Dragon Ball Lore

[Sadala Elite]

Modern Dragon Ball definitely comes across as more lore focused than classic Dragon Ball, I’ll say that much.

Dragonball Heroes (the games and manga, not the promo anime) is the only piece of DB media that's lore centric.

I don’t know if I’d say that. Super has focused pretty heavily on the hierarchy surrounding deities in the Dragon Ball world.

Super isn't lore-based at all. The whole divine hierarchy plays little-to-no direct role in any of the arcs at all.

[WittyUsername]

Dragonball Heroes (the games and manga, not the promo anime) is the only piece of DB media that's lore centric.

I don’t know if I’d say that. Super has focused pretty heavily on the hierarchy surrounding deities in the Dragon Ball world.

Super isn't lore-based at all. The whole divine hierarchy plays little-to-no direct role in any of the arcs at all.

It definitely plays a role in the Future Trunks arc and the Universe Survival arc.

[Sadala Elite]

Even Star Wars deep lore feels superfluous. The original Star Wars was made such a huge impact because of its likable characters and sufficiently simple narrative and recognizable archetypes. Even for all the talk about Tolkien's middle Earth lore, the reason LOTR and The Hobbit are enjoyed by millions of people is because they have pretty simple stories and there's something to be said for a story where the most important character is a the smallest and unlikeliest of heroes. He's a normal everyday person and who can't identify with that? Lore comes out of the story, not in place of it.

LOTR isn't "simple" at all, and a story doesn't need to be simple and straight forward in other to have massive, global success (look at Game of Thones/ASOIAF or any Shakespeare drama for example).

[Sadala Elite]

I don’t know if I’d say that. Super has focused pretty heavily on the hierarchy surrounding deities in the Dragon Ball world.

Super isn't lore-based at all. The whole divine hierarchy plays little-to-no direct role in any of the arcs at all.

It definitely plays a role in the Future Trunks arc and the Universe Survival arc.

The Deities do basically nothing in both arcs (especially in the manga version). Nothing about either saga provides anything new lore-wise about the Divine hierarchy.

[WittyUsername]

Super isn't lore-based at all. The whole divine hierarchy plays little-to-no direct role in any of the arcs at all.

It definitely plays a role in the Future Trunks arc and the Universe Survival arc.

The Deities do basically nothing in both arcs (especially in the manga version). Nothing about either saga provides anything new lore-wise about the Divine hierarchy.

The Future Trunks arc delves more deeply into the role that deities serve in the Dragon Ball universe, including their stance on time travel, and the fact that the lives of the Gods of Destruction and the Kaioshin are linked. Meanwhile, the Universe Survival arc establishes that there’s a ranking system for each of the 12 universes, based on how well they’re managed by their respective deities, and that the eight lowest ranking universes were the ones who would have to fight in the Tournament of Power. Also, there’s Ultra Instinct.

[ABED]

Even Star Wars deep lore feels superfluous. The original Star Wars was made such a huge impact because of its likable characters and sufficiently simple narrative and recognizable archetypes. Even for all the talk about Tolkien's middle Earth lore, the reason LOTR and The Hobbit are enjoyed by millions of people is because they have pretty simple stories and there's something to be said for a story where the most important character is a the smallest and unlikeliest of heroes. He's a normal everyday person and who can't identify with that? Lore comes out of the story, not in place of it.

LOTR isn't "simple" at all, and a story doesn't need to be simple and straight forward in other to have massive, global success (look at Game of Thones/ASOIAF or any Shakespeare drama for example).

While the plot is complex, the story is very simple. Destroy the ring or bad guy rules the world, but you're missing the more fundamental point that it wasn't the lore that made LOTR a success. The only story you explicitly mention I would consider complex is Game of Thrones because the nature of its goal is more intangible.

Shakespearean dramas were simple stories. They were written for the masses, not elites.

Well considering how much the Sequel trilogy sucks (and retcons and contradicts much of the Original Trilogy), I'd take the Legends stuff over it any day.

