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
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 » Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:17 am

Speaking as a writer, I would prefer not to censor my own works...but I also would not market my works to children, like Toriyama, Shueisha and Toei Animation do. I believe that there are chapters and episodes that are inappropriate for children and shouldn't be made available to them and I think it's a damned shame that the IP holders chose to include content like that in projects aimed at children. If the IP holders wish to market those older Dragon Ball products to children then they should produce a censored version. Personally, I would rather they simply produce a new product entirely instead.
She/Her💕 💜 💙
progesterone princess, estradiol empress
Lucifer's bimbo daughter

User avatar
Kunzait_83
I Live Here
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:19 pm

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

Post by Kunzait_83 » Tue Jan 04, 2022 6:27 am

JulieYBM wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:20 pm They should cut the sexual humor if this is going to be a child-friendly marketed product. Save Rapey Roushi for a porno.
JulieYBM wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:17 amSpeaking as a writer, I would prefer not to censor my own works...but I also would not market my works to children, like Toriyama, Shueisha and Toei Animation do. I believe that there are chapters and episodes that are inappropriate for children and shouldn't be made available to them and I think it's a damned shame that the IP holders chose to include content like that in projects aimed at children. If the IP holders wish to market those older Dragon Ball products to children then they should produce a censored version. Personally, I would rather they simply produce a new product entirely instead.

There's a huge difference between sexual content in a children's work that has highly questionable dynamics (like sexual assault being played off as "no big deal" or harmless, innocent goofiness, as is the cast with a lot of the Roshi stuff) and sexual content in a children's work that... well, that doesn't: like much of the sexual humor involving Goku as a small kid, where the center of the jokes are largely about his innocence, naivety, and complete cluelessness about even the very basics of sex and gender.

The point being that SOME sexual content/humor aimed at children can potentially be an issue in that it promotes legit misogynistic ideas and themes: however there's still a vast, vast world of sexual themes and concepts that are absolutely not that and are in no way remotely "harmful" to children.

To treat ANY sexual content in a work for children, regardless of context or nuance/specifics, as being all blanketly harmful or damaging is, in and of itself, repressive and unhealthy. Its also in no way tethered to the reality of how kids think or react towards sexual concepts when they're introduced to them: i.e. far from all sexual themes will cause a kid's head to explode or turn them into a potential rapist/misogynist.

Sex is an inherent and inescapable part of life. Shielding kids entirely from even just basic-most knowledge about what sex even is (which has been the generally accepted practice in the U.S., stemming largely from our culture's Protestant/Puritan roots) is not only unrealistic - trust me, kids ARE going to learn about sex, with or without their parents' approval: its completely unavoidable - I would go so far as to argue that shielding kids from basic knowledge about sex entirely is also every bit just as potentially damaging in the long run as exposing them, without context or basic-most sensible guidance, to terribly framed/misogynistic sexual content.

If you want to make the argument that we need to be careful about how sexual topics and content are framed and portrayed in kids' media (and that maybe sexual content that has misogynistic undertones should be considered being removed/censored where appropriate), then that's a perfectly reasonable point that's worth discussing.

But if you're making the case that ALL sexual content of ANY sort, regardless of context or how its portrayed, should just blanket wholesale be shielded away from kids entirely outright... then I'm sorry, but that's not only unhealthy towards a kids' growth and maturity, its just straight up classic, boilerplate conservative prudishness dressed up under the guise of progressivism.

And yes, I note the obvious irony about my calling something said about sex by Julie of all people as being "prudish" - but in this specific case, I stand by it. Claiming or implying that children are inherently incapable of processing and grasping sex and sexual topics/concepts - provided they're framed and explained properly and that their parents play an active role in educating them on it - is just not tethered to reality.

For good or ill, the developing brain of a kid is like a sponge. And while you of course want to guide them carefully so that horrible shit doesn't get deeply absorbed into their makeup, that DOESN'T mean that the sensible or healthy way of going about it is just straight up hiding knowledge away entirely from them: and that certainly includes incredibly important and crucial life basics like sex.

