Dragon Ball Lore

[Polyphase Avatron]

Dragonball has a lot of established lore... it's just that a lot of it keeps getting retconned or new stuff made up as they go.

But I'm perfectly okay with that.

[ABED]

I know there's a school of thought that all forms of storytelling are valid, but I think any story that's about the world and lore is inherently worse. Instead of a narrative about people, it's either about information or a travelogue which are boring by themselves.

[ikaos]

I agree that having lore for the sake of lore can be detrimental to a successful narrative. When learning how to write stories, you're taught to provide just enough exposition to get your audience invested in your characters and their goals before moving into the main plot. Lore can certainly help flesh out longer running shows or franchises, but explaining backstories and worldbuilding should never be essential to the audience's enjoyment.

Star Wars is a great example of this. Taking the original Star Wars, A New Hope, by itself, the audience is famously thrown into a situation with almost no explanation of who any of the characters are aside from basic archetypes: a princess in distress, a farmboy hero, a rogue smuggler, and a bad guy in a black suit. There is very little explanation behind the galactic conflict, outside of Empire bad, Rebels good. Yet despite the massive juggernaut the franchise has become, the film was successful because of how simple it was. As the franchise and lore grew, a whole generation of fans grew up not just with an original trilogy of films, but also an onslaught of novels, comics, guide books, games, etc; that created an entire Expanded Universe of lore. At the end of the day, however, whenever a new trilogy of films is released, that lore is for the most part thrown out in favor of more simple stories for a wider audience (As a Star Wars fan, how you feel about this likely dictates how you feel about anything beyond the OT).

For being a relatively long-running series, Dragon Ball somewhat famously has very little lore, mostly due to it's creator's general indifference to remembering things that he wrote only a few months prior, and while sometimes it can be frustrating, I take it as a feature, not a bug.

[Matches Malone]

I agree that having lore for the sake of lore can be detrimental to a successful narrative. When learning how to write stories, you're taught to provide just enough exposition to get your audience invested in your characters and their goals before moving into the main plot. Lore can certainly help flesh out longer running shows or franchises, but explaining backstories and worldbuilding should never be essential to the audience's enjoyment.

I think an issue that some (or maybe a lot) authors run into is the amount of lore needed in a story. I agree with the idea of giving just enough to get the reader hooked, while the rest of the world and character development is done as the story goes on. I'm not a fan of having convoluted webs of backstories and world lore to know about before the story has even started, as it just takes away from the story currently being told. Personally, Toriyama's way of writing has always been my preferred method, as he always focuses on the here and now while keeping the world of DB simple to follow.

[ABED]

I think backstory can be fun. I enjoy some flashbacks but backstory isn't nearly as essential as story. Freeza's backstory with the Saiyans and Vegeta is interesting, but that's not the primary reason he's so well remembered or why it feels so good when he gets what was coming to him. He spends most of the arc lording it over people and murdering people, including children, and he does it in such a way that turns your stomach. Then to add insult to injury, he murders Kuririn in front of Goku so he can have the sick pleasure of watching Goku feel powerless to stop him. Even without the connection to the Saiyans, he still works as a villain.

[SupremeKai25]

It depends on the type of product it is. If it's a movie or an anime, then no, world-building does not matter. If it's a sandbox game, then yes world-building matters a lot, because the world itself is the protagonist.

When it comes to anime or movies, I dont care about world-building and background stuff about the world, because ultimately that's not what they are about. They're about a small cast of major characters, not that one city that got destroyed by a cataclysm or something like that.

[ABED]

Obviously because the story isn't the product in a game. In a story, it's about the payoff, whereas in a game, it's about the journey.

[ekrolo2]

I think backstory can be fun. I enjoy some flashbacks but backstory isn't nearly as essential as story. Freeza's backstory with the Saiyans and Vegeta is interesting, but that's not the primary reason he's so well remembered or why it feels so good when he gets what was coming to him. He spends most of the arc lording it over people and murdering people, including children, and he does it in such a way that turns your stomach. Then to add insult to injury, he murders Kuririn in front of Goku so he can have the sick pleasure of watching Goku feel powerless to stop him. Even without the connection to the Saiyans, he still works as a villain.

