Dragon Ball Lore

[LoganForkHands73]

People love Godzilla not because he was created by nuclear explosives but for how he acts among humans and monsters both benevolent and malevolent.

I have to slightly disagree with this. Godzilla's background with nuclear explosions was sort of an allegory to the fear of nuclear bombs back then. It added to his cultural relevance and mainstream appeal.

He's not the only fictional giant monster, but he's one of the most famous. One has to ask, if he had no background, and was just a giant monster, how popular would he be?

Well, in this case that's more real life context, not so much narrative lore which in the original film did just amount to "dinosaur gets irradiated and goes on rampage". It's more the consequences of Godzilla's existence and the devastating effects of his presence that made him a resonant, terrifying threat to audiences at the time. Nowadays his appeal is very different, but Godzilla is still pretty basic and flexible. The closest Toho got to overexplaining him was in "Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" with the whole time-travellers interfering with Godzilla's origin plot which was an incomprehensible mess.

[Melee_Sovereign]

He'd still be pretty popular. The allegory is strong but much of godzilla's appeal comes from the same reason power rangers was popular - it's big monsters destroying shit. Also let's not forget that a big reason Godzilla was widely known in the west was because there were so many Godzilla movies on and for decades we just watched what was on TV. They were a cheap import. The thematic resonance has helped its staying power, but if the allegory isn't execute well, it's yet another case of good idea, poor execution.

LoganForkHands is spot on. I'll add to that by saying that it's possible to say there are specific aspects of quality you an disect and prove work or don't work well in the context of the story. For instance, whether a story is thematically confused.

Yeah, but how popular are Power Ranger's individual monsters? They're not cultural icons like Godzilla. They may be just as entertaining to watch, but that's all they are is entertainment, where as Godzilla is a cultural icon.

That said, if the allegory of Godzilla is strong, we can say it's just as much significant as his "giant monster" appeal. Background is just a factor, among other factors, that can give a character appeal. And a character can have appeal while missing one of those aspects. Yes, I'm proposing that a character can have appeal solely with background alone, and no known personality.

One example off the top of my head, is Doomfist from Overwatch. He's well developed now, but before Blizzard released him as a character, we only knew of him from text of his background. The entire fanbase thought he was highly interesting and were begging Blizzard to release him as a character, despite not even knowing what he looks or sounds like.

Well, in this case that's more real life context, not so much narrative lore which in the original film did just amount to "dinosaur gets irradiated and goes on rampage". It's more the consequences of Godzilla's existence and the devastating effects of his presence that made him a resonant, terrifying threat to audiences at the time. Nowadays his appeal is very different, but Godzilla is still pretty basic and flexible. The closest Toho got to overexplaining him was in "Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah" with the whole time-travellers interfering with Godzilla's origin plot which was an incomprehensible mess.

Most fictional lore is based on some sort of "real life" context, or is some sort of allegory to something real to us. Sometimes it's not something specific like nuclear bombs. Sometimes its more conceptual intangible things like Lovecraft with his his idea of the fear of the unknown, or cosmic hopelessness.

In fact, I would say this is what separates good lore from bad lore. Bad lore is just random trivia about a fictional verse. i.e. Dabura use to run a pancake restaurant in the demon realm. Good lore isn't that. It's taking something real, and fictionalizing it. i.e. Azathoth is the slumbering supreme being of the universe. All of reality is his dream. If he wakes up, he unwittingly Zeno-samas the universe.

That lore is frightening. It isn't just random made up trivia. That lore serves to be an allegory of our sense of cosmic insignificance.

Another good piece of lore is the original Super Saiyan. Its appeal is almost like real life legends, like Hercules or something.

[ABED]

Those monsters aren't the protagonists.

The allegory is strong and a big reason for the appeal but if the story didn't entertain people, no lesson it was trying to impart would matter. If the allegory were the most important aspect, then why choose fiction to impart the message?

Another good piece of lore is the original Super Saiyan. Its appeal is almost like real life legends, like Hercules or something.

That's not lore for lore's sake. It's a legend that tells the audience that being a Super Saiyan is exceedingly rare. It gives a good reason why Freeza would fear a race of his subordinates and tells the audience that if Goku does reach it, it will be very difficult.

Good lore isn't that.

Good exposition (all that lore really is) gives the audience enough information to allow the story to function and maybe hint at a world beyond the text, but no more.

[Melee_Sovereign]

The allegory is strong and a big reason for the appeal but if the story didn't entertain people, no lesson it was trying to impart would matter. If the allegory were the most important aspect, then why choose fiction to impart the message?