And yeah, sexual humor in and of itself makes for a perfectly good teaching tool to help kids understand these concepts and help further their development. That a sexual gag aimed at a kid, when handled terribly, might be either framed poorly or ill-concieved at best, or outright blatantly/consciously misogynistic at worst... that doesn't therefore mean that ALL mention or depiction of sex or sexual humor should just be hidden away from kids entirely, no questions asked, under any and all circumstances. That's reactionary and absurd.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 am My niece is twelve and into The Promised Neverland and Danganronpa, so I'm obviously concerned with how media in general portrays stuff to kids considering I grew up a victim of some of this shit.
I know that I'm wading into delicate territory here, but I'm going to take a chance at this anyway, mainly because I think this gets at an important point in this.

Up front, obviously I don't know the specifics of what happened/what was done to you as a kid. I'm sure whatever it was was no doubt beyond awful and horrific, and no, I'm in no way trying to coax you into talking about it any further on here in a public forum. I'm just saying up front that whatever kind of physical, mental, or emotional abuse that you experienced as a kid, you 1000% have my deepest, utmost sympathies and condolences.

That being said: its important to note that (thankfully) not everyone experienced domestic abuse as kids or had toxic views on gender and sexuality imposed upon them by adults in their life from an early age. As beyond atrocious, inexcusable, and unacceptable as the overall statistical rates of domestic abuse and general shitty parenting are in just this country alone... they are mercifully not wholesale universal, and that there are indeed households out there where kids are raised with empathy, love, and understanding instilled into them from the getgo. And no, I don't just mean in well off, upper crust suburban hamlets: even in some of the poorest, shittiest, most run down hellholes in this country, sometimes good people raising kids well can still be a thing.

In NO way am I making this point to belittle, invalidate, or downplay what happened to you (or to anyone else who experienced similar or worse forms of abuse as you), and certainly not the rates at which grotesque, grisly abuse happens to kids in their own households.

I'm making this point to stress that in a healthy home environment where parents/guardians aren't abusive and are acting as teachers and providing actual guidance to their kids... introducing the very concept of sex into the kids' sphere of knowledge, even at a fairly early age, is in NO way damaging to them in the absolute slightest.

If anything, there are numerous net benefits to their development and maturity to be had from helping kids understand and grasp sex and sexual topics early on... up to and including helping them understand it enough to be able to not only take sexual violence with the necessary seriousness they deserve, but also actually (god forbid) laugh at/about healthy & normal sexual topics during their most critical and formative developmental years (not least of which include demystifying it and not framing it as this "forbidden fruit" of which we must not ever speak of or acknowledge).

The reason I'm making this point and the reason that I think its so important to highlight is because its just a stone cold fact at this point that a young kid simply being exposed to sexual concepts, in and of itself, is in no way inherently or innately the actual root cause of kids growing up with damaging viewpoints and psychological harm surrounding sex.

It is, rather, the CONTEXT and MANNER in which kids' are exposed to sex and sexual concepts early on that can make or break their development: with either a healthy, compassionate, and nuanced view of sex (which is only helped along by allowing them to learn about and understand it in the right context and with the right guidance), or with a malignantly toxic, warped view of sex (which stems from everything from abuse, to unaddressed trauma, to strict repression, to being purposefully instilled with it by horrible parents/guardians, etc).

Is it a problem when a significant chunk of popular media frames and portrays sex in a misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic light? Of course it is. Absolutely. But the problem component there is the toxic/homophobic/misogynistic/transphobic framing... not the acknowledgement of sex in and of itself being exposed to kids. That's a HUGE misdiagnosis of the actual root of the problem that's most often made by conservatives, but is also a trap that certain significant segments of Left/Liberal/Progressive people can also fall into just as easily in some cases.

I'm going out of my way to make this point (and risk possibly upsetting Julie, which I hope this doesn't, because that's FAR from the intent here) because I think that you can only help address a problem properly if you can accurately identify its actual source: and while entertainment media portrayal does play a role in how society is shaped (and that role is often both overstated and understated in numerous contexts more times than not), its far from the sole or primary factor. Environment and surroundings (including the people closest to you in one's life) are a FAR more critically important point, and does significantly heavier lifting in shaping a person.