The original trilogy contradicts the original trilogy. That is not the reason 2 out three of those movies aren't good. It's because there's no satisfyiing payoff to it. That's the point. All the esoteric lore contradictions and plot holes don't matter. And in case you feel like arguing against that point, I would like you take a moment to consider you are on a DB forum - a story rife with plot holes.

Can anyone explain what exactly it would mean for a story to be "lore based"?

Take big fantasy franchises like LOTR and ASoIaF. Both Tolkien and GRRM wanted their universes to be extremely rich in lore and backstory from the beginning and authored all of it themselves. Therefore, even the most far-out lore always feels relevant and heartfelt.

I haven't read the GOT books, but I have read LOTR and The Hobbit and I don't care about any of that exposition beyond what felt necessary for the story to work, it's a reason I enjoy the movies a lot more than the books (reverse that for The Hobbit). No matter how heartfelt it was, the exposition gets in the way of the story. It's his characters and drama that enthralled audiences. Game of Thrones didn't become a massive success because of a bunch of extraneous world building. It was a story that felt very rooted in humanity with all of its ugliness and heroism and people just trying to survive in a brutal world. The world building served the function of allowing the story to function and we got why things were happening and the importance they had. Listen to GRRM in interviews, he didn't want to write something that was rich in lore. He wanted to use medieval fantasy to say something about the world. His worlds are complex because OUR world and the people in it are complex. He's a storyteller first and foremost. Tolkien is a different case. He was a linguist and he created a story for his languages to inhabit. While the history and world building are impressive and a draw for many, I would argue that's not the reason or even an important reason for the success of Middle Earth.

To give a good example of good world building in DB - Super Saiyan. We first hear about it as a rare feat only achieved millenia before. We know Freeza is afraid of the legend. The whole reason he destroyed the Saiyans is for that very reason. He was apprehensive about them. Now Goku's best friend has been transformed, the set up is paid off. The legend we were told wasn't mere lore but establishes that it's rare and something Freeza would fear.

[Sadala Elite]

Even Star Wars deep lore feels superfluous. The original Star Wars was made such a huge impact because of its likable characters and sufficiently simple narrative and recognizable archetypes. Even for all the talk about Tolkien's middle Earth lore, the reason LOTR and The Hobbit are enjoyed by millions of people is because they have pretty simple stories and there's something to be said for a story where the most important character is a the smallest and unlikeliest of heroes. He's a normal everyday person and who can't identify with that? Lore comes out of the story, not in place of it.

LOTR isn't "simple" at all, and a story doesn't need to be simple and straight forward in other to have massive, global success (look at Game of Thones/ASOIAF or any Shakespeare drama for example).

While the plot is complex, the story is very simple. Destroy the ring or bad guy rules the world, but you're missing the more fundamental point that it wasn't the lore that made LOTR a success. The only story you explicitly mention I would consider complex is Game of Thrones because the nature of its goal is more intangible.

Shakespearean dramas were simple stories. They were written for the masses, not elites.

Well considering how much the Sequel trilogy sucks (and retcons and contradicts much of the Original Trilogy), I'd take the Legends stuff over it any day.

The original trilogy contradicts the original trilogy. That is not the reason 2 out three of those movies aren't good. It's because there's no satisfyiing payoff to it. That's the point. All the esoteric lore contradictions and plot holes don't matter. And in case you feel like arguing against that point, I would like you take a moment to consider you are on a DB forum - a story rife with plot holes.

Can anyone explain what exactly it would mean for a story to be "lore based"?

Take big fantasy franchises like LOTR and ASoIaF. Both Tolkien and GRRM wanted their universes to be extremely rich in lore and backstory from the beginning and authored all of it themselves. Therefore, even the most far-out lore always feels relevant and heartfelt.

