Dragon Ball Lore

[ABED]

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

It negates the point that a backstory is essential. What is far more essential is what the character wants and what they are willing to do to get it.

[ekrolo2]

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

It negates the point that a backstory is essential. What is far more essential is what the character wants and what they are willing to do to get it.

Precisely. Goku worked as a protagonist with a single sentence of backstory total for six arcs which amounts to nearly half of the original run content-wise. Everyone liked Goku because of his personality, not because of background info for him. This same principle applies to the vast majority of Toriyama's characters as well. Roshi was liked as a mentor figure long before anything remotely about his past with Piccolo comes into play. People liked Vegeta as an antagonist before Namek while knowing nothing about his past. The list goes on.

[Sadala Elite]

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

It negates the point that a backstory is essential. What is far more essential is what the character wants and what they are willing to do to get it.

It IS essential to the story in general, not the appeal of a character in particular.

Not only that, you failed to note that the story needs to establish why the character wants what they want (what's the motives, incentives, etc), and why they're willing to do want what they do to get it (characterization 101).

[Sadala Elite]

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

It negates the point that a backstory is essential. What is far more essential is what the character wants and what they are willing to do to get it.

Precisely. Goku worked as a protagonist with a single sentence of backstory total for six arcs which amounts to nearly half of the original run content-wise. Everyone liked Goku because of his personality, not because of background info for him. This same principle applies to the vast majority of Toriyama's characters as well. Roshi was liked as a mentor figure long before anything remotely about his past with Piccolo comes into play. People liked Vegeta as an antagonist before Namek while knowing nothing about his past. The list goes on.

No one was talking about the appeal of the character, we're saying that a backstory for the important characters is essential for the story itself in general (this is storytelling 101).

Nobody here ever said that a detailed backstory is needed for a character to liked.

[ekrolo2]

It negates the point that a backstory is essential. What is far more essential is what the character wants and what they are willing to do to get it.

Precisely. Goku worked as a protagonist with a single sentence of backstory total for six arcs which amounts to nearly half of the original run content-wise. Everyone liked Goku because of his personality, not because of background info for him. This same principle applies to the vast majority of Toriyama's characters as well. Roshi was liked as a mentor figure long before anything remotely about his past with Piccolo comes into play. People liked Vegeta as an antagonist before Namek while knowing nothing about his past. The list goes on.

No one was talking about the appeal of the character, we're saying that a backstory for the important characters is essential for the story itself in general (this is storytelling 101).

Nobody here ever said that a detailed backstory is needed for a character to liked.

And yet Dragon Ball breaks this rule constantly and still successfully does its characters without it.

[Melee_Sovereign]

And yet Dragon Ball breaks this rule constantly and still successfully does its characters without it.

He's talking about story, not character. Goku's backstory eventually became a necessity as the story progressed.

[ABED]

And yet Dragon Ball breaks this rule constantly and still successfully does its characters without it.

He's talking about story, not character. Goku's backstory eventually became a necessity as the story progressed.

It wasn't a necessity, it was just a nice bit of salt on an already great steak.

No one was talking about the appeal of the character, we're saying that a backstory for the important characters is essential for the story itself in general (this is storytelling 101).

That's not storytelling 101. i know the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke's father is a huge deal, but Vader worked even before it. He was a great, memorable character from the jump. We don't know much of his backstory beyond being Obi Wan's former pupil. His and Goku's backstory eventually being filled in later doesn't change that. To give another example, Hannibal Lecter - we know VERY little about him in either Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs. Yet, he's still one of the best characters in pop culture. Giving him a definitive back story wasn't for the better. What was Hans Gruber's backstory?

you failed to note that the story needs to establish why the character wants what they want (what's the motives, incentives, etc), and why they're willing to do want what they do to get it (characterization 101).

That's not characterization 101. Why do people want what they want? It's often a mystery beyond, 'they just like it'. Why is Michael Jordan so competitive? Who knows and it doesn't matter. Some people just happen to be insecure. They don't need abuse in their past to explain insecurity. Lots of the supposed rules about storytelling that get bounced around and taken as gospel aren't true. A great example is the whole "Every villain is the hero of their own story." It's not true. Some people are just assholes.

[LoganForkHands73]

Now on this I think we agree entirely. While I was willing to defend the concept of lore or gratuitous backstory, I absolutely agree that it should not be shoved into everything. Some stories can be based around lore and that's fine as well, they have a niche of their own. But yeah, there's literally countless examples of stories doing just fine without any of it.

