Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Discussion regarding the entirety of the franchise in a general (meta) sense, including such aspects as: production, trends, merchandise, fan culture, and more.

Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff

User avatar
dva_raza
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:46 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by dva_raza » Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am

Shaddy wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:29 am
dva_raza wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am That was bold. Not sure if you’re referring specifically to me, but I certainly didn’t change or intended to change the word's meaning "on a whim" according to what's "convenient". Especially considering I'm almost obsessed with definitions of words and consistency lol
And just so it’s clear, I said exactly what I meant there.
Okay, well I feel like it should have been pretty obvious that I did not mean that, but if you're going to be an ass about it, then alright I guess.
LOL an ass about it? Sorry I guess. You quoting me using the word, with your reply being “anybody using this word gives it whatever meaning that’s convenient to them and changes it on a whim”, inclined pretty heavily on the possibility that you were referring to me. I did say I wasn’t sure, but definitely don’t see the “obvious” part

dva_raza wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am And the meaning I’m giving to “censorship” is just the most general, popular definition of the term:
Yes, and the least-useful one for this discussion.
Don’t understand how could the basic meaning of a concept be ‘the least useful one’ when having a discussion about it. I guess maybe it’s not useful to someone trying to complicate things. THEN simplicity gets in your way right?

I think it's objectionable when Goku and Freeza spend ten minutes of an episode staring at each other, does that make it "censorship" when fanedits cut that content out? If not, then why?
You might find it objectionable in the way that it's just annoying but that term obviously (in the context of censoring something) refers mostly to something that's believed to be potentially offensive or harmful.
The 5 minute staring thing can be considered annoying or unnecessary, and therefore edited. That’s not censorship, that’s editing. Unless of course you gonna argue that you’re somehow offended or harmed by Goku and Frieza staring at each other

Is what qualifies as "obscene" not completely subjective?
There's room for subjectivity with any adjective but there ARE basic meanings for terms after all. You can’t just point at anything that doesn't fit the description of what the term means. I mean you can, but that wouldn't be the general perception, so it wouldn't matter

Because the fact is, there is no hard line separating a """political""" change from a normal artistic one.
There is. The separating line is the motive for the change.

Okay, so explain how this rhetoric can't be used to justify the exact thing you think you're complaining about.
If you just create things differently because that’s what you want out of your genuine belief for how it should be, without any external pressure, or fear to upset anybody, that’s not censorship, nobody here argued it was, and I never opposed that (I literally expressed that that’s what I would’ve liked), basically for them to be more tasteful, instead of getting external impositions

If the fan outcry over Toei not animating sexual assault of their own free will becomes so great that they admit defeat and go back to making rapey Roshi scenes, is that suddenly NOT censorship because it's back to being "the way it's supposed to be"? If so, what exactly makes the distinction in your eyes?
That’s a nonsensical scenario and I don’t get the "the way it's supposed to be" part. If Toei DIDN’T want to do it, then that’s not the way “it’s supposed to be”. What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.

Regarding the distinction, technically, the distinction is that the definition of censorship, again, includes the word “supression” (which is a subtraction, not an addition).
But morally, no distinction (imo). The idea of a creator having to change (add in this case) something the fans demanded in order to avoid upsetting them, sounds awful to me

User avatar
JulieYBM
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 16503
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by JulieYBM » Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:49 am

Toriyama doesn't make the cartoons, so he can fuck off.

Toei not including rapey, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic bullshit in a cartoon because the staff chose not to or because responsible adult fans made it clear that that bullshit was not acceptable is good, actually.
She/Her💕 💜 💙
progesterone princess, estradiol empress
Lucifer's bimbo daughter

User avatar
MasenkoHA
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 6201
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:38 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by MasenkoHA » Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:12 pm

JulieYBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:49 am Toriyama doesn't make the cartoons, so he can fuck off.

Toei not including rapey, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic bullshit in a cartoon because the staff chose not to or because responsible adult fans made it clear that that bullshit was not acceptable is good, actually.
Toei had a track record of including way more problematic content in the anime than what was in the manga though.

User avatar
JulieYBM
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 16503
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:25 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by JulieYBM » Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:24 pm

MasenkoHA wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:12 pm
JulieYBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:49 am Toriyama doesn't make the cartoons, so he can fuck off.

Toei not including rapey, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic bullshit in a cartoon because the staff chose not to or because responsible adult fans made it clear that that bullshit was not acceptable is good, actually.
Toei had a track record of including way more problematic content in the anime than what was in the manga though.
Absolutely! And they can go fuck themselves for that shit! I was under the impression that we were talking about future productions.
She/Her💕 💜 💙
progesterone princess, estradiol empress
Lucifer's bimbo daughter

User avatar
PurestEvil
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2020 2:34 pm
Location: Constantinopolee!

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by PurestEvil » Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:33 pm

MasenkoHA wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:12 pm
JulieYBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:49 am Toriyama doesn't make the cartoons, so he can fuck off.