That is to say: if toxically misogynistic/homophobic media content is being steadily fed to a kid AND they have a rotten, crappy homelife and circumstances... the former certainly is playing a role and isn't helping matters one bit, but the latter is the MUCH bigger and more significantly substantive component. Meanwhile, a compassionate, loving, empathetic homelife and surroundings can easily help debunk and filter out toxically misogynistic/homophobic media content.

But media content that is sexual and is framed and delivered in a healthy and positive manner? There is almost NOTHING to be risked by it in EITHER extreme home life scenario: the problem for kids isn't the sexual content itself, its the FRAMING and the CONTEXT (both internal and external to the work) in which its being taught/shown to them.

Focusing primarily on the sex itself and deciding "lets just hide sex as a concept from kids until they're much, much older" is... WILDLY missing the mark. Colossally so.

And since this is DB we're all talking about here: sex can be FUNNY! Showing the playful, humorous, downright silly and stupid sides of sex to kids is a net HEALTHY and POSSITIVE thing to teach them! No, that doesn't mean the Roshi/sexual assault shit qualifies (it absolutely doesn't, obviously): but there's also sexual content and humor/jokes in DB that DON'T fall within that awful basket.

And not just in DB, but in plenty of other Japanese media that's meant for and aimed at kids: for all the immense faults in Japanese culture and society surrounding sex, if nothing else they at least get exactly right the basic idea that kids can EASILY digest and handle sexual concepts and themes in their media diets (again, provided they're framed properly): they aren't fucking morons, and they aren't delicate glass.

On average, most kids tend to usually be about as smart as you treat them: challenging them and being straightforward with them encourages them to grow and develop into smart, capable people, while coddling and dumbing everything down for them encourages intellectual laziness and promotes ignorance.

As far as future DB content goes (since Super's still ostensibly a thing), simple, innocent, fun and funny sexual humor should be encouraged to overtake and phase out the retrograde, rapey shit: going puritanical and throwing out ALL sexual humor and dirty jokes (as if those are inherently the problem at hand) is, at best, a wild and thoroughly misguided over-correction that completely misses what the actual problem is.

I've said a few times in the past Julie that while I'll ALWAYS have your back 100000% against any and all transphobic bullshit that gets thrown your way around here... I DO still have, and long always have had, some pretty MASSIVE disagreements with you about some things. And until relatively recently, I hadn't really voiced them or delved into them that much. This is one such example of those disagreements though.

I hope you don't take this as antagonism, because its in no way intended as such: this is 100% meant as constructive and good faith criticism.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 amI don't really have a concern with most violence but I am pretty concerned about the treatment of women, queer people and other minorities in media.
As am I. Full stop. I simply don't think that completely avoiding the topic of sex or sexual humor entirely in children's media is in any which way a fruitful or helpful way of teaching kids these things or promoting healthy, positive views of sex through our media landscape.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 am Luckily she seems to have a good head on her shoulders and doesn't have any internalized misogyny or homophobia.
That's really, really awesome to hear. :thumbup: Your niece sounds like a really smart cookie.

And only further proves my point: kids aren't idiots.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 am(despite being closeted)
This however really fucking sucks though. :( I really hope she gets to a place where she's able to be open someday soon.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 am(Best Christmas present ever was walking into her room and seeing a pan flag on display and her telling me she knows I'm trans, despite her parents forcing me back into the closet around her).
Again: she sounds awesome and like a really smart girl. Like I said: kids aren't stupid.

JulieYBM wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 10:22 amAnyway, Dragon Ball has quite a bit of bad content in that regard and I wouldn't feel comfortable introducing it to her. I'd much rather see what she's into on her own.
I 100% co-sign the idea of encouraging kids to get into whatever stuff they like on their own and not overly pushing your own interests onto them.

But that said, to the extent that one does from time to time make an occasional recommendation to them... I don't think that there's NEARLY so much shitty (gender/sexuality-wise) content in DB that precludes it from being inherently corrosive. Certainly nowhere NEAR to the extent that a TON of other, far worse examples often are.