Of course it all comes down to entertainment. The question is, what gives a work of fiction its entertainment or appeal? Is it lore? Is it the characters? Is it the CGI or the mindless action? Is it fan-service? It can be all of those things. It can be none of those things except one of those things.

I think the pro-lore people in this thread, are merely trying to argue that lore can be just as significant as character depth. Lore can add to a work of fiction's entertainment, or it can be the main source of entertainment. Sometimes it can be neither lore nor characters, that give a work of fiction its entertainment. There's plenty of films and such that have completely one-dimensional characters with forgettable personalities, that still manage to be entertaining anyway.

Good exposition (all that lore really is)

I don't think lore is always this. Sometimes its there to set the tone, or to let the audience know what type of world it is. But its not always meant to explain something.

[Sadala Elite]

You don't have to explain the plot to me. I get it, but for some reason you don't seem to understand that the ENTIRE reason they don't come to Earth prior to Goku reaching adulthood was because Toriyama had to explain why they weren't there sooner if Goku was sent as a baby which is a development he came up with years after he first started the writing DB. As an in story reason, it makes perfect sense, but it wasn't the starting point. If the Saiyans are still planet pirates in this hypothetial scenario, then clearly their view of Earth would change, but it doesn't radically affect the story. What does affect the nature of the story is the class warfare stuff. It's much stronger if Goku is in fact a Saiyan.

In other words, someone that's in some way cool or desirable (which is how the Ancient Greeks used it). It did not mean "morally good" by classical definition.

Except that it does by the classical definition. Moral character is desirable to the Greeks.

- If something exist, then it can be quantified.

No it can't. How pretty is Alison Brie? How do you objectively quantify attractiveness?

- Bro smh, you literally just said nobody cares why MJ is MJ, then I pointed out that there's lots of successful media that's about that. If you were right then that media wouldnt exist (logic).

And that's NOT what I wrote. I wrote "who knows why MJ is so competitive". The fact that there are so many docs apparently means there isn't a definitive answer, just conjecture. When I say "who cares" I mean it doesn't really matter which one of them are right. We know he is and that's what drove him to be as great as he is. Sorry that wasn't clear. Yes, I get that it's interesting to wonder what makes someone tick but regardless of the numerous root causes, he is who he is and that's why we took notice and why he mattered to so many. It's the same thing with characters. We didn't need to know why Freeza chose to be a bastard and rule over an empire or why he takes sick pleasure in hurting people or why he carries himself like a posh gentleman. It's not the why that made him an effective villain.

You clearly don't get basic logic smh.

- Your entire post about the Saiyan saga was debunked already (no Saiyan backstory for Goku = no Saiyan nor Namek sagas ever happen).

- Anicent Greek mythical heroes were largely sociopaths even by the standards of their day (much to the bane of later philosophers like Plato). What made them heroes in their eyes wasn't any moral standard, but that they were larger-than-life tough guys who did larger-than-life things.

- Simple, just think of any attractive trait someone has and measure how much they have or it and how much aesthetic gratification it produces. That's just one way.

- "The fact that there are so many docs apparently means there isn't a definitive answer, just conjecture. "

The fact that there's so many docs means the question DOES matter. Otherwise they wouldn't exist (logic).

[MyVisionity]

And how would they know what quality is? What are the criteria?

They know because of their schooling and/or experience. The criteria are based in what you already mentioned - acting, cinematography, writing, editing etc.

We do and we don't find the same things attractive.

Ergo attractiveness is purely subjective.

No, it just means that there are different objective standards for attractiveness. None of that "eye of the beholder" stuff.

Basically what I'm getting from this conversation is you have NO idea what constitutes quality, but you are still certain that it's objective. What do you take objective to mean?

Objective meaning free of personal feelings or bias.

Someone with a professional or academic background in the field would have more concrete systems for determining quality.

How are those systems concrete? You can't break any of this into quantifiable units. It's not like someone could say "the score was 'x units' of quality."

*More* concrete. Meaning that much more technical and systematic than what the average viewer may be aware of. And not truly concrete, no, since much of it may be conventional. Just that much more objective. And you don't need quantifiable units to be objective or to measure quality. Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

[ABED]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

[Sadala Elite]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

Science has already proven that art and beauty are objective realities.:
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8803339199
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... subjective

The idea that beauty is only subjective is a modern western myth. There are traits which people from every culture throughout history have valued as attractive.

