Turns out, power levels are BS! Who knew?

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

Can we get the title changed back since people are actually discussing his literary skills and not just debating power levels in here. The "reworked" title is extremely misleading and could derail what may otherwise be a productive thread.

If only we had talked about his literary skills from the beginning and not complaint about our made up power levels match not matching with what the story tell us.

[Gyt Kaliba]

Not taking your point into context, a 7 year old will assume the same known physics apply in this universe unless specifically stated. If the physics are not specifically stated to be different then the context is broken and by extension that is poor writing. We see this multiple times in the series but Super has been the worse culprit without the redeeming qualities of the other series.

No offense, and I'm of the mind that kids are generally far smarter than a lot of people give them credit for...but I highly doubt there's very many 7 year olds out there who care one way or the other about physics, in regard to feat strengths or just in general. They just want a good fight and good humor. It's only among adult fans still clinging on and watching/reading the series that are going to care about stuff like that I'd wager, and even then it's not going to be everyone since...well, here I am for example, and I for one couldn't care less. The application of real world physics to something like Dragon Ball probably actually interests me less than actual in-series power levels do.

[Gaffer Tape]

I think you're taking that statement a bit too academically. 7 year olds know that gravity works. They have a grasp on the strength of humans and the limits of human endurance. They may not know the word physics or what it means, but they have a general understand of how the world works. I assume that's what he's getting at.

[Gyt Kaliba]

Fair point - like I said, I do believe kids in general understand and are a lot smarter than some adults give them credit for. I still kinda question how much care most of them would actually put into said area though, especially if we were to talk specifically about the US, where a majority of the cartoons made don't factor in much relation to the real world at all in general.

To use TMNT as an example, since it was one of the things I was most obsessed with as a kid - in the original cartoon of that, the Turtles were able to lift and toss manhole covers like it was nothing. They seemed no heavier than the pizza boxes they'd stack up. If you sit down and think about it, that means that either manhole covers in that world are so light they'd be ineffective, or the Turtles are so strong they really should have accidentally killed one of the random thugs they've thrown stuff by at least episode five or so - but I don't think any kid's ever thought that deeply about it. I know I certainly never did. I just wanted to see them crack wise and kick butt, and it served well enough in that regard. It was only years later as an adult that I start to question things like that in shows and movies, and I would venture a guess that that's probably true for most.

[TheMikado]

^ that's comic book logic which is the same logic that keeps superman from killing everyone he hits, same with Spider-Man or even in DBZ for that matter. It's why you rarely see supervillians go after normal civilians in cartoons because kids know if the good guys wanted to really "hurt" someone they could the obstacle has always been taking them out with as little collateral damage as possible which kids completely understand. And yes the turtles made manhole cover seem light and I found out they weren't as a kid but it's also why we never see April O Neil casually tossing them around either. It's consistent in the world that the turtles are pretty strong within quantifiable reason and April wasn't out there slinging man covers. I think they even had them tipping cars or trucks in some episodes.

A better analogy would be seeing the turtles lift a car over their head and throw it then the next scene or episode they have trouble lifting a manhole cover. Even kindergarteners are going to be like WTF? Because they have a rough non scientific estimate that a truck or car has substantially several times more mass than a standard manhole cover.

[ABED]

^ that's comic book logic which is the same logic that keeps superman from killing everyone he hits, same with Spider-Man or even in DBZ for that matter. It's why you rarely see supervillians go after normal civilians in cartoons because kids know if the good guys wanted to really "hurt" someone they could the obstacle has always been taking them out with as little collateral damage as possible which kids completely understand. And yes the turtles made manhole cover seem light and I found out they weren't as a kid but it's also why we never see April O Neil casually tossing them around either. It's consistent in the world that the turtles are pretty strong within quantifiable reason and April wasn't out there slinging man covers. I think they even had them tipping cars or trucks in some episodes.

A better analogy would be seeing the turtles lift a car over their head and throw it then the next scene or episode they have trouble lifting a manhole cover. Even kindergarteners are going to be like WTF? Because they have a rough non scientific estimate that a truck or car has substantially several times more mass than a standard manhole cover.

DBZ is also fantasy. It's a world where they have Ki, so physical strength isn't where there power truly lies.