Toei not including rapey, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic bullshit in a cartoon because the staff chose not to or because responsible adult fans made it clear that that bullshit was not acceptable is good, actually.
Toei had a track record of including way more problematic content in the anime than what was in the manga though.
Yeah, let's not forget that most of Roshis "pervy" moments in the DBZ anime, that insipid "long lost brother" moment with Blue and Obotchaman, and any pervy moment in filler episodes were TOEI's ideas.
At least Toriyama was setting up punchlines with his offensive gags.
This post was brought to you by 魔族

Rest in Peace, Toriyama-san

User avatar
dva_raza
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:46 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by dva_raza » Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:32 pm

I don’t get the "the way it's supposed to be" part. If Toei DIDN’T want to do it, then that’s not the way “it’s supposed to be”. What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.

Just to clarify I was talking about Toei not Toriyama. Whoever is making the thing is the "creator" in that case.

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Shaddy » Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:22 pm

dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am LOL an ass about it? Sorry I guess. You quoting me using the word, with your reply being “anybody using this word gives it whatever meaning that’s convenient to them and changes it on a whim”, inclined pretty heavily on the possibility that you were referring to me. I did say I wasn’t sure, but definitely don’t see the “obvious” part
It's a good thing that I did not at any point say that, then.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am Don’t understand how could the basic meaning of a concept be ‘the least useful one’ when having a discussion about it. I guess maybe it’s not useful to someone trying to complicate things. THEN simplicity gets in your way right?
Well lucky for you, I explained exactly how oversimplifying it means that you can call anything you don't personally like "censorship".

dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am You might find it objectionable in the way that it's just annoying but that term obviously (in the context of censoring something) refers mostly to something that's believed to be potentially offensive or harmful.
The 5 minute staring thing can be considered annoying or unnecessary, and therefore edited. That’s not censorship, that’s editing. Unless of course you gonna argue that you’re somehow offended or harmed by Goku and Frieza staring at each other
And what if I did? Or, by contrast, what if I argued that all the scenes of Roshi being a sex offender were actually just narratively harmful, regardless of content? See how quickly this version of censorship falls apart? As I said, there is no hard line between a purely mechanical change and one made for the convenience or comfort of an audience.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am There's room for subjectivity with any adjective but there ARE basic meanings for terms after all. You can’t just point at anything that doesn't fit the description of what the term means. I mean you can, but that wouldn't be the general perception, so it wouldn't matter
Well, yes it would though. Who says the "general perception" is all that gets to effect a story? I'm pretty sure if that were the case there'd be no point in making any changes to Dragon Ball ever, since it makes gigantic piles of money even when it looks like crayon drawings, so the "general perception" is that it's worth giving money to no matter what the content is.

Lest we pretend that you're any authority on what the fans at large believe, I mean.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am There is. The separating line is the motive for the change.
No it's not.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am If you just create things differently because that’s what you want out of your genuine belief for how it should be, without any external pressure, or fear to upset anybody, that’s not censorship, nobody here argued it was, and I never opposed that
And if a company sees fan complaints and decides by their own free will to alter their own content to keep those fans around, then that is what they want out of their genuine belief for how it should be. The only argument that boycotts are censorship is one where Toei is inherently entitled to our money.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am(I literally expressed that that’s what I would’ve liked), basically for them to be more tasteful, instead of getting external impositions
Ah-ah-ah, but by YOUR OWN (wrong) DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP, THIS IS STILL CENSORSHIP.

Changing it to be "tasteful" (which, I guarantee whatever you think this means would not be "tasteful") is still changing something, still removing what was there before. If TOEI WANTS the "Master Roshi is a sex offender, and that's harmless and funny" portrayal to stay, then whatever gets in the way of that is, in your words, censorship! If you change it, you've suppressed all of the "Master Roshi is a sex offender, and that's harmless and funny" jokes to be!
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am That’s a nonsensical scenario
No it's not. You're getting upset over the idea of them not having Roshi assault women right now, and it hasn't even happened.