When it comes to writing advice, guidelines and tropes are very useful but sticking exactly to the rulebooks just results in cookie-cutters. I have respect for artists that break the rules. Like, imagine writing a fantasy/adventure/martial arts manga and then revealing the main character's an alien? What a crazy idea...

[ABED]

The only rule I think fiction has is "don't be boring". The rest are negotiable. Then there are a few guidelines like "don't have your protagonist be a passive character" and "pay off what you've set up".

[Melee_Sovereign]

It wasn't a necessity, it was just a nice bit of salt on an already great steak.

I think by the time we get to the Saiyan arc, his backstory became a necessity. Otherwise, why the hell would Raditz even come to Earth?

A great example is the whole "Every villain is the hero of their own story." It's not true. Some people are just assholes.

That's one of my favorite thing about Frieza, honestly. He's evil and he knows it.

[WittyUsername]

The only rule I think fiction has is "don't be boring". The rest are negotiable. Then there are a few guidelines like "don't have your protagonist be a passive character" and "pay off what you've set up".

Why would having a passive protagonist be a bad thing by default? Hell, Goku was a passive protagonist at the beginning of the series.

[ABED]

The only rule I think fiction has is "don't be boring". The rest are negotiable. Then there are a few guidelines like "don't have your protagonist be a passive character" and "pay off what you've set up".

Why would having a passive protagonist be a bad thing by default? Hell, Goku was a passive protagonist at the beginning of the series.

How so, and how far into the story do you think he became active? I think passive protagonists are boring because things are just happening to them. They aren't taking any steps towards their goals if they even have any. Why are we following them? It's just inherently boring to me. Why not follow the characters who make active choices and follow them through as they try to achieve their goals?

I wouldn't call Goku a passive character. He agrees to go with Bulma on her journey, he makes choices to achieve his goals. And at the VERY least, DB starts off as a two-hander. Even assuming Goku were passive, Bulma is most definitely active. The first arc is as much about her as it is about Goku.

I think by the time we get to the Saiyan arc, his backstory became a necessity. Otherwise, why the hell would Raditz even come to Earth?

I'm not arguing that his Saiyan heritage was a bad move. It's great. I love it, but it just added to something already great and didn't detract from it, but I can easily see a world where the Saiyans come to Earth without Goku having been one of them. Goku's story is that he was sent on a mission to destroy it when he was an infant. Take that part out and it still works, but instead of coming to get Goku, Raditz comes to destroy Earth himself. It would play out a little different but it's still logical and fits the motives of villains. They were always coming to Earth eventually.

[WittyUsername]

The only rule I think fiction has is "don't be boring". The rest are negotiable. Then there are a few guidelines like "don't have your protagonist be a passive character" and "pay off what you've set up".

Why would having a passive protagonist be a bad thing by default? Hell, Goku was a passive protagonist at the beginning of the series.

How so, and how far into the story do you think he became active? I think passive protagonists are boring because things are just happening to them. They aren't taking any steps towards their goals if they even have any. Why are we following them? It's just inherently boring to me. Why not follow the characters who make active choices and follow them through as they try to achieve their goals?

I wouldn't call Goku a passive character. He agrees to go with Bulma on her journey, he makes choices to achieve his goals.

In terms of the first arc, Goku is basically just in it for the ride. Bulma is the one who wants to use the Dragon Balls. Same with Yamcha. They’re the ones who have goals. Goku himself isn’t really motivated by much. He pretty much just does what he’s told to do. It isn’t until the next arc when we get some real insight into his aspiration of being the strongest.

[ABED]

Why would having a passive protagonist be a bad thing by default? Hell, Goku was a passive protagonist at the beginning of the series.

How so, and how far into the story do you think he became active? I think passive protagonists are boring because things are just happening to them. They aren't taking any steps towards their goals if they even have any. Why are we following them? It's just inherently boring to me. Why not follow the characters who make active choices and follow them through as they try to achieve their goals?

I wouldn't call Goku a passive character. He agrees to go with Bulma on her journey, he makes choices to achieve his goals.

In terms of the first arc, Goku is basically just in it for the ride. Bulma is the one who wants to use the Dragon Balls. Same with Yamcha. They’re the ones who have goals. Goku himself isn’t really motivated by much. He pretty much just does what he’s told to do. It isn’t until the next arc when we get some real insight into his aspiration of being the strongest.