I haven't read the GOT books, but I have read LOTR and The Hobbit and I don't care about any of that exposition beyond what felt necessary for the story to work, it's a reason I enjoy the movies a lot more than the books (reverse that for The Hobbit). No matter how heartfelt it was, the exposition gets in the way of the story. It's his characters and drama that enthralled audiences. Game of Thrones didn't become a massive success because of a bunch of extraneous world building. It was a story that felt very rooted in humanity with all of its ugliness and heroism and people just trying to survive in a brutal world. The world building served the function of allowing the story to function and we got why things were happening and the importance they had. Listen to GRRM in interviews, he didn't want to write something that was rich in lore. He wanted to use medieval fantasy to say something about the world. His worlds are complex because OUR world and the people in it are complex. He's a storyteller first and foremost. Tolkien is a different case. He was a linguist and he created a story for his languages to inhabit. While the history and world building are impressive and a draw for many, I would argue that's not the reason or even an important reason for the success of Middle Earth.

To give a good example of good world building in DB - Super Saiyan. We first hear about it as a rare feat only achieved millenia before. We know Freeza is afraid of the legend. The whole reason he destroyed the Saiyans is for that very reason. He was apprehensive about them. Now Goku's best friend has been transformed, the set up is paid off. The legend we were told wasn't mere lore but establishes that it's rare and something Freeza would fear.

- Shakespeare plays actually WERE made for both the elites and the masses (and is often filled with subtext that commoners at the time wouldn't understand), and there's nothing simplistic about works such as Hamlet, his Rome Trilogy or King Lear for example.

- "Listen to GRRM in interviews, he didn't want to write something that was rich in lore."

And yet he ended up doing exactly that right after the first book lol, as well as making a whole bunch of extended literature that takes place before the main story.

- "While the plot is complex, the story is very simple."

You just contradicted yourself. If the plot(s) is complex then the story itself is complex, because plots are the skeleton/outline of a story.

- Nobody said lore had anything to do with why the Sequels and most of the Prequels suck, so that's an irrelevant argument. The point was that much of EU stuff is better written than most of the non-Original movies. And how does the Original Trilogy contradict itself in any major way?

- "but you're missing the more fundamental point that it wasn't the lore that made LOTR a success."

And you are missing the main point that a story doesn't have to be simple and straightforward to be massively successful. And nobody here said that lore was the reason why LOTR & GOT are successful, so that's an irrelevant argument too.

[Sadala Elite]

It definitely plays a role in the Future Trunks arc and the Universe Survival arc.

The Deities do basically nothing in both arcs (especially in the manga version). Nothing about either saga provides anything new lore-wise about the Divine hierarchy.

The Future Trunks arc delves more deeply into the role that deities serve in the Dragon Ball universe, including their stance on time travel, and the fact that the lives of the Gods of Destruction and the Kaioshin are linked. Meanwhile, the Universe Survival arc establishes that there’s a ranking system for each of the 12 universes, based on how well they’re managed by their respective deities, and that the eight lowest ranking universes were the ones who would have to fight in the Tournament of Power. Also, there’s Ultra Instinct.

By that standard, Super isn't anymore "lore" based than the original manga, Z and especially GT is. If anything, it might even be less "lore" based than those 3 series on average based on actual contribution.

[Melee_Sovereign]

Can anyone explain what exactly it would mean for a story to be "lore based"?

Probably like the examples I cited. A story where a character merely acts as a perspective for the audience to experience the world unfolding as the plot progresses. There are a lot of highly successful stories like this.

H.P. Lovecraft basically only wrote stories like this. He even has a quote that reads:

"I could not write about ' ordinary people ' because I am not in the least interested in them. Without interest there can be no art. Man's relations to man do not captivate my fancy. It is man's relations to the cosmos - to the unknown - which alone arouses in me the spark of creative imagination.”

[LoganForkHands73]

I haven't read the GOT books, but I have read LOTR and The Hobbit and I don't care about any of that exposition beyond what felt necessary for the story to work, it's a reason I enjoy the movies a lot more than the books (reverse that for The Hobbit). No matter how heartfelt it was, the exposition gets in the way of the story. It's his characters and drama that enthralled audiences. Game of Thrones didn't become a massive success because of a bunch of extraneous world building. It was a story that felt very rooted in humanity with all of its ugliness and heroism and people just trying to survive in a brutal world. The world building served the function of allowing the story to function and we got why things were happening and the importance they had. Listen to GRRM in interviews, he didn't want to write something that was rich in lore. He wanted to use medieval fantasy to say something about the world. His worlds are complex because OUR world and the people in it are complex. He's a storyteller first and foremost. Tolkien is a different case. He was a linguist and he created a story for his languages to inhabit. While the history and world building are impressive and a draw for many, I would argue that's not the reason or even an important reason for the success of Middle Earth.