Even if we pull the lens back, we need look only as far as 2019's Vic Mignogna controversy to see the depths of misogyny in Dragon Ball fans and anime fans. You think Toei wouldn't face huge backlash from the "silence is consent" crowd if they changed this?
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am I don’t get the "the way it's supposed to be" part. If Toei DIDN’T want to do it, then that’s not the way “it’s supposed to be”. What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.
But "what the creator wants" isn't something you're in any place to define. I guarantee every single episode of Dragon Ball ever produced had someone's input change part of the episode for some reason, and that person isn't necessarily the lead on the show. There even are cases where Toei changes the content of their shows to remove shocking content. In One Piece, the manga sees Whitebeard get a large chunk of his head taken out by Akainu's attack. In the anime, it only cuts off one side of his mustache. So is Eiichiro Oda being censored, or is Toei making the show they want to make? Who is "the creator"? It's not like we have any proof Toriyama is the one writing these things when they show up in the Super anime and not the manga.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:32 pm Just to clarify I was talking about Toei not Toriyama. Whoever is making the thing is the "creator" in that case.
Okay, but "the thing" inherently includes Toriyama's vision. You don't get to say he doesn't count just because you feel like it.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am Regarding the distinction, technically, the distinction is that the definition of censorship, again, includes the word “supression” (which is a subtraction, not an addition).
Any change can be framed as subtraction. This is why some people define a black protagonist in Star Wars as an "attack on whiteness". Unless your argument is somehow that Roshi's sexual assault jokes should be left as-is but then an extra scene is added of the exact same thing but somehow "tasteful" (which I guarantee would be a narrative mistake and thus justifiably removed), then you don't have an argument here.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:34 am But morally, no distinction (imo). The idea of a creator having to change (add in this case) something the fans demanded in order to avoid upsetting them, sounds awful to me
Well that's very silly of you. As it turns out, some decisions creators make are stupid, and fans have better ideas all the time. You know how many companies have been bullied out of pushing NFT bullshit? Or hey, look at Sonic Mania. That game was born of fan's wishes and frustrations, it was made by ex-fangame creators, and it was the most successful game since the 90s.

User avatar
dva_raza
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:46 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by dva_raza » Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm

Shaddy wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 6:22 pm
Well lucky for you, I explained exactly how oversimplifying it means that you can call anything you don't personally like "censorship".
And I explained how nobody here, certainly not me, called “anything they don’t like” censorship.
I only called censorship what’s by definition considered censorship.
And no, establishing the definition of the concept that’s being discussed is not oversimplifyng, it’s the necessary base.

dva_raza wrote: ↑
Unless of course you gonna argue that you’re somehow offended or harmed by Goku and Frieza staring at each other
And what if I did? Or, by contrast, what if I argued that all the scenes of Roshi being a sex offender were actually just narratively harmful, regardless of content? See how quickly this version of censorship falls apart?
If you were offended by something like that, that’s you being absurd, it’s not something that could be generally considered offensive, therefore it’s irrelevant.

And no, it DOESN’T fall apart, like I said, there IS general perception and meanings to terms, which is what certain decisions are established upon

dva_raza wrote:
There is. The separating line is the motive for the change.
No it's not.
Saying "no it's not" won't change the simple fact that it is. With the proof of it being IN the very definition of the term "censorship", which I copied and explained already and it's not that complicated.

Ah-ah-ah, but by YOUR OWN (wrong) DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP, THIS IS STILL CENSORSHIP.

Changing it to be "tasteful" (which, I guarantee whatever you think this means would not be "tasteful") is still changing something, still removing what was there before. If TOEI WANTS the "Master Roshi is a sex offender, and that's harmless and funny" portrayal to stay, then whatever gets in the way of that is, in your words, censorship! If you change it, you've suppressed all of the "Master Roshi is a sex offender, and that's harmless and funny" jokes to be!
You need to read more carefully, at least if you're somewhat interested in making a coherent response.
I DID NOT say that I wanted them to CHANGE anything to be more tasteful.
I am explaining to you there, what the difference between CENSORSHIP and AN EDIT THAT IS NOT CENSORSHIP is.

I said, (please, read carefully):

I would rather for them TO BE MORE TASTEFUL, INSTEAD OF GETTING EXTERNAL IMPOSITIONS. Meaning:
I would like if they stopped doing those scenes, have better taste, so there is no need for censorship to be imposed.

I did not mention removing nor changing anything that's existing.
YOUR OWN (wrong) DEFINITION OF CENSORSHIP,
You can call it “wrong” all you want, it literally isn't. The definition I referenced is an objective fact and it won’t change.

You're getting upset over the idea of them not having Roshi assault women right now, and it hasn't even happened.
Ok seriously, what IN THE HELL are you talking about?
First, I'm not “upset”. Second, I literally said:
I WOULD RATHER FOR THEM TO NOT HAVE DONE THOSE DIRTY SCENES.
I mean it's right there in the first post that you replied to.

Again, in case it's not clear enough, I DON'T LIKE THOSE SCENES and I would love if they didn't do them in the future, by them having better taste, so there is not a need for them to feel or be literally forced to not include them.

dva_raza wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 07, 2022 5:32 pm
Just to clarify I was talking about Toei not Toriyama. Whoever is making the thing is the "creator" in that case.
Okay, but "the thing" inherently includes Toriyama's vision. You don't get to say he doesn't count just because you feel like it.
I'm not saying what counts and what doesn’t. I was RESPONDING TO YOUR EXAMPLE in which you brought up Toei, so Toei is who I'm talking about.
You said:
If fans demanded Toei went back to make innapropriate scenes (and, yes, it's a nonsensical scenario), would that suddenly NOT be censorship because they went back to do the things “the way they're supposed to be”?