[ABED]

Here are examples of bad writing.
"Terry walked out into the sun from his home. He enjoyed the smell of the flowers"
"Terry walked out into the sun from his small hole, his mousy whiskers twitched are the smell of the flowers"

In both sentences Terry is a mouse. If in the first sentence this is never expounded upon that Terry is a mouse then either through foreshadowing or exposition in a later reveal and the author says Terry is a mouse outside the context of the book the. You've lost all context while within the story which is bad writing. This is what consistency and context do matter in a narrative.

This debate isn't about what you or I personally like but whether this is technically good writing/storytelling which as I stated it mediocre in most cases but brilliant for its structure.

I fail to see how these examples prove your point about Toriyama. We know the world he created isn't like our own in most ways. For one, there are talking pigs, magic, and dinosaurs still living. There are also capsules which don't correspond to real world physics. Time travel is inherently problematic and never actually makes sense when you really think about it, but there are still great stories that use that concept. Back to the Future is a fantastic movie even though it logically doesn't make sense. Why that film works is because the performances, the humor, the heart, the relationships between the characters. Ultimately why that film resonates is most people can connect with the idea of wouldn't it be interesting to see your parents when they were younger. The time travel stuff is certainly fun, but it's not bad writing that the Delorian travels through time and ends up in the exact same spot 30 years in the past.

[TheMikado]

^ I feel like the point was missed. Tolkien is pure fantasy but we would expect an arrow in heart or a beheadibg to kill any character unless established otherwise. Imagine if a character took an arrow to the heart and kept on walking around like nothing happened with no exposition on why other then the audience having to suddenly guess he is immortal with no context to that being the case. Like I keep saying there is a right way to write a narrative and if ANY other author did the same they would be lauded as a poor writer.

This is literally just basis writing and narrative we are talking about.

[ABED]

^ I feel like the point was missed. Tolkien is pure fantasy but we would expect an arrow in heart or a beheadibg to kill any character unless established otherwise. Imagine if a character took an arrow to the heart and kept on walking around like nothing happened with no exposition on why other then the audience having to suddenly guess he is immortal with no context to that being the case. Like I keep saying there is a right way to write a narrative and if ANY other author did the same they would be lauded as a poor writer.

This is literally just basis writing and narrative we are talking about.

Your example of bad writing doesn't make any sense because they weren't stories. I fail to see how they prove your point. It's like you want Toriyama to explain everything. It all requires some suspension of disbelief. Why isn't Iron Man dead after being blased out of the sky. Even if the armor protects his body, his brain would still be mush. And sometimes just showing is the exposition, no need to have people explain things that they already would know just for the sake of the audience. And no, even if Goku could lift the weight of a city, he couldn't lift an actual city. Probably not even a building. I don't know the technical terms, but I think it has to do with not dispersing the force over a wide area.

[TheMikado]

^ I'm not really following you on how these aren't stories unless you mean they aren't written works? The same rules would apply equally for a movie, tv show, stage play, whatever. Any thing that has a story requires some exposition it is not necessarily all words or telling but exposition can be showing as well it just needs to occur.
Maybe this may be a helpful, it's a link about screenplay writing but, but manga has some similar aspects to story boarding and it talks about too little exposition.

Not everything need to be explained but your audience shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense. If they do then you have failed one of the tests of being a good writer.

https://www.writersstore.com/13-things- ... mmonly-do/

[Kamiccolo9]

^ I'm not really following you on how these aren't stories unless you mean they aren't written works? The same rules would apply equally for a movie, tv show, stage play, whatever. Any thing that has a story requires some exposition it is not necessarily all words or telling but exposition can be showing as well it just needs to occur.
Maybe this may be a helpful, it's a link about screenplay writing but, but manga has some similar aspects to story boarding and it talks about too little exposition.

Not everything need to be explained but your audience shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense. If they do then you have failed one of the tests of being a good writer.

https://www.writersstore.com/13-things- ... mmonly-do/

Unless your goal as a writer is for the reader to fill in the blanks to pull them more deeply into the story?

"Good writing" is a vague and useless term that is entirely subjective.

[TheMikado]

So I guess there are no "good" movies, "good" music, or "good" art by that logic and guess there aren't any bad examples of them either..

[Soppa Saia People]

Who the hell dared to change my topic's title?!

The people who run the site, and no offense but that post just oozes the battle power obsessed fan who only think BP matter.

[Kamiccolo9]

So I guess there are no "good" movies, "good" music, or "good" art by that logic and guess there aren't any bad examples of them either..