To give a good example of good world building in DB - Super Saiyan. We first hear about it as a rare feat only achieved millenia before. We know Freeza is afraid of the legend. The whole reason he destroyed the Saiyans is for that very reason. He was apprehensive about them. Now Goku's best friend has been transformed, the set up is paid off. The legend we were told wasn't mere lore but establishes that it's rare and something Freeza would fear.

You're half right about GRRM, obviously he's a character writer first and foremost, but in interviews he said he always wanted to create a highly dense, English history-inspired mythos for his imagination to go wild in. He simply said that his method for coming up with lore was a reverse of his idol Tolkien's method as he'd start from a point and branch out. Tolkien's basis for the plot of LOTR is extremely basic on paper, it's a quintessential Hero's Journey just like the original Star Wars like I said earlier, but I'd say that it's unfair to ignore that part of why the franchise as a whole has had such longevity mainly among the OG literary fans is how much work Tolkien put into the worldbuilding and backstory - people freakin love The Silmarillion, which is nothing but backstory lore that he designed in his head before he even started writing Frodo and Sam's adventure. He wanted to create a fictional world with a huge, extensive history that could almost be believable as a real, long lost historical manuscript. I mean, keep in mind that the Middle-earth mythos was the first of its kind - if Tolkien didn't put as much effort into lore building before he started writing the main story, it all might've turned out rubbish. The reason why modern fantasy authors can get away with neglecting lore building and the idea that elves, dwarves and hobbits can all coexist is because of Tolkien's example.

But as someone pointed out, Martin has also made massive coffee table books, prequels and has constantly included tales and family trees linking to history within the Ice & Fire universe. And most of it is completely relevant to the themes of the main story, showing that these petty, brutal conflicts have centuries of precedence. They're always treated as stories within stories and unlike Star Wars, it's all of a consistent quality.

If you've not read the books then this won't have much meaning for you, but there's a beloved sequence in "A Feast for Crows" in which a character basically gives a rant about an obscure past conflict called the War of Ninepenny Kings, and it's bloody enthralling. There's countless other examples.

But, uh... *ahem*... unless Toriyama suddenly does a full 180 and became a well-thought-out lore god, this sort of stuff is less necessary in Dragon Ball. He never crafted a Silmarillion in his head about the origins of the universe, the Saiyan-Tsufurujin conflict or whateverwhocares. And that's ooookay.

[ABED]

But the Silmarilion doesn't have nearly the level of popularity or awareness as either The Hobbit or LOTR which were well known even prior to the films. I would argue that if the kept the middle Earth's history to essentials and concentrated on narrative, the stories would be stronger. As it is, there's way too much history and non-essential stuff (Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow, I'm looking at you) that detract from the story. Characters come in and out of the story that do nothing but one specific task. Then there are entire extraneous passages of exposition that make stuff a slog to get through. Even if a writer wants to come up with all this because they find it helpful, that's fine, but stuffing it also within the body of the story is a terrible idea. The benefits don't outweigh the negatives of slower pacing and greater word count.

The reason why modern fantasy authors can get away with neglecting lore building and the idea that elves, dwarves and hobbits can all coexist is because of Tolkien's example.

I get that certain works can create a precedent that subsequent authors can follow because the groundwork has been laid and the audience can accept it, but I don't see how lore has anything to do with THIS example. That's due to execution of the story and themes. A big point of the Fellowship was different people coming together for common purpose. That's a strong resonant theme, not just world building.

- Shakespeare plays actually WERE made for both the elites and the masses (and is often filled with subtext that commoners at the time wouldn't understand), and there's nothing simplistic about works such as Hamlet, his Rome Trilogy or King Lear for example.

Mostly the masses. They were meant to be experienced, not read. Having rich subtext doesn't make it not for them. I didn't say "simplistic" I wrote "simple" as in easy to understand the story and what was motivating the characters' actions.