I replied : What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.

Therefore, if Toei DIDN'T want to keep making those scenes and were forced to do them again, then to me it's almost the same (although technically it's not censorship) as censorship in the aspect that it's an imposition that forces a creator to make changes he doesn't want, in this case Toei

Well that's very silly of you. As it turns out, some decisions creators make are stupid, and fans have better ideas all the time. You know how many companies have been bullied out of pushing NFT bullshit? Or hey, look at Sonic Mania. That game was born of fan's wishes and frustrations, it was made by ex-fangame creators, and it was the most successful game since the 90s.
Nothing silly about wanting creative integrity for a creator.
And if fans have “better ideas all the time" they are welcome to create their own stuff.
Toriyama did start from zero, so can anyone.

User avatar
goku the krump dancer
I Live Here
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by goku the krump dancer » Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:53 pm

Between Kai and Super I think they seem to have found a general "Sweet Spot" when it comes to how they want the violence to be portrayed which is ultimately a step down from the original series but it still largely won people over. We've gotten a lot less lewd humor and that's mostly because the characters that those parts are written for are pretty much irrelevant though the moments we did get were handled pretty terribly with the exception of Goku grabbing the Galaxy King's wang, that was actually kinda funny.

Assuming the OP is about children who're at least 10 and under watching the original series, I'm gonna say no, censorship isn't necessary because Dragon Ball isn't a major series anymore and most anime nowadays are at night when most kids are usually asleep, so whatever a person might deem unsuitable for a 8 year old to watch is ultimately up to their discretion. You as the adult know what you're getting them into and if you don't feel comfortable with it then wait until they're a little older, 12 or 13 I think is perfect. Well seeing as though Bae is 14 she fits the demo quite nicely.

Toriyama seems to have moved away from the more raunchy humor himself seeing as though Battle of Gods, Revival of F and Broly have zero sexual humor in it. Which is fine because unless its setting up for a clever punchline then its largely not needed.
It's not too late. One day, it will be.
Peace And Power MF DOOM!
Peace and Power Kevin Samuels

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Shaddy » Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:13 am

dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm And I explained how nobody here, certainly not me, called “anything they don’t like” censorship.
Your explanation is wrong. There is no way of defining censorship the way you do that does not inherently include the abuse of that definition to silence others.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm I only called censorship what’s by definition considered censorship.
And no, establishing the definition of the concept that’s being discussed is not oversimplifyng, it’s the necessary base.
If your definition is so broad as to be rhetorically meaningless, it is oversimplified.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm If you were offended by something like that, that’s you being absurd, it’s not something that could be generally considered offensive, therefore it’s irrelevant.
Oh, and I'm sure nobody has ever called anyone else absurd for being offended by the glorification of sexual assault. This is definitely legitimate rhetoric.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm And no, it DOESN’T fall apart, like I said, there IS general perception and meanings to terms, which is what certain decisions are established upon
Even if we were to pretend that's true, it would neither make your ideas proven nor the argument you're making for them a good one.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm Saying "no it's not" won't change the simple fact that it is. With the proof of it being IN the very definition of the term "censorship", which I copied and explained already and it's not that complicated.
The problem is that it's not a fact. It shouldn't be my problem if you continue to deny this.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm
You need to read more carefully, at least if you're somewhat interested in making a coherent response.
I think I've been pretty clear. Your problem is not that you can't understand me, it is that you are wrong.


dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm I DID NOT say that I wanted them to CHANGE anything to be more tasteful.
I am explaining to you there, what the difference between CENSORSHIP and AN EDIT THAT IS NOT CENSORSHIP is.

I said, (please, read carefully):

I would rather for them TO BE MORE TASTEFUL, INSTEAD OF GETTING EXTERNAL IMPOSITIONS. Meaning:
I would like if they stopped doing those scenes, have better taste, so there is no need for censorship to be imposed.

I did not mention removing nor changing anything that's existing.
Like I said, any change can and will be sold as a subtraction, no matter what. If you get rid of Roshi sexually assaulting people, you get rid of a core part of Roshi's character. Therefore, by your bad logic, it's censorship.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm You can call it “wrong” all you want, it literally isn't. The definition I referenced is an objective fact and it won’t change.
Sure it will! You've changed it several times to argue that your demands aren't censorship and others' are.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm Ok seriously, what IN THE HELL are you talking about?
First, I'm not “upset”.
Masterful self-own here
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm Second, I literally said:
I WOULD RATHER FOR THEM TO NOT HAVE DONE THOSE DIRTY SCENES.
I mean it's right there in the first post that you replied to.