I mean, I can come up with a dozen reasons why the Mona Lisa is terrible, but plenty of people seem to like it.

Something is "good" if it fulfils its intended purpose. For something as inherently subjective as entertainment, it naturally follows that the quality of said medium would be held to subjective interpretations as well. I mean, if you can't get people to agree on what is "entertaining," how can you objectively state how good something is at being entertaining?

[ABED]

^ I'm not really following you on how these aren't stories unless you mean they aren't written works? The same rules would apply equally for a movie, tv show, stage play, whatever. Any thing that has a story requires some exposition it is not necessarily all words or telling but exposition can be showing as well it just needs to occur.
Maybe this may be a helpful, it's a link about screenplay writing but, but manga has some similar aspects to story boarding and it talks about too little exposition.

Not everything need to be explained but your audience shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense. If they do then you have failed one of the tests of being a good writer.

https://www.writersstore.com/13-things- ... mmonly-do/

That's not a story. Walking down the street and a mouse popping its head out and smelling flowers aren't stories. Sure, stories need exposition, but you can do that implicitly, or just chalk up the explanation as being so beside the point, like how all of the physics of a fictional world work. You shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense? I have zero idea what that means.

There are so many aspects to a piece of art, especially a comic or a TV show that to base an entire work solely on something so trivial like inconsistency regarding lifting ability is silly to me. If I can believe a man can fly, I'm not going to call it poor writing when Superman catches Lois Lane from falling out of the helicopter without killing her terrible writing. Terrible writing is Superman turning back time to save the day. Even if it wasn't deus ex machina, there's still the issue of it being too easy of a fix. The difference between that and what you are talking about is much more fundamental. Dragon Ball has its problems, but this is an issue (assuming it even is) that's low on the list.

[Zephyr]

I don't think SSJ is on the same level as SSG. If he was that strong that would mean characters like Magetta, Frost and Cabba could take hits from a galaxy/ universal being. I only think they are at that level of strength when they are in their God forms. But then if we go with this then we have no idea how strong the current SSJ form is.

I've always seen Dragon Ball characters having greater striking strength than lifting strength so I would assume that they are not equivalent. They usually amp their attacks and durability with ki so maybe that doesn't apply to lifting strength. But it's strange seeing a character that could potentially destroy the universe struggle with 1000 tons. Even base form Goku in the Buu saga lifted 40 tons, times that by 50 and SSJ Goku could lift 2000 tons. Maybe Goku & Vegeta's lifting strength isn't equal and Goku can lift more?

The two bolded parts are crucial here. We have no idea how strong they are. We can assume that they're at universe destroying levels, or we can assume that they are not. The fact that the option for them to not be on that level is open is what makes this a non-issue. Oh, it would be silly for them to struggle with something if they're "universe busters"? Well hey, then they're probably not universe busters. Problem solved. Act cleared. Hands washed.

Now, as for Goku in the Buu arc, this is another extrapolation on the part of fans. It's definitely a reasonable assumption that the battle power being multiplied means that the amount of pounds that someone can lift is also multiplied in the exact same linear fashion. But I don't think that such is explicitly stated, is it?

2ndly, tons of people are still blindly believing that just because Toriyama got rid of power levels, he automatically made power scaling vanish.

No, we're saying that "power scaling" is ultimately a bullshit fan extrapolation of a story that was never written to have clear and concise extrapolations of that sort. It's a fan system, from top to bottom. It's a cool one, but it's not one that Toriyama is required to pander to in order to avoid "bad writing".

Toriyama's a bad writer for reasons completely unrelated to power level bullshit.

[Speedster]

SSJ Vegeta tried to lift Magetta but he failed! It was later revealed that he weights 1000-and-something tons!!!

For starters this is only in Toyotaro's manga i.e. not also in the anime. Unless a plot-point exists in both the manga and anime adaptations of Super then you can be pretty sure it's not in Toriyama's original manuscript. Secondly Vegeta being unable to lift Magetta means nothing as most likely there was an additional resistive force by Magetta's leg pushing downwards too opposing the lift. I mean prove me there wasn't...

Third, the reality is that characters in Dragonball are as strong or as weak as they need to be to serve the plot. I suggest you go read Dr Slump (the previous manga of Toriyama) if you haven't. Because Dr Slump is regarded as a gag manga