That's a testiment to Toriyama's character writing. Unlike many mangaka of his time and especially now, he doesn't resort to backstory info dumps to make you interested in somebody. He lets their personality do that for you. If you look through the manga, you'll see that backstory basically doesn't exist? You get a couple of panels for the Daimao wars, a comparable amount for Nam, a couple for the Kaioshin dying and that's... Basically it.

Hell, if you never watch the Bardock special or read Minus, Freeza's entire beef with the Saiyans exists almost entirely in dialogue only.

[SupremeKai25]

Obviously because the story isn't the product in a game. In a story, it's about the payoff, whereas in a game, it's about the journey.

Yeah, No, that's not true at all. There are a lot of games which focus almost exclusively on the story with very little exploration or journey.

[ABED]

Obviously because the story isn't the product in a game. In a story, it's about the payoff, whereas in a game, it's about the journey.

Yeah, No, that's not true at all. There are a lot of games which focus almost exclusively on the story with very little exploration or journey.

Games are about the journey. The story is not the fundamental point otherwise it wouldn't be a game. The reason there's such a heavy focus on story these days is because there's something deep within humans that loves story. We're drawn to them. We need them. Games use that to draw people in, but make no mistake, it's about the gameplay and the journey, not the payoff.

[goku the krump dancer]

I've never had an interest in Mass Effect but i know people were generally pretty pissed about the ending to the third game. So much so that I think DLC had to be released to justify it.

You're right though, gameplay has a higher priority over story but not by much. If Gameplay is a 10 on level of importance in a video game, then story is 7.5 - 8. I say that because there're some games that have phenomenal gameplay but the story is about as bland and cookie cutter as it could get like Ninja Gaiden.

Ocarina of Time wouldn't be what it is, if the gameplay wasn't presented in the fashion that it was, story be damned.

[ABED]

Fair enough. That's a different discussion for another time. Sorry for the diversion.

[Melee_Sovereign]

There's also the game Overwatch where the story is (currently) pretty much entirely separate from the game (until OW2 comes out). There's no story mode, but all of the characters are very rich in backstory, but you need to read their comics and watch their animated shorts to know about them. Because you get very little about them from the game. But their stories are so rich that they could stand on their own as comic book characters.

There are people who are fans of Overwatch story that don't play the game at all.

But this is more the except to the rule. 90% of the time, when it comes to video games, the story is indeed the journey.

[SupremeKai25]

There's also the game Overwatch where the story is (currently) pretty much entirely separate from the game (until OW2 comes out). There's no story mode, but all of the characters are very rich in backstory, but you need to read their comics and watch their animated shorts to know about them. Because you get very little about them from the game. But their stories are so rich that they could stand on their own as comic book characters.

There are people who are fans of Overwatch story that don't play the game at all.

But this is more the except to the rule. 90% of the time, when it comes to video games, the story is indeed the journey.

Overwatch is actually an interesting example in this discussion about the importance of lore/world-building. That franchise doesn't actually have a developed main plot for the time being, most of their comics and cinematics are about fleshing out the world and the characters' backstory, and plenty of people find that enjoyable to read and watch. It's interesting to see an example of a franchise focusing more on the "side stuff" instead of the main plot and still having a ton of success.

[goku the krump dancer]

Yeah but delving deep into side story tidbits doesnt work for everything especially when there's a singular story being told. Stuff like that works in ensemble cast stories like X-Men but for stories like Dragon Ball where there's a singular story being told and the narrative revolves around Goku, who's the main character, not so much.

We dont need a 120 minute movie or pre-civil war Sadala because it doesnt affect the overall story in anyway unless it tries to establish new lore that contradicts whats already established, which is inevitable, the more new material gets cranked out thus ultimately being unnecessary. Plus do we really need to see more Goku and Vegeta clones running around acting like off brand versions of them anyway? Not really because it'll feed this idea that Goku and Vegeta being where they are has always been pre-ordained as opposed to being a result of dumb luck.

[Sadala Elite]

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.