The Roshi shit in particular is beyond grotesque and awful: but grand scheme of things, it makes up a ludicrously small portion of the series overall. And more importantly, it sounds like your niece is more than intelligent and capable enough that she'd be able to sniff out the gross stupidity of those gags from a mile away, and wouldn't let them in any way color her thinking. Give her more credit than that, it sounds like (from what you describe) she deserves it.
http://80s90sdragonballart.tumblr.com/

Kunzait's Wuxia Thread
Journey to the West, chapter 26 wrote:The strong man will meet someone stronger still:
Come to naught at last he surely will!
Zephyr wrote:And that's to say nothing of how pretty much impossible it is to capture what made the original run of the series so great. I'm in the generation of fans that started with Toonami, so I totally empathize with the feeling of having "missed the party", experiencing disappointment, and wanting to experience it myself. But I can't, that's how life is. Time is a bitch. The party is over. Kageyama, Kikuchi, and Maeda are off the sauce now; Yanami almost OD'd; Yamamoto got arrested; Toriyama's not going to light trash cans on fire and hang from the chandelier anymore. We can't get the band back together, and even if we could, everyone's either old, in poor health, or calmed way the fuck down. Best we're going to get, and are getting, is a party that's almost entirely devoid of the magic that made the original one so awesome that we even want more.
Kamiccolo9 wrote:It grinds my gears that people get "outraged" over any of this stuff. It's a fucking cartoon. If you are that determined to be angry about something, get off the internet and make a stand for something that actually matters.
Rocketman wrote:"Shonen" basically means "stupid sentimental shit" anyway, so it's ok to be anti-shonen.

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 » Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:56 am

The Roushi stuff is bad because it's not there to be positive sex education (arming kids with knowledge is important). The weird shit of making the only queer characters antagonists is bad. The depiction of women as nagging is bad. There are plenty of other comics or cartoons I could suggest to kids than Dragon Ball as it is, anyway.

Dragon Ball is extremely callously made by a guy who clearly said and did things to thumb his nose at everyone else. Fine. Cool. I don't need to recommend it to anyone thirty years after the fact.
She/Her💕 💜 💙
progesterone princess, estradiol empress
Lucifer's bimbo daughter

Dragon Ball Ireland
I Live Here
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 9:09 am
Location: Sligo, Ireland

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

Post by Dragon Ball Ireland » Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:29 am

I remember watching a movie (was either Love Actually or something similar) where a man asked a young boy if he knew what set was and the answer he got was "Yeah. I'm not stupid". It was very telling that whether adults try to hide it kids will know the fundamentals of life. I also remember when my aunt said there was blood in a chicken she cooked, I asked "really" and then she backtracked to say it wasn't but I knew that was what it was, and even though I've gone further down the vegetarian route as I get older I agree that kids shouldn't be shielded from being told about the inevitabilities of life because that's an endeavour doomed to fail.
Do you have any info about international non-English broadcasts about the Dragon Ball anime or manga translations/editions? Please message me. Researching for a future book with Dragon Ball scholar Derek Padula :thumbup:

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 » Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:28 pm

I for sure agree the Roshi scenes are uncomfortable but I also hate the concept of censorship so I’m torn. I think what I would rather is for them to just NOT have done the dirty scenes? But for some reason that seems to be a thing in Japan. Making perverted old dudes play out for ‘humor’ or just having explicit stuff. Like have you seen Ranma ½? There’s this Happosai character who’s exactly like Roshi, probably worse, also there were boobs flashing constantly in that show. I guess they have a different view of these kind of things there. Or had. Cause they did start to tone it down afterwards, like in Z I only recall the scene where roshi “falls” into 18, and in Super when he chases after this girl who comes to seek revenge from Tenshinhan, and the one with Yamcha’s cat. Although creepy at least they were a bit less explicit so that’s some change

MyVisionity
Banned
Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: US

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

Post by MyVisionity » Wed Jan 05, 2022 1:11 am

dva_raza wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:28 pm Cause they did start to tone it down afterwards, like in Z I only recall the scene where roshi “falls” into 18...
Nah, there were much more than that in Z. Roshi gropes and/or attempts to grope both Bulma and Chichi multiple times throughout that show, as well as Maron in the filler. He pokes at Videl's chest also. That thing with 18 though was over-the-top, and embarrassing for Roshi's character. As was the rest of that episode.