Again, in case it's not clear enough, I DON'T LIKE THOSE SCENES and I would love if they didn't do them in the future, by them having better taste, so there is not a need for them to feel or be literally forced to not include them.
And in case it isn't clear enough, no fan would be "forcing" Toei's hand unless you think they're entitled to our viewership and money. They could just as easily ignore that demand because they want sexual assault more than the money of people who don't like sexual assault, therefore it can not be censorship.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm I'm not saying what counts and what doesn’t. I was RESPONDING TO YOUR EXAMPLE in which you brought up Toei, so Toei is who I'm talking about.
Well you are, though. You're disregarding the myriad of different workers that put effort into producing these things and using a definition of "censorship" so broad as to include some of those very workers, and ignoring me when I point out the inconsistency. It's not my job to treat you as more rational than you are.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm (and, yes, it's a nonsensical scenario),
It's not.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm
I replied : What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.

Therefore, if Toei DIDN'T want to keep making those scenes and were forced to do them again, then to me it's almost the same (although technically it's not censorship) as censorship in the aspect that it's an imposition that forces a creator to make changes he doesn't want, in this case Toei
So, two things here:

1. You admit that it's only "censorship" to you if they remove sex offender Roshi, not if they're forced to put him back.

2. You still don't seem to understand that your definition of censorship includes the things the creator wants, if said creator wants to listen to the fans.
dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm Nothing silly about wanting creative integrity for a creator.
Well you don't want that, though. Otherwise, you would respect the idea of them taking fan criticism seriously.

dva_raza wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:39 pm And if fans have “better ideas all the time" they are welcome to create their own stuff.
Toriyama did start from zero, so can anyone.
You're hilarious.

User avatar
jjgp1112
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 7478
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Crooklyn

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by jjgp1112 » Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:00 am

I'm pretty sure dva Raza just said he wants future material to not have Roshi sex humor but that he just doesn't like the idea of removing it (or anything for that matter) from already existing material. Not sure why it's descended into a borderline psychotic back and forth about the definition of censorship.
Yamcha: Do you remember the spell to release him - do you know all the words?
Bulma: Of course! I'm not gonna pull a Frieza and screw it up!
Master Roshi: Bulma, I think Frieza failed because he wore too many clothes!
Cold World (Fanfic)
"It ain't never too late to stop bein' a bitch." - Chad Lamont Butler

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Shaddy » Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:10 am

I did consider that, but A. That would still be Toei's own decision and B. There's still dozens of wildly available sources for the series with all that stuff intact, so even if we agreed it were censorship, it would be incredibly harmless and not worth making a fuss over.

User avatar
Hellspawn28
Patreon Supporter
Posts: 15191
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:50 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Hellspawn28 » Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:34 am

America needs to have similar standers that Japan does with their kids stuff. Kids in Japan can grow up just fine by watching violent content than the US does. America has been brain wash by nonsense like your kid will probably grow up to be a serial killer if they watch a R rated movie.
She/Her
PS5 username: Guyver_Spawn_27
LB Profile: https://letterboxd.com/Hellspawn28/

User avatar
dva_raza
Temporarily Banned
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2021 6:46 pm

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by dva_raza » Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am

Shaddy wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:13 am If you get rid of Roshi sexually assaulting people, you get rid of a core part of Roshi's character. Therefore, by your bad logic, it's censorship.
It’s not bad logic, it’s logic-period.
And no, again, it wouldn’t be censorship if the motive wouldn’t be the one included in the definition of censorship.
(The motive being what would make the difference in the context you mention)

If the creator wants to make the character different in the future and does it authentically, that simply has nothing to do with censorship.

dva_raza wrote:
Ok seriously, what IN THE HELL are you talking about?
First, I'm not “upset”.
Masterful self-own here
Just so it’s clear, me wanting to use capital leters to emphasize my confusion at the completely off the rails, off the charts, outright LIE you said there about me, doesn’t mean I’m upset with the subject matter, which I was not at any point, despite what you tried to claim


dva_raza wrote:
I'm not saying what counts and what doesn’t. I was RESPONDING TO YOUR EXAMPLE in which you brought up Toei, so Toei is who I'm talking about.
Well you are, though. You're disregarding the myriad of different workers
Honestly… what?
I didn’t disregard anybody, again, I was responding to your hypothetical (and nonsensical) scenario, in which YOU put Toei as example.
I was simply sticking to what you said.

and using a definition of "censorship" so broad as to include some of those very workers,
I have mentioned at least twice now, that censorship can come from creators themselves.
Again, it’s not that complicated.
and ignoring me when I point out the inconsistency.
There has been no inconsistency from my part. But the ‘ignoring you’ thing is definitely what I should’ve done from the beginning, too late now.
It's not my job to treat you as more rational than you are.
As it shouldn’t be, considering you apparently have no sense of what that is.

dva_raza wrote:
(and, yes, it's a nonsensical scenario),
It's not.
Well, don't want to be repetitive but, it is.