Only insecure ugly people and folks who are hyper-PC seriously deny the objective reality of beauty.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

[MyVisionity]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

I'm not really the type to call film and television "art", so maybe that's why I don't think of them so subjectively.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

But it's also not the same as saying it's subjective. It's not an accident that a great number of people agree on those traits.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

Those things form the very basis of objectivity and truth. I'm not sure what else is missing.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

This. There are many different sets of standards.

[LoganForkHands73]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

Science has already proven that art and beauty are objective realities.:
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8803339199
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... subjective

The idea that beauty is only subjective is a modern western myth. There are traits which people from every culture throughout history have valued as attractive.

Only insecure ugly people and folks who are hyper-PC seriously deny the objective reality of beauty.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

Literally not a single one of those articles given is an actual, proven scientific study. They're just arguments and assumptions, and not particularly good ones at that. I find it odd that you and one of your sources feel the need to politicise this.

Who has the right to censor anyone's perception of what they find beautiful? That's how you erase the L.S. Lowry's of the world and get to a real Orwellian nightmare.

Second, beauty does not equal goodness or quality.

[TheNingen]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

I'm not really the type to call film and television "art", so maybe that's why I don't think of them so subjectively.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

But it's also not the same as saying it's subjective. It's not an accident that a great number of people agree on those traits.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

Those things form the very basis of objectivity and truth. I'm not sure what else is missing.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

This. There are many different sets of standards.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Sorry but you're just...you're just wrong lol. Film and television, especially the latter are undeniably art. Movies like Loving Vincent and the like are enough to laugh in your face about this point.

A great number of people agreeing on something doesn't make it correct. A great number of people agree that Keeping up with the Kardashians is a good show. A great number of people agreed that crocs were a good idea to make and wear. A good number of people agree that war is good. Societal or groups of people agreeing does not mean fact. Especially on something subjective like beauty.

"There are many different sets of standards"

Odd and contradicting point to make considering you're arguing that a group of people agreeing on what is beautiful automatically means that it's a decided upon ideal or standard of what is beautiful. Beauty is aesthetics. Aesthetics cannot be confirmed or denied because 'lul science' People like what they like. People don't like what they don't like. These things are not mutually exclusive in determining what is or isn't beautiful.

[ABED]

But it's also not the same as saying it's subjective. It's not an accident that a great number of people agree on those traits.

It's not an accident, it's a coincidence. Popularity isn't the same thing is objectivity.

Where did you get the idea that film and TV aren't artistic mediums?

[MyVisionity]

Film and television, especially the latter are undeniably art. Movies like Loving Vincent and the like are enough to laugh in your face about this point.

Where did you get the idea that film and TV aren't artistic mediums?

I understand that film and television can be considered art, I've just always found that label to be a bit excessive. I keep those things distinct in my mind from stuff like drawings and paintings and models and clay etc. I feel the same way about music, to a lesser extent. I suppose "artistic mediums" maybe makes more sense.

A great number of people agreeing on something doesn't make it correct.

I didn't say "correct" or "fact". Just objective.

"There are many different sets of standards"

Odd and contradicting point to make considering you're arguing that a group of people agreeing on what is beautiful automatically means that it's a decided upon ideal or standard of what is beautiful. Beauty is aesthetics. Aesthetics cannot be confirmed or denied because 'lul science' People like what they like. People don't like what they don't like. These things are not mutually exclusive in determining what is or isn't beautiful.

Yes, often times it is indeed a "decided upon ideal" or standard that those groups create. People like and dislike things for reasons, not randomness.

But it's also not the same as saying it's subjective. It's not an accident that a great number of people agree on those traits.

It's not an accident, it's a coincidence. Popularity isn't the same thing is objectivity.

It's definitely not a coincidence. If it's popular, then there is likely some kind of objective basis for that popularity.

[ABED]

I understand that film and television can be considered art, I've just always found that label to be a bit excessive. I keep those things distinct in my mind from stuff like drawings and paintings and models and clay etc. I feel the same way about music, to a lesser extent.

It is art, just in a different medium. Films and TV tell stories, ergo they are artforms. What is so different about Film and TV that they aren't in the same category as drawing and paintings?

To try and steer this back on topic, even though it takes a lot of imagination to create vast worlds and histories, I fail to see how that's emotionally compelling.

[Sadala Elite]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

Science has already proven that art and beauty are objective realities.:
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8803339199
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... subjective

The idea that beauty is only subjective is a modern western myth. There are traits which people from every culture throughout history have valued as attractive.

