conclusive end doesn't make exploring the idea of expanding and growing the series any less a valid choice or a reasonable request from other fans who do care about the future of it.

[ABED]

That's not how it works. The artist puts out something they think is interesting and are looking for a likeminded audience. What you're talking about is pandering. Many times, people don't know what they want until they see it. Did any of us know we wanted Breaking Bad? No So just because the show finds an audience (made up of people with different opinions so whom should they cater to?) doesn't mean the writer(s) should pander to the audience. They need to give the story what it needs, not the fans what they want. After all, it was the story that made them fans to begin with. No one knows for certain what the fans want to see. It's a crap shoot. That point is obvious.

I'd agree that it shouldn't ever move past Goku if the show was actually called "Goku" or "Kakarot," or something specific to him, but it's not.

Stories about a main character don't have to be named after them.

[Zeon_Grunt]

That's not how it works. The artist puts out something they think is interesting and are looking for a likeminded audience. What you're talking about is pandering. Many times, people don't know what they want until they see it. Did any of us know we wanted Breaking Bad? No So just because the show finds an audience (made up of people with different opinions so whom should they cater to?) doesn't mean the writer(s) should pander to the audience. They need to give the story what it needs, not the fans what they want. After all, it was the story that made them fans to begin with. No one knows for certain what the fans want to see. It's a crap shoot. That point is obvious.

Stories about a main character don't have to be named after them.

I'm more than convinced that you don't understand that Dragon Ball is a PRODUCT IN A FRANCHISE, not a singular work of art. It hasn't been that in decades.

Likewise, franchises that aren't named after any one person don't have to remain stories exclusively about that one person until they stop being profitable.

[ssjjanemba]

I would love to see broly become a new god of destruction. He would fit the role so well.

[ABED]

That's not how it works. The artist puts out something they think is interesting and are looking for a likeminded audience. What you're talking about is pandering. Many times, people don't know what they want until they see it. Did any of us know we wanted Breaking Bad? No So just because the show finds an audience (made up of people with different opinions so whom should they cater to?) doesn't mean the writer(s) should pander to the audience. They need to give the story what it needs, not the fans what they want. After all, it was the story that made them fans to begin with. No one knows for certain what the fans want to see. It's a crap shoot. That point is obvious.

Stories about a main character don't have to be named after them.

I'm more than convinced that you don't understand that Dragon Ball is a PRODUCT IN A FRANCHISE, not a singular work of art. It hasn't been that in decades.

Likewise, franchises that aren't named after any one person don't have to remain stories exclusively about that one person until they stop being profitable.

They don't have to remain about the main character but they change at their own peril. People fall in love with the characters. The idea that the name of the franchise changes this fundamental fact of storytelling is asinine. 24 was novel in its structure but it was Jack and later chloe that the audience fell in love with. Going beyond them was a mistake. A season all in real time is neat, but what the audience tuned into week after week was seeing how Jack Bauer would stop the terrorists.

[WittyUsername]

I would love to see broly become a new god of destruction. He would fit the role so well.

Would he? The movie made a point to establish that Broly is a peaceful man who isn’t interested in killing. The end of the movie does suggest that he likes fighting like most Saiyans, but he’s only really dangerous because he can’t control his powers.