You just contradicted yourself. If the plot(s) is complex then the story itself is complex, because plots are the skeleton/outline of a story.

Plots are the events, the story is what it's about. The plot of Raiders of the Lost ArK was Indiana Jones searching for the Ark of the Covenant, but the story was about him reconciling all parts of his profession - there's the pure science side but then there's the religious aspect which he's brushed off the existence of the supernatural. So no, I've not contradicted myself.

And you are missing the main point that a story doesn't have to be simple and straightforward to be massively successful. And nobody here said that lore was the reason why LOTR & GOT are successful, so that's an irrelevant argument too.

YOU are missing the main point. I am the one who created this thread hence why I understand what its main point was. The two go to examples of LOTR and GOT aren't successful due to lore or the simplicity/complexities of their plots. It's that the characters are well realized and themes are resonant.

Melee, you're giving me examples but not explaining what you mean by "lore based".

- Nobody said lore had anything to do with why the Sequels and most of the Prequels suck, so that's an irrelevant argument. The point was that much of EU stuff is better written than most of the non-Original movies. And how does the Original Trilogy contradict itself in any major way?

- Vader being Luke's father and Obi Wan explaining his apparent lie away because it was a "certain point of view" which is the writers desperately trying to justify that retcon' Or how about Leia being Luke's sister.
-I'm well are that you didn't say the ST and PT sucked due to reasons having to do w/ lore, I was simpliy disagreeing with your reasons why those films weren't good. They weren't due to contradictions which is the often cited reason.

[LoganForkHands73]

Ultimately it's all subjective. Many readers, casual and hardcore fans, enjoy expanded lore and the extra meat gives them more stuff to chew on when they're done with the initial story. With Tolkien and GRRM, they created this expansive mythologies as foundations for their stories more for their own enjoyment and they always intended for it to be that way, so who's to say that removing it would have improved their work? If lore isn't your thing, it's not your thing. Of course there's thousands of other ways of conveying a real, deliberated fictional universe without explicitly delving into fullblown lore and some are all the better for it. As I said, some things just aren't meant to be over-explained. I'm still iffy on some of Toriyama's little lore tidbits in Kakarot, such as the reason that "animal-type" Earthlings exist is because of a popular drug that turns humans into them. Kind of damages the fantasy aesthetic of OG Dragon Ball now we know that all the animal people were just druggos, lol. It is weird that we hardly ever see anthropomorphic animals in the later chapters but I would first assume that a) we're just seeing cities with low animal populations or b) Toriyama just forgot and was doing his usual "seat-of-the-pants" schtick.

[ekrolo2]

Speaking of fantasy writers and how they dealt with world-building, Sapkowski is a fun example of one as he never drew or even thought about the geography of the Witcherverse' map. Sure, he'd say "Vizima is south of Kovir" and use statements like "it takes x amount days or weeks to get someplace" but he never cared to nail any of it down, it didn't matter to him. All these places were just areas for various factions and characters to play around in. How it all made tangible sense geographically? Who gives a shit. It wasn't until the games came out people even got an official look at what the Witcher world even looks when drawn.

Ultimately it's all subjective. Many readers, casual and hardcore fans, enjoy expanded lore and the extra meat gives them more stuff to chew on when they're done with the initial story. With Tolkien and GRRM, they created this expansive mythologies as foundations for their stories more for their own enjoyment and they always intended for it to be that way, so who's to say that removing it would have improved their work? If lore isn't your thing, it's not your thing. Of course there's thousands of other ways of conveying a real, deliberated fictional universe without explicitly delving into fullblown lore and some are all the better for it. As I said, some things just aren't meant to be over-explained. I'm still iffy on some of Toriyama's little lore tidbits in Kakarot, such as the reason that "animal-type" Earthlings exist is because of a popular drug that turns humans into them. Kind of damages the fantasy aesthetic of OG Dragon Ball now we know that all the animal people were just druggos, lol. It is weird that we hardly ever see anthropomorphic animals in the later chapters but I would first assume that a) we're just seeing cities with low animal populations or b) Toriyama just forgot and was doing his usual "seat-of-the-pants" schtick.