NONSENSICAL (non•sen•si•cal)
adjective
1. Having no meaning; making no sense
2. Ridiculously impractical

IMPRACTICAL (I'm•prac•ti•cal)
/adjective
1. Not adapted for use or action
2. Unrealistic, not sensible


You presenting a scenario in which fans would demand the rape/assault scenes to be brought back is, literally, unrealistic, basing off the mere fact that exactly the opposite has grown for years.
Thus, it makes your hypothetical example:
ridiculously meaningless, impractical, and it makes no sense. (Nonsensical)

dva_raza wrote:
I replied : What’s supposed to be is what the creator wants.
Therefore, if Toei DIDN'T want to keep making those scenes and were forced to do them again, then to me it's almost the same (although technically it's not censorship) as censorship in the aspect that it's an imposition that forces a creator to make changes he doesn't want, in this case Toei
So, two things here:

1. You admit that it's only "censorship" to you if they remove sex offender Roshi, not if they're forced to put him back.
Yes I admit it’s technically (meaning, by definition) not censorship, but that morally I find it almost the same, in the aspect that it's an imposition which forces a creator to make changes he doesn't want.

2. You still don't seem to understand that your definition of censorship includes the things the creator wants, if said creator wants to listen to the fans.
I do understand what you are trying to convey, the thing about your argument there, is you seemingly either ignore or don’t understand that there is a difference between being stimulated, and being forced.

Forced, in this context, would be if a creator will have to stop doing something they want (or adding something they DON’T want), to not upset/create controversy, so they keep making money.
Being stimulated would be him genuinely reform his way of thinking (whether he was inspired by fans' opinions it doesn't matter) but he stops doing something because that is what he wants FROM A CREATIVE NEED, not because he wants to keep making money and therefore feels obligated to do it.

dva_raza wrote:
Nothing silly about wanting creative integrity for a creator.
Well you don't want that, though. Otherwise, you would respect the idea of them taking fan criticism seriously
I do respect the idea of them taking fan criticism seriously, which is why I expressed I’m glad they have toned down those kinds of scenes along the years.

I just said that I prefer that instead of them being (or feeling) forced to do it in order to not lose fanbase, it’s happens organically, which means: them doing it because they have acquired better sense of tase along the years, whether that sense of taste was influenced by fans or anything else.

dva_raza wrote:
And if fans have “better ideas all the time" they are welcome to create their own stuff.
Toriyama did start from zero, so can anyone
You're hilarious.
Yeah, thank you. The fact that you somehow find THAT hilarious reaffirms the absurdity of this conversation. So, as Demon Prince would say.. I don’t think we’re gonna change each others minds, so it’s best if we just agree to disagree lmao

User avatar
Shaddy
I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
Posts: 1612
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 7:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Shaddy » Sat Jan 08, 2022 9:33 am

dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am It’s not bad logic, it’s logic-period.
Nah.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am And no, again, it wouldn’t be censorship if the motive wouldn’t be the one included in the definition of censorship.
(The motive being what would make the difference in the context you mention)
So again, all anyone has to do is say they're not trying to change it for content reasons and just narrative ones, and they can censor anything they like. Sounds pretty pro-censorship of you.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am If the creator wants to make the character different in the future and does it authentically, that simply has nothing to do with censorship.
If the creator wants to take criticism seriously and alter their work accordingly, that also has nothing to do with censorship.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am Just so it’s clear, me wanting to use capital leters to emphasize my confusion at the completely off the rails, off the charts, outright LIE you said there about me, doesn’t mean I’m upset with the subject matter, which I was not at any point, despite what you tried to claim
Well first off, there's no lie there. Second, even if you claim to not actually want this, you're clearly arguing from the viewpoint of someone who would consider it censorship for them to change Roshi to not be a sex offender, and that kind of person is all sorts of bootyblasted.

So I guess I was inaccurate. You're not upset, you're just acting upset.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am Honestly… what?
I didn’t disregard anybody, again, I was responding to your hypothetical (and nonsensical) scenario, in which YOU put Toei as example.
I was simply sticking to what you said.
Well no you're not, because you're continuing to treat Toei like the entire company is one person. Nobody asked you to do that.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am I have mentioned at least twice now, that censorship can come from creators themselves.
Again, it’s not that complicated.
It's not about complications, you're just proudly and flagrantly incorrect, ontop of being totally conceited.

If the creators are literally censoring themselves, then you can call anything to ever have been changed ever censorship. You're just rewording the same argument over and over again, and it's not getting any better.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am There has been no inconsistency from my part. But the ‘ignoring you’ thing is definitely what I should’ve done from the beginning, too late now.
No, there's actually been a lot of inconsistency, hence my "pointing it out" part.

Also, nobody is keeping you here, although given what kind of power you seem to think random internet Dragon Ball fans hold over corporations, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am Well, don't want to be repetitive but, it is.
It's not.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am You presenting a scenario in which fans would demand the rape/assault scenes to be brought back is, literally, unrealistic, basing off the mere fact that exactly the opposite has grown for years.
Well it obviously hasn't grown enough, has it? I mean, we're still here, arguing about it, and Dragon Ball hasn't improved in that regard.