Only insecure ugly people and folks who are hyper-PC seriously deny the objective reality of beauty.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

Literally not a single one of those articles given is an actual, proven scientific study. They're just arguments and assumptions, and not particularly good ones at that. I find it odd that you and one of your sources feel the need to politicise this.

Who has the right to censor anyone's perception of what they find beautiful? That's how you erase the L.S. Lowry's of the world and get to a real Orwellian nightmare.

Second, beauty does not equal goodness or quality.

You are being in denial. 2 of my links showcased empirical research, which you dismissed just because you don't like facts.

Also, nobody here said beauty = moral good.

[Sadala Elite]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

I'm not really the type to call film and television "art", so maybe that's why I don't think of them so subjectively.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

But it's also not the same as saying it's subjective. It's not an accident that a great number of people agree on those traits.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

Those things form the very basis of objectivity and truth. I'm not sure what else is missing.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

This. There are many different sets of standards.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Sorry but you're just...you're just wrong lol. Film and television, especially the latter are undeniably art. Movies like Loving Vincent and the like are enough to laugh in your face about this point.

A great number of people agreeing on something doesn't make it correct. A great number of people agree that Keeping up with the Kardashians is a good show. A great number of people agreed that crocs were a good idea to make and wear. A good number of people agree that war is good. Societal or groups of people agreeing does not mean fact. Especially on something subjective like beauty.

"There are many different sets of standards"

Odd and contradicting point to make considering you're arguing that a group of people agreeing on what is beautiful automatically means that it's a decided upon ideal or standard of what is beautiful. Beauty is aesthetics. Aesthetics cannot be confirmed or denied because 'lul science' People like what they like. People don't like what they don't like. These things are not mutually exclusive in determining what is or isn't beautiful.

Beauty standards are semi-universal (proven fact). Its universality shows that it IS objective, which only insecure ugly folks deny.

To say beauty isn't objective is like saying 2+2=4 isn't objective lol.

[Kamiccolo9]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

Logic and reason, evidence, knowledge/ information - these are what can help in determining objective quality.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

Science has already proven that art and beauty are objective realities.:
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8803339199
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... subjective

The idea that beauty is only subjective is a modern western myth. There are traits which people from every culture throughout history have valued as attractive.

Only insecure ugly people and folks who are hyper-PC seriously deny the objective reality of beauty.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

None of those are academic sources. They are not peer-reviewed, nor do they offer citations. These are opinion pages.

Not saying your point is false, but your sources are inadequate. I had to go through far more strenuous vetting to get published back in grad school than what's being offered here. These are clickbait.

[Sadala Elite]

It's by definition impossible to not bring personal feelings and bias into the equation when it comes to art. Art is by its very natural personal and emotional.

Critics have a deeper well of knoweldge about the history of film/TV/books and generally have more experience, but that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

Where do you get this ridiculous idea that there are objective standards of beauty? At best there are traits that a great number of people agree are desirable but that's not the same as saying it's objective.

No, they can help people communicate what they see in a piece of work but that doesn't make their assessment objectively true.

The entire argument amounts to "I don't know what objectively good art is or why it's objectively good, I just know you can objectively judge art because I just do."

Science has already proven that art and beauty are objective realities.:
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8803339199
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... subjective

The idea that beauty is only subjective is a modern western myth. There are traits which people from every culture throughout history have valued as attractive.

Only insecure ugly people and folks who are hyper-PC seriously deny the objective reality of beauty.

Just because people like different stuff doesnt mean theres no objective basis for what they like.

None of those are academic sources. They are not peer-reviewed, nor do they offer citations. These are opinion pages.

Not saying your point is false, but your sources are inadequate. I had to go through far more strenuous vetting to get published back in grad school than what's being offered here. These are clickbait.

2 of the 3 sites provide links to peer-reviewed studies that prove my point.

[Melee_Sovereign]

I don't doubt that there's some degree of objectivity to art and aesthetics (things like being attracted to symmetry), but there's no way it's 100% objective. If it were, everyone would have the exact same taste.

[Kamiccolo9]

2 of the 3 sites provide links to peer-reviewed studies that prove my point.

One of the three sites lists only Wikipedia as a source for the images, with no other link, another has a link but the link is dead, and the third is a q&a, not a study.

And even if you could dig up some article by Deutsch, that doesn't prove anything. It suggests it. If you want to use academia to prove your point, use the correct terminology. it's important.