I edited my comment, but the gist of it is Bulma is also a main character and she's active. Goku has a simple journey of seeing the world and gathering the DB's. Then he makes other active decisions like helping Umigame get to the ocean even though Bulma didn't want to. He's not just reacting to the plot or being lead around. I can see why someone could argue that Goku in the first arc isn't active, but he's not the sole protagonist. When he does take the sole lead, he does so by making choices that shape the narrative and not vice versa.

I just thought of this, but one could argue that a narrative following a passive antagonist makes the narrative feel cynical, as though the story is conveying that you can't affect the outcome; that life happens to you.

[Sadala Elite]

Precisely. Goku worked as a protagonist with a single sentence of backstory total for six arcs which amounts to nearly half of the original run content-wise. Everyone liked Goku because of his personality, not because of background info for him. This same principle applies to the vast majority of Toriyama's characters as well. Roshi was liked as a mentor figure long before anything remotely about his past with Piccolo comes into play. People liked Vegeta as an antagonist before Namek while knowing nothing about his past. The list goes on.

No one was talking about the appeal of the character, we're saying that a backstory for the important characters is essential for the story itself in general (this is storytelling 101).

Nobody here ever said that a detailed backstory is needed for a character to liked.

And yet Dragon Ball breaks this rule constantly and still successfully does its characters without it.

The vast majority of DB characters have have known backstories and origins. So your argument is false.

[Melee_Sovereign]

but I can easily see a world where the Saiyans come to Earth without Goku having been one of them. Goku's story is that he was sent on a mission to destroy it when he was an infant. Take that part out and it still works, but instead of coming to get Goku, Raditz comes to destroy Earth himself. It would play out a little different but it's still logical and fits the motives of villains. They were always coming to Earth eventually.

If by Saiyans, you mean Saiyans as we know them, then I'm not sure how that would work without Goku's backstory. If you mean some other version of Saiyans that could have been invented by Toriyama, then sure. Saiyans could have been some humanoid reptilian dog creatures or something.

It would be odd if some random alien species Goku wasn't related to, also somehow had monkey-like tails with the same weakness, and the same ability to transform into a big monkey monster at the sight of a full-moon. And what of that of Super Saiyan? Obviously Goku could never be a Super Saiyan without first being a Saiyan. Vegeta's constant foreshadowing of the Super Saiyan now doesn't make sense. The only two choices now are, Goku himself has a unique golden haired transformation (that would have a different name), or the Super Saiyan transformation does exist and Goku could never be one. Or does he? Maybe he mimics it the same way he mimicked the Kamehameha? That would be odd, but I guess that could happen. Of course, in order to mimic it, that entails someone else becomes Super Saiyan first.

That said, I disagree that it would play out a "little different". It would be dramatically different.

[Sadala Elite]

And yet Dragon Ball breaks this rule constantly and still successfully does its characters without it.

He's talking about story, not character. Goku's backstory eventually became a necessity as the story progressed.

It wasn't a necessity, it was just a nice bit of salt on an already great steak.

No one was talking about the appeal of the character, we're saying that a backstory for the important characters is essential for the story itself in general (this is storytelling 101).

That's not storytelling 101. i know the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke's father is a huge deal, but Vader worked even before it. He was a great, memorable character from the jump. We don't know much of his backstory beyond being Obi Wan's former pupil. His and Goku's backstory eventually being filled in later doesn't change that. To give another example, Hannibal Lecter - we know VERY little about him in either Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs. Yet, he's still one of the best characters in pop culture. Giving him a definitive back story wasn't for the better. What was Hans Gruber's backstory?

you failed to note that the story needs to establish why the character wants what they want (what's the motives, incentives, etc), and why they're willing to do want what they do to get it (characterization 101).

That's not characterization 101. Why do people want what they want? It's often a mystery beyond, 'they just like it'. Why is Michael Jordan so competitive? Who knows and it doesn't matter. Some people just happen to be insecure. They don't need abuse in their past to explain insecurity. Lots of the supposed rules about storytelling that get bounced around and taken as gospel aren't true. A great example is the whole "Every villain is the hero of their own story." It's not true. Some people are just assholes.