- Your rebuttal about Shakespeare is stupid, because you don't need read something to see the subtext of a story in action. And the fact that Shakespeare plays tend to mostly involve the lives of aristocrats and reference things that uneducated commoners wouldn't get makes its obvious who the actual target audience is.

"I didn't say "simplistic" I wrote "simple" as in easy to understand the story and what was motivating the characters' actions."

That's literally any story that makes any sense, regardless of its level of complexity.

- "Plots are the events, the story is what it's about."
"So no, I've not contradicted myself."

You literally just contradicted yourself explained why I was right about plots and stories in your response lol. Plots are what outline and showcase what a story is about. So if a story's plots are complex, then logically the story itself is.

- Again you miss the point. You are changing and denying your own arguments. At the start you made the claim that a franchise/series is successful because its simple, then me and others here pointed out massively successful series that arent simple at all (debunking your claim).

"It's that the characters are well realized and themes are resonant."

Quality doesn't guarantee success or failure. Its usually irrelevant.

- Neither the fate of Luke's father nor Luke and Leia being siblings were essential story points in Episode 4 A New Hope, so neither are legit examples of contradictions in the OG Trilogy (since nothing major was established yet), as well as the fact that they were explained away in Episode 5

The contradictions in the Sequel Trilogy (the Prequels didn't have too many) are a big part of why they suck, because they directly ruin essential story elements from the OG Trilogy and were never justifiably explained.

[Sadala Elite]

I think backstory can be fun. I enjoy some flashbacks but backstory isn't nearly as essential as story. Freeza's backstory with the Saiyans and Vegeta is interesting, but that's not the primary reason he's so well remembered or why it feels so good when he gets what was coming to him. He spends most of the arc lording it over people and murdering people, including children, and he does it in such a way that turns your stomach. Then to add insult to injury, he murders Kuririn in front of Goku so he can have the sick pleasure of watching Goku feel powerless to stop him. Even without the connection to the Saiyans, he still works as a villain.

That's a testiment to Toriyama's character writing. Unlike many mangaka of his time and especially now, he doesn't resort to backstory info dumps to make you interested in somebody. He lets their personality do that for you. If you look through the manga, you'll see that backstory basically doesn't exist? You get a couple of panels for the Daimao wars, a comparable amount for Nam, a couple for the Kaioshin dying and that's... Basically it.

Hell, if you never watch the Bardock special or read Minus, Freeza's entire beef with the Saiyans exists almost entirely in dialogue only.

A backstory/origin story is essential to a character if its directly relevant to the story being told (its not a "lore" thing) and more often than not, its essential for a major character to have one (especially the protagonist and main antagonist) to either flesh them out in general and/or to tie the character to main themes of the story.

[ABED]

- Your rebuttal about Shakespeare is stupid, because you don't need read something to see the subtext of a story in action. And the fact that Shakespeare plays tend to mostly involve the lives of aristocrats and reference things that uneducated commoners wouldn't get makes its obvious who the actual target audience is.

Thank you for that and missing the point. The plays may have revolved around the lives of aristocrats and such but they were full of blood, sex, betrayals, scandals, revenge, etc. The stories were absolutely about things commoners would get. It is obvious who the target audience was given that he wrote for audiences since they couldn't read. The theater experience was a lot different during his time. His plays also appealed to elites, but they weren't necessarily the target audience.

you don't need read something to see the subtext of a story in action

I never said they did.

- Neither the fate of Luke's father nor Luke and Leia being siblings were essential story points in Episode 4 A New Hope, so neither are legit examples of contradictions in the OG Trilogy (since nothing major was established yet), as well as the fact that they were explained away in Episode 5

The contradictions in the Sequel Trilogy (the Prequels didn't have too many) are a big part of why they suck, because they directly ruin essential story elements from the OG Trilogy and were never justifiably explained.

None of that is relevant to the point. It doesn't matter whether Leia being his sibling was an essential story point in episode 4 and 5. She flat out kisses him in a very memorable scene in Empire. It's not a peck either. It may not have started out as essential but his family becomes VERY important in subsequent films.