But you're right, they toned it down in the Z-era. Although I think that's less about cultural changes and more about the shift in tone between DB and Z.

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 » Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:00 am

dva_raza wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:28 pm I for sure agree the Roshi scenes are uncomfortable but I also hate the concept of censorship so I’m torn.
See, this is what I hate about this kind of discourse. The word "censorship" has been misused (both intentionally and not) to such an extent that it basically means whatever is convenient to the person saying it, and can change on a whim.

The most hardline, by-the-book definition of censorship is when a governing body forcibly alters or removes something to disallow access to it from the public.

The internet colloquial slang "censorship" is when a private third party of any kind demands that a creative team alter their work to remove content deemed objectionable, under threat of the removal of a platform they were previously providing. It is very important to understand the distinction between this and the first definition.

The third meaning, used by stupid people, is when anything objectionable is changed for any reason.

For Dragon Ball, the vast majority of content changes to the TV anime have fallen into definition #2. It's not really censorship so much as network regulations. The show is only being "forced" to change in so far as it would have to renegotiate so much shit for such a long time to not change that the distributors do not view it as a viable course of action.

The mere idea of Toei themselves removing the racism and misogyny from Dragon Ball is not inherently censorship of any kind. If they chose to do it simply because they felt it needed to be done, whether fans convinced them or boycotted or not, then that's only "censorship" in the way giving Bulma a new outfit for the Broly film was "censorship". AKA, it's a creative decision that has nothing to do with coercive business or government practices, and only weird idiots online would call it that to fearmonger about communist SJWs coming for your free speech.

Now, if the change came about as a matter of network regulations, then I'm not sure I'd agree, but it still wouldn't really be censorship per se. If Toei and Shueisha really wanted to, they could take the show to a network more accepting of that content. The downfall would likely be that the regulation itself would be vague to the point of harming other, less-rapey content than what we see with Roshi. The only argument you could make about this being actual censorship would be if we decided plutocracy and monopolies were bad enough that they were pushing down as hard or harder than the government was capable of, and I don't think that's true.

It would only be true censorship if the Japanese government said it would be illegal to portray content of this manner, or threatened to intervene in the show's production if it did not comply. Contrary to what the aforementioned weird idiots online would tell you, I think it's safe to say almost nobody wants this in any way, shape or form.

The point I'm making here is that wanting the content of Dragon Ball to change does not in any way make you a part of "censorship". I'd go so far as to say that literally nobody here is capable of censoring much of anything, unless we've got some cops or elected officials in the thread I don't know about.

I would like it if there was less glorified/infantilized sexual assault in Dragon Ball. I would also like it if the writing was better and the cast more balanced and the pacing was tighter. The only reason that one is fine and the other becomes a call for "censorship" is because the person saying it is making a disingenuous argument to demonize you instead of engaging critically with media.

Dr. Casey
OMG CRAZY REGEN
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Post by Dr. Casey » Wed Jan 05, 2022 11:18 am

dva_raza wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:28 pmBut for some reason that seems to be a thing in Japan. Making perverted old dudes play out for ‘humor’ or just having explicit stuff. Like have you seen Ranma ½? There’s this Happosai character who’s exactly like Roshi, probably worse, also there were boobs flashing constantly in that show. I guess they have a different view of these kind of things there. Or had.
Yeah, the 'pervy old man harassing cute young girls' archetype is pretty much dead and confined to series from maybe the early 2000s and older. Sailor Moon also had one, even if he wasn't super prominent since every minor character dropped off the face of the Earth somewhere during Sailor Moon R.

As for keeping Dragon Ball relevant to young people, stories are pretty timeless to a large extent. I'm definitely not the youngest Dragon Ball fan but I'm not the oldest one either. My fandom and investment in the series peaked in high school, which isn't the 'official' demographic the series is targeted at but high schoolers into Dragon Ball are still a dime-a-dozen. A high schooler who got into the manga whenever it first debuted would have been born in the 1960s, and I don't think our enjoyment levels would have differed any or that we'd have experienced the series in a particularly different way.

And even outside of fiction, it did bother me some when I was a teenager when older adults would act as though I was basically a different species simply because I was young. Generational gaps exist and all but a young person and an old person will still have a lot of common ground just by virtue of both being human beings, they aren't alien species to each other.
Princess Snake avatars courtesy of Kunzait, Chibi Goku avatar from Velasa.