"We don't know much of his backstory beyond being Obi Wan's former pupil. "

You just contradicted yourself lmao

- Vader was already given a backstory in just Episode 4 alone (Obi-Wan's former pupil turned evil), Episode 5 merely expanded on it. So your argument here is false.

- The elusiveness and mystery is an intentional part of Hannibal Lecter's character, same with Heath Ledger's Joker. So that argument doesnt work either.

- "Why do people want what they want? It's often a mystery beyond, 'they just like it'"

You just proved my point lmao. By establishing that "they just enjoy it", you are giving an explanation why they are what they are. Nobody said you needed a backstory for every single character trait (learn how to read).

"Why is Michael Jordan so competitive? Who knows and it doesn't matter. "

MJ has dozens of documentaries that center around exactly that lmao, another failed argument lol.

"Some people just happen to be insecure. They don't need abuse in their past to explain insecurity. "

Nobody said they did......

"A great example is the whole "Every villain is the hero of their own story." It's not true. Some people are just assholes."

If you define "hero" as "protagonist" then that rule is actually true lol. Nearly every major antagonist in fiction tends to think and act like they are the center of the universe, and the major villains of DB are no exception.

To me, you sound like somebody desperate to defend bad/mediocre writing in the things you like, as if you can't view them objectively.

[ABED]

but I can easily see a world where the Saiyans come to Earth without Goku having been one of them. Goku's story is that he was sent on a mission to destroy it when he was an infant. Take that part out and it still works, but instead of coming to get Goku, Raditz comes to destroy Earth himself. It would play out a little different but it's still logical and fits the motives of villains. They were always coming to Earth eventually.

If by Saiyans, you mean Saiyans as we know them, then I'm not sure how that would work without Goku's backstory. If you mean some other version of Saiyans that could have been invented by Toriyama, then sure. Saiyans could have been some humanoid reptilian dog creatures or something with the ability to turn into giant armadillos.

It would be odd if some random alien species Goku wasn't related to, also somehow had monkey-like tails with the same weakness, and the same ability to transform into a big monkey monster at the sight of a full-moon. And what of that of Super Saiyan? Obviously Goku could never be a Super Saiyan without first being a Saiyan. Vegeta's constant foreshadowing of the Super Saiyan now doesn't make sense. The only two choices now are, Goku himself has a unique golden haired transformation (that would have a different name), or the Super Saiyan transformation does exist and Goku could never be one. Or does he? Maybe he mimics it the same way he mimicked the Kamehameha? That would be odd, but I guess that could happen. Of course, in order to mimic it, that entails someone else becomes Super Saiyan first.

That said, I disagree that it would play out a "little different". It would be dramatically different.

The tail thing isn't really necessary. It doesn't fundamentally change who those characters are. So yes, there would clearly be changes to certain parts of the story, like Vegeta turning into a giant ape like Goku, but him transforming is very possible. Toriyama would end up using that device several more times. Bottom line, the idea of a race of planet pirates coming to destroy all Goku holds dear works regardless of his connection to them.


I didn't think through my point and wrote a "little" different, so I agree, that there would be a big change, but not for uninteresting reasons like tails and transformations. That's easy to write around. What would change is thematic. It's the elites vs. lower class theme in that arc. That would definitely be VASTLY different.

You just contradicted yourself lmao

- Vader was already given a backstory in just Episode 4 alone (Obi-Wan's former pupil turned evil), Episode 5 merely expanded on it. So your argument here is false.

Stop that shit right now. Instead of condescendingly laughing, how about we discuss this like civilized people? And by the way, I didn't say he had none, but being a former pupil is a VERY thin backstory. We don't know anything more about Darth other than that.

MJ has dozens of documentaries that center around exactly that lmao, another failed argument lol.

And what's the consensus about why he's competitive? What's their grand conclusion at the root of why he has an almost pathological need to compete? You haven't shown me that I've made a failed argument anyway. You've just said there are documentaries.

If you define "hero" as "protagonist" then that rule is actually true lol. Nearly every major antagonist in fiction tends to think and act like they are the center of the universe, and the major villains of DB are no exception.

To me, you sound like somebody desperate to defend bad/mediocre writing in the things you like, as if you can't view them objectively.

Center of the universe does not equal them thinking they are morally in the right. Lector doesn't believe he's doing the right thing.

To me you sound like someone who can't make a decent argument without talking down to someone because you aren't interested in listening. So hey, why not laugh. You laugh because it makes you feel superior.