Again, plot holes by and large don't ruin people's experience. You are on a DB forum. DB is full of plot holes and yet it is still incredibly popular. The problem with the sequels have NOTHING to do with the plot holes and have everything to do with not following through on narrative threads, and insufficient and unsatisfying pay offs.

You literally just contradicted yourself explained why I was right about plots and stories in your response lol. Plots are what outline and showcase what a story is about. So if a story's plots are complex, then logically the story itself is

You have that in reverse. It's the story that showcase what the plot is really about. It doesn't follow that stories have to be complex if plots are complex. Stories are what happens and what they are about, whereas plot is the cause and effect relationships of the events of the story.

[ekrolo2]

I think backstory can be fun. I enjoy some flashbacks but backstory isn't nearly as essential as story. Freeza's backstory with the Saiyans and Vegeta is interesting, but that's not the primary reason he's so well remembered or why it feels so good when he gets what was coming to him. He spends most of the arc lording it over people and murdering people, including children, and he does it in such a way that turns your stomach. Then to add insult to injury, he murders Kuririn in front of Goku so he can have the sick pleasure of watching Goku feel powerless to stop him. Even without the connection to the Saiyans, he still works as a villain.

That's a testiment to Toriyama's character writing. Unlike many mangaka of his time and especially now, he doesn't resort to backstory info dumps to make you interested in somebody. He lets their personality do that for you. If you look through the manga, you'll see that backstory basically doesn't exist? You get a couple of panels for the Daimao wars, a comparable amount for Nam, a couple for the Kaioshin dying and that's... Basically it.

Hell, if you never watch the Bardock special or read Minus, Freeza's entire beef with the Saiyans exists almost entirely in dialogue only.

A backstory/origin story is essential to a character if its directly relevant to the story being told (its not a "lore" thing) and more often than not, its essential for a major character to have one (especially the protagonist and main antagonist) to either flesh them out in general and/or to tie the character to main themes of the story.

Not sure what that has to do with how I pointed out Toriyama's minimalist backstory approach: it didn't overly matter to him. He focused on making a character stand out through their personality. You don't wanna see Freeza die because Toriyama made a big, bombastic flashback mini-arc in the middle of Namek showing how he treated the Saiyans as a way to make him hateable. You wanna see Freeza die because of the stuff happening NOW to either the cast or the innocents butchered by him.

Hell, to use a protagonist example, Goku has barely any backstory at all until nearly halfway through the original manga. He was trained by Gohan, killed him by going monster, and lived in the mountains. That's it. That's Goku's whole backstory until the seventh arc of the series. And Goku worked just fine as a character regardless because of the strength of his own personality and dynamics with others.

[Sadala Elite]

That's a testiment to Toriyama's character writing. Unlike many mangaka of his time and especially now, he doesn't resort to backstory info dumps to make you interested in somebody. He lets their personality do that for you. If you look through the manga, you'll see that backstory basically doesn't exist? You get a couple of panels for the Daimao wars, a comparable amount for Nam, a couple for the Kaioshin dying and that's... Basically it.

Hell, if you never watch the Bardock special or read Minus, Freeza's entire beef with the Saiyans exists almost entirely in dialogue only.

A backstory/origin story is essential to a character if its directly relevant to the story being told (its not a "lore" thing) and more often than not, its essential for a major character to have one (especially the protagonist and main antagonist) to either flesh them out in general and/or to tie the character to main themes of the story.

Not sure what that has to do with how I pointed out Toriyama's minimalist backstory approach: it didn't overly matter to him. He focused on making a character stand out through their personality. You don't wanna see Freeza die because Toriyama made a big, bombastic flashback mini-arc in the middle of Namek showing how he treated the Saiyans as a way to make him hateable. You wanna see Freeza die because of the stuff happening NOW to either the cast or the innocents butchered by him.

Hell, to use a protagonist example, Goku has barely any backstory at all until nearly halfway through the original manga. He was trained by Gohan, killed him by going monster, and lived in the mountains. That's it. That's Goku's whole backstory until the seventh arc of the series. And Goku worked just fine as a character regardless because of the strength of his own personality and dynamics with others.

That doesn't negate the fact that Goku still got one at all before Z, simple or not.