User avatar
sangofe
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7535
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:39 pm

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

Post by sangofe » Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:25 pm

Before I got a daughter, I would have said no. After... Well, when she was around 6 she wanted to stop watching Dbz Kai in the freeza saga because it was too violent.

Dragon Ball Ireland
I Live Here
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 9:09 am
Location: Sligo, Ireland

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

Post by Dragon Ball Ireland » Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:57 pm

sangofe wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:25 pm Before I got a daughter, I would have said no. After... Well, when she was around 6 she wanted to stop watching Dbz Kai in the freeza saga because it was too violent.
Have you tried showing her the Nicktoons edit? On that note assuming the Toon-A-Vision deal works out you may be able to show her Ocean Kai soon.
Do you have any info about international non-English broadcasts about the Dragon Ball anime or manga translations/editions? Please message me. Researching for a future book with Dragon Ball scholar Derek Padula :thumbup:

User avatar
sangofe
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7535
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:39 pm

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

Post by sangofe » Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:41 am

Dragon Ball Ireland wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:57 pm
sangofe wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:25 pm Before I got a daughter, I would have said no. After... Well, when she was around 6 she wanted to stop watching Dbz Kai in the freeza saga because it was too violent.
Have you tried showing her the Nicktoons edit? On that note assuming the Toon-A-Vision deal works out you may be able to show her Ocean Kai soon.
We speak Norwegian and French.

User avatar
Cure Dragon 255
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5103
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:23 pm

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

Post by Cure Dragon 255 » Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:55 am

I was about to tell him you did. But I wasnt sure and it wasnt my place to tell him,
Marz wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:27 pm "Well, the chapter was good, the story was good and so were the fights. But a new transformation, in Dragon Ball? And one that's ugly? This is where we draw the line!!! Jump the Shark moment!!"

This forum is so over-dramatic that it's not even funny.
90sDBZ wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:44 pm19 years ago I was rushing home from school to watch DBZ on Cartoon Network, and today I've rushed home from work to watch DBS on Pop. I guess it's true the more things change the more they stay the same. :lol:

MyVisionity
Banned
Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: US

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

Post by MyVisionity » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:03 am

I think that if a kid says it's too violent for them then it's too violent for them. No need to lie to the kid or be disrespectful by showing them an edited version. Maybe DB just isn't for them.

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 » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:11 am

MyVisionity wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:03 am I think that if a kid says it's too violent for them then it's too violent for them. No need to lie to the kid or be disrespectful by showing them an edited version. Maybe DB just isn't for them.
You know what, I mostly concur with this. Why go through the trouble of finding editied/softened versions of DB when you can find another anime that may be suitable for your child (e.g., Doraemon, Pokemon, Detective Conan, etc)?
This post was brought to you by 魔族

Rest in Peace, Toriyama-san

User avatar
Cure Dragon 255
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5103
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:23 pm

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

Post by Cure Dragon 255 » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:12 am

They loved Dragon Ball just fine, its Z she doesnt like. BTW tell her she's awesome!

Also Detective Conan has quite gruesome murders.
Marz wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:27 pm "Well, the chapter was good, the story was good and so were the fights. But a new transformation, in Dragon Ball? And one that's ugly? This is where we draw the line!!! Jump the Shark moment!!"

This forum is so over-dramatic that it's not even funny.
90sDBZ wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:44 pm19 years ago I was rushing home from school to watch DBZ on Cartoon Network, and today I've rushed home from work to watch DBS on Pop. I guess it's true the more things change the more they stay the same. :lol:

User avatar
sangofe
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 7535
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:39 pm

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

Post by sangofe » Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:57 am

Cure Dragon 255 wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 3:12 am They loved Dragon Ball just fine, its Z she doesnt like. BTW tell her she's awesome!

Also Detective Conan has quite gruesome murders.
Tbh the Freeza saga has some extremely violent parts. It's by far the most violent saga I'd say. I'll tell her that :) We've almost finished reading the Manga together, by the way (she's 8 now). Her complaint is that "the story never finishes" lol. Her favorite part so far had been Gohan vs Perfect Cell, and the Boo and Mr.Satan adventures.