What does that even mean to view art "objectively"?

[Sadala Elite]

The only rule I think fiction has is "don't be boring". The rest are negotiable. Then there are a few guidelines like "don't have your protagonist be a passive character" and "pay off what you've set up".

Why would having a passive protagonist be a bad thing by default? Hell, Goku was a passive protagonist at the beginning of the series.

How so, and how far into the story do you think he became active? I think passive protagonists are boring because things are just happening to them. They aren't taking any steps towards their goals if they even have any. Why are we following them? It's just inherently boring to me. Why not follow the characters who make active choices and follow them through as they try to achieve their goals?

I wouldn't call Goku a passive character. He agrees to go with Bulma on her journey, he makes choices to achieve his goals. And at the VERY least, DB starts off as a two-hander. Even assuming Goku were passive, Bulma is most definitely active. The first arc is as much about her as it is about Goku.

I think by the time we get to the Saiyan arc, his backstory became a necessity. Otherwise, why the hell would Raditz even come to Earth?

I'm not arguing that his Saiyan heritage was a bad move. It's great. I love it, but it just added to something already great and didn't detract from it, but I can easily see a world where the Saiyans come to Earth without Goku having been one of them. Goku's story is that he was sent on a mission to destroy it when he was an infant. Take that part out and it still works, but instead of coming to get Goku, Raditz comes to destroy Earth himself. It would play out a little different but it's still logical and fits the motives of villains. They were always coming to Earth eventually.

There's absolutely no reason for Raditz or literally anyone from them Freeza Force to ever come to Earth if Goku wasn't a Saiyan. Earth is regarded as backword low-resources planet by the standards of the empire (this was stated a couple of times in Z and Super), and was largely ignored by Freeza before he met Goku.

Goku being sent there as a Saiyan baby by the empire (or Bardock) is the only reason why they would ever give a damn about Earth. So no, they were not eventually gonna come to Earth anyway, that assumption make zero sense. So the backstory Goku got for in Z was objectively essential for both the Saiyan and Namek sagas.

[Bebi Hatchiyack]

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.

Well I can counter argument that with the real life, in a way every people including you are living it's own story with different plot and stuff but that's the world around us that shape our story. We have long since forgotten the story of billions lifes who lived before us what's remain is the lore the story of Earth and the Universe itself and only the history of mankind since the invention of the writting system.

In a way maybe that's why I am Lore based because that reflect our own world. But it's true that's how a story will be told that will kept me invested mostly that's why the Sequel Trilogy of Star Wars piss me off and to a lesser extend Resistance that do what it can with the BS of the Sequel Trilogy (I blame mostly Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson for that). I don't includ Solo and Rogue because those two are fine story for me at least.

I think ABED you need perhaps simple story that are just their own thing and don't spawn Franchise, once a Franchise start to grew you will have irremediably lore based stuff and I think that stuff will make you uneasy or worse angry ?

Dragon Ball lately have maybe become something that piss you off ?

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.

Well that remind me of a talk I had on another website about Assassin's Creed, I've made post to ask.

What's for you people an Assassin's Creed game ?

And as a talk progressed I and few others came to the conclusion that as a Franchise will expand and explore its universe the franchise will inevitably cause rift and shift among its fan because of the Lore and Story and that's when the said licence get into trouble.

I'll explain with Dragon Ball as an example we have many fans and I'd say we have many types of fan. We have the fan of the OG Dragon Ball only the 42 tomes will be his/her bible nothing else, the fan who love transformation and the serious tone will be more focused on Z this fan can also be a GT fan since he will value that GT have fidelity to Z in terms of violence/blood, we have the new fan that love Super and also Heroes to a lesser extend this fan can be a fan of the OG Dragon Ball and by OG I mean the fun part of the Dragon Ball universe when Goku was having its little adventure with Bulma for the Dragon Ball against the Pilaf Gang.

Etc etc ...

I can take one big franchise and put you which fan goes into which boxes.

Star Wars, Dragon Ball, Assassin's Creed and all other big Franchise will face the same problem as they grew people will start wanting to have Lore and explanation other any little detail instead of a well written story that will create the lore by itself.

Even Marvel & DC have this same problem hence that's why they reboot their universe frequently to start anew.

So in the end lore and story are important the two of them should be perfectly balanced as everything in a story.