And again, I didn't invoke the Vic Mignogna drama for nothing, but you ignored that too. You think none of the stans claiming the "woke PC crowd" were ruining Dragon Ball by ousting a sexual harasser would raise a stink over "censorship" of the same thing in an anime? The fact is, most of them think, well, the same way you do, and sadly they'd have a much better case than they did in 2019 (though, as we've seen with your posts, still not a good one).

dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am Thus, it makes your hypothetical example:
ridiculously meaningless, impractical, and it makes no sense. (Nonsensical)
Actually, even if I pretended my example were unrealistic, it would not prove any of those three things.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am I do understand what you are trying to convey, the thing about your argument there, is you seemingly either ignore or don’t understand that there is a difference between being stimulated, and being forced.

Forced, in this context, would be if a creator will have to stop doing something they want (or adding something they DON’T want), to not upset/create controversy, so they keep making money.
Being stimulated would be him genuinely reform his way of thinking (whether he was inspired by fans' opinions it doesn't matter) but he stops doing something because that is what he wants FROM A CREATIVE NEED, not because he wants to keep making money and therefore feels obligated to do it.
Except neither you or I have access to that information, nor would any creative team necessarily be able or allowed to articulate it, let alone have the entire staff agree on what the information even is. As I've said: there is no hard line between a creative decision and a content-sensitive one. You're literally saying it wouldn't be censorship unless the people being censored called it that. Can you not see a glaring fucking issue with that?
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am I just said that I prefer that instead of them being (or feeling) forced to do it in order to not lose fanbase, it’s happens organically, which means: them doing it because they have acquired better sense of tase along the years, whether that sense of taste was influenced by fans or anything else.
Okay, three things here:

1. "I just said that I prefer..." No, you've said quite a bit more than that. If all you were saying was that you prefer it not have to come to a boycott, then nobody would have taken any issue. I'd agree, in fact! But you cast fans with no real power over the studio as the villainous force stomping on creative freedom, and I'm not going to not take issue with that.

2. Again, "feeling" forced? So this is yet another case where censorship is just whatever a nebulous party says it is? Very convenient.

3. Still, even if you didn't say that, it still would not be "forcing" them. Toei could, if they wanted, simply accept the loss of that demographic. This goes for every creative decision they make. It's entirely up to them, and what consumers do should not be treated as an attack on them if they don't personally like the show they're creating. To view this as anything else, again, is to treat Toei as entitled to our money or viewership, which they aren't.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am Yeah, thank you. The fact that you somehow find THAT hilarious reaffirms the absurdity of this conversation.
Ah yes, because there's nothing absurd about telling people with a few complaints about Dragon Ball to simply craft their own multi-billion dollar multimedia intellectual property sustained over the course of nearly forty years. After all, anyone can do that. That's why there's nothing unique or special about Dragon Ball.
dva_raza wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 7:32 am So, as Demon Prince would say.. I don’t think we’re gonna change each others minds, so it’s best if we just agree to disagree lmao
Is it? You're saying "agree to disagree", sure, but only after a bunch of condescending paragraphs about how smart you are and how I'm a dangerous lunatic for disagreeing. If you really wanted to agree to disagree, might all of that garbage you've just posted be gone?

User avatar
DBZAOTA482
Banned
Posts: 6995
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by DBZAOTA482 » Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:11 pm

With how widely available Dragon Ball and anime in general is nowadays, censorship is a thing of the past.
fadeddreams5 wrote:
DBZGTKOSDH wrote:... Haven't we already gotten these in GT? Goku dies, the DBs go away, and the Namekian DBs most likely won't be used again because of the Evil Dragons.
Goku didn't die in GT. The show sucked him off so much, it was impossible to keep him in the world of the living, so he ascended beyond mortality.
jjgp1112 wrote: Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:31 am I'm just about done with the concept of reboots and making shows that were products of their time and impactful "new and sexy" and in line with modern tastes and sensibilities. Let stuff stay in their era and give today's kids their own shit to watch.

I always side eye the people who say "Now my kids/today's kids can experience what I did as a child!" Nigga, who gives a fuck about your childhood? You're an adult now and it was at least 15 years ago. Let the kids have their own experience instead of picking at a corpse.

User avatar
Yuli Ban
OMG CRAZY REGEN
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:07 am
Location: New Orleans, LA
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Yuli Ban » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:39 am

Yes, if just for the laughs it will inevitably provide.

My favorite threads on this forum, though not by a wide distance, are the ones detailing the silliest examples of censorship in Dragon Ball, whether DB, DBZ/GT, or Dragon Ball Z Kai.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13408
viewtopic.php?t=44219

In all seriousness, I'd much rather people not get a corrupted or bastardized version of Dragon Ball. It's LITERALLY only good for the laughs.