User avatar
Cure Dragon 255
Born 'n Bred Here
Posts: 5103
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 5:23 pm

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

Post by Cure Dragon 255 » Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:00 am

I was going to say that too. It's extremely unrelently violent and even Chris Psaros thought the arc went too far.
Marz wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:27 pm "Well, the chapter was good, the story was good and so were the fights. But a new transformation, in Dragon Ball? And one that's ugly? This is where we draw the line!!! Jump the Shark moment!!"

This forum is so over-dramatic that it's not even funny.
90sDBZ wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:44 pm19 years ago I was rushing home from school to watch DBZ on Cartoon Network, and today I've rushed home from work to watch DBS on Pop. I guess it's true the more things change the more they stay the same. :lol:

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 » Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am

Shaddy wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 5:00 am
dva_raza wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:28 pm I for sure agree the Roshi scenes are uncomfortable but I also hate the concept of censorship so I’m torn.
See, this is what I hate about this kind of discourse. The word "censorship" has been misused (both intentionally and not) to such an extent that it basically means whatever is convenient to the person saying it, and can change on a whim.

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.
And the meaning I’m giving to “censorship” is just the most general, popular definition of the term:

[*]cen•sorship.
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Don’t care if this definition isn't sophisticated enough for the specific type of censorhip you want to talk about, it matches what I was referring to:

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

So , a supression being made (don’t care by whom) of any part of an original cut of a film (for being objectionable).
You can call it “regulation” if you want, it still technically fits the definition of censorship, so it’s still censorship.
And when I said I'm torn I wasn't purposely being vague to leave a possibility to change positions, if that was the impression. I meant I’m genuinely undecided, conflicted, uncertain, because I dislike something, but I'm not a fan of the solution that's being suggested. Which happens sometimes.
I just kinda have issue with the idea of making cuts that affect a scene, like the one I mentioned in a previous post. Or supressing (which means forcibly restricting) something that was part of the original work, for sensitivity reasons. That kinda sounds like “hiding” something. And that gives me a feel of insincerity. Which is why I just don’t like it, even though I know it's intention.

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 » 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.
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.
dva_raza wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am [*]cen•sorship.
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Don’t care if this definition isn't sophisticated enough for the specific type of censorship you want to talk about, it matches what I was referring to:

The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

So , a supression being made (don’t care by whom) of any part of an original cut of a film (for being objectionable).
You can call it “regulation” if you want, it still technically fits the definition of censorship, so it’s still censorship.
And like I was saying, that can be applied to literally any changes to a work from an outside party, up to and including completely indirect influences on the creator. 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? Is what qualifies as "obscene" not completely subjective? If it's not, then please explain to me why we have rules for anything if there's already some inherent definition of right and wrong.

Because the fact is, there is no hard line separating a """political""" change from a normal artistic one. So either censorship is something we define by whatever hurts our feelings the most, or we have to have a more intelligent discussion than crying "censorship" in the scenario in which Toei independently animates less sexual assault by their own free will.
dva_raza wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:06 am I just kinda have issue with the idea of making cuts that affect a scene, like the one I mentioned in a previous post. Or supressing (which means forcibly restricting) something that was part of the original work, for sensitivity reasons. That kinda sounds like “hiding” something. And that gives me a feel of insincerity. Which is why I just don’t like it, even though I know it's intention.
Okay, so explain how this rhetoric can't be used to justify the exact thing you think you're complaining about. 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?

Dragon Ball Ireland
I Live Here
Posts: 3540
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 9:09 am
Location: Sligo, Ireland

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

Post by Dragon Ball Ireland » Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:43 am

On the issue of violence is anyone familiar with Dragon Ball in the Netherlands? It aired on Cartoon Network originally, but I seem to remember hearing something about parents being unhappy with the violence, which led to the series going on a hiatus (from Z episode 150) before Yorin started to rerun it in June 2002.
Do you have any info about international non-English broadcasts about the Dragon Ball anime or manga translations/editions? Please message me. Researching for a future book with Dragon Ball scholar Derek Padula :thumbup:

Post Reply