Toriyama's contributions to Kakarot (and I use that word very generously) are little more than the interview level threw he usually throws out when someone asks him about something. Don't take it too seriously.

[ABED]

In the case of Tolkien, he created it in reverse. The stories were second to the lore. However, he had a deep knowledge of literature and mythology to draw from so it's not surprising that his stories would still shine through even when they were bogged down in unnecessary exposition.

Lore isn't my thing, obviously, but I respect it, but I do think it's odd that people suggest certain stories are massively popular due to lore. I don't think Lore based stories, whatever that means attract huge audiences. It's the stories, themes, conflicts, and characters that pull people in. Even people who like lore, I'm sure are drawn in by those aforementioned qualities way more than the lore, which while they can be fun nuggets of information about stories they love, they aren't the meal.

As I said, some things just aren't meant to be over-explained

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but nothing needs to be over explained. For it to be "over" explained implies there's an optimal level.

Who gives a shit. It wasn't until the games came out people even got an official look at what the Witcher world even looks when drawn.

Great point. Of course, in a game, the rules have to make perfect sense for it to function, otherwise you're playing Calvin Ball. Stories aren't like that.

[LoganForkHands73]

Aye, that I don't take the animaline thing seriously, lol. It ties into the OP argument against guidebooks and interview throwaway comments being taken as gospel.

Edit response to ABED:
Touche on the over-explained thing. What I'm getting at is the "show don't tell" rule. It's like in Mad Max: Fury Road, everything about how Immortan Joe's citadel works is explained, or more accurately inferred, perfectly well through the mise en scene. No one needed that prequel comic that explained exactly what Joe did to his wives or how he came to power because none of that needed to be said in the first place, if you catch my drift.

But I still think there's a miscommunication here. I don't think anyone here is arguing that heavy lore is the only reason why these franchises became popular in the first place.

[ABED]

But I still think there's a miscommunication here. I don't think anyone here is arguing that heavy lore is the only reason why these franchises became popular in the first place.

I wasn't saying anyone claimed that it's the ONLY reason they became popular, but I have seen plenty of posts here and in other places where geeks frequent about the importance of lore and complaining that story X sucks because it contradicts some lore. I've seen plenty of importance placed on lore and worldbuilding. I still think lore isn't a reason why these franchises as popular as they are at all. At best, they are fun bits of information.

[LoganForkHands73]

Well that's geeks for you.

[ABED]

Well that's geeks for you.

True. I think nerds try to turn stories into math problems.

[Melee_Sovereign]

Melee, you're giving me examples but not explaining what you mean by "lore based".

I gave you examples, but I also gave you a definition. A story where a character merely acts as a perspective for the audience to experience the world unfolding as the plot progresses.

Another way I could word it is, the central interest, or selling point if you will, is the world of the story. Not the characters. The protagonist in such stories could literally be anyone (or their background could be extremely basic). But if the lore changes, the entire story changes.

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

Probably like the examples I cited. A story where a character merely acts as a perspective for the audience to experience the world unfolding as the plot progresses. There are a lot of highly successful stories like this.

H.P. Lovecraft basically only wrote stories like this. He even has a quote that reads:

"I could not write about ' ordinary people ' because I am not in the least interested in them. Without interest there can be no art. Man's relations to man do not captivate my fancy. It is man's relations to the cosmos - to the unknown - which alone arouses in me the spark of creative imagination.”

Total tangent but I think that's why Lovecraft's stories have stayed around as long as they have. He wasn't the best wordsmith. His story structure is sometimes all over the place. And his racist outbursts make it hard to mythologize him the way we've done other writers from that era. But few writers ever managed to capture the feeling of being small and at the mercy of the universe.

As a genre, horror is probably the king of social commentary and it's easy to see why. When you relegate the individual to powerless observer, the story becomes about the forces at play and how they're warping society around them. Lovecraft may not have been interested in social commentary (except for whenever he was yelling about Jews corrupting the white race) but the genre he helped pioneer is absolutely perfect for it.