And if you prefer censored DBZ because of nostalgia or because you actually prefer the kiddier, sillier, more comic book-style take, I'm not judging, so long as you recognize that it's not the "real" show.
The Yabanverse
My own take on Saiyajins in a fanverse.

Vijay
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:48 am

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Vijay » Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:00 am

WittyUsername wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 9:14 pm The sexual humor in early Dragon Ball was widely seen as inappropriate for kids back in 2001, and if anything, it’s even more inappropriate now. As for whether the rest of the series would need to be censored, I don’t know, maybe not? There are some gruesome moments, but the series isn’t a straight up gore fest. Freeza impaling and torturing Kuririn is more brutal than anything you’re likely to see in an American show geared towards kids, though.
I'm a normal guy...who knws few stuff. I respect every human, regardless of their gender but for the most part I just mind my own bussiness & dont have personal take on LGBTQIA, just feel every living thing have their own freedom so long as it doesnt invade others privacy...

With that in mind, I think s***** humors in DB is pretty tame. If u consider Goku's naked scenes or Muten Roshi's perverse in DB to be excessive, u might wanna reconsider watchin DBZ as violence in DBZ are rather brutal compared to pervism in DB.

I respect that each person have their own perspective. Being 40/50+ as someone"s Dad & allowin their kid to watch such scenes may seem inappropriate to some. Others may be cool with it as current gen is far more advanced when it comes to maturity.

Ultimately it comes down to getting used to. Just like og Japanese version of DragonBall. If u allow yourself to get adequate exposure to japanese voice cast, its music, & its beautiful world, it'll grow on ya & you'd get the reasoning behind scenes/characters acting the way they are

Likewise, pervism & naked scenes in DB takes some time to get used to, just like me. And once it did, I LOL'd so hard every single time Roshi gets smacked by Bulma, Chichi, 18, Mermaid, countless nameless women signifiyin what a man should never do😂

I believe censorship maybe required 20-30/40 years ago, but now...nah. its pretty tame especially when compared to various super gigantic...ya know...Bleach's Rangiku/Inoue or OP's Nami, list goes...

User avatar
Nagyzöld
Not-So-Newbie
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:02 am

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by Nagyzöld » Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:42 am

Are the younger generations still so much into Dragon Ball though? Or more like our generations trying to shove it down their throats? I believe there are few people who would genuinely enjoy Dragon Ball in these days because: a. It's simply too long and dragged, newer animes are shorter and on point so it's hard to have the attention span to sit through all hundreds of episodes of Dragon Ball. B. The 90's graphics. I believe that youngsters might go for DBS or at most the video games, else we must accept that they have their own anime and stop beating a dead horse.

As for censorship, there's the offensive and then there's the inappropriate. Offensive shit like Roshi sexual assaulting, sure, I wouldn't mind being fixed. As for violence, blood and sexual jokes, just put a PG rating on it and leave it to the parents. Why mutilate a show so much to make it suitable for pre-schoolers when it's not meant for them to begin with? Besides, kids will pirate the uncensored versions anyway. I remember how curious I was to sneak to the TV at nights when I was little, and watch PG 16 anime, because, wow they show Marlene Angel's boobs, there are boobs in cartoons!

User avatar
ABED
Namekian Warrior
Posts: 20276
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Skippack, PA
Contact:

Re: Is censorship still needed to keep Dragon Ball Relevant to younger people?

Post by ABED » Sat Jan 15, 2022 6:59 am

Nagyzöld wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:42 am Are the younger generations still so much into Dragon Ball though? Or more like our generations trying to shove it down their throats? I believe there are few people who would genuinely enjoy Dragon Ball in these days because: a. It's simply too long and dragged, newer animes are shorter and on point so it's hard to have the attention span to sit through all hundreds of episodes of Dragon Ball. B. The 90's graphics. I believe that youngsters might go for DBS or at most the video games, else we must accept that they have their own anime and stop beating a dead horse.

As for censorship, there's the offensive and then there's the inappropriate. Offensive shit like Roshi sexual assaulting, sure, I wouldn't mind being fixed. As for violence, blood and sexual jokes, just put a PG rating on it and leave it to the parents. Why mutilate a show so much to make it suitable for pre-schoolers when it's not meant for them to begin with? Besides, kids will pirate the uncensored versions anyway. I remember how curious I was to sneak to the TV at nights when I was little, and watch PG 16 anime, because, wow they show Marlene Angel's boobs, there are boobs in cartoons!
I don't feel that's actually the case at all. No offense, but your post comes off like someone who doesn't remember what it was like to be a kid. It seems to pass your notice that kids enjoy older stuff as well as newer stuff. Did you not watch older movies or cartoons as a kid?

I don't think length is a big deterent, especially in the age of streaming where you can start from the very beginning. And I highly doubt One Piece could've gotten to 1000+ episodes and counting if it didn't pick up younger fans throughout the years.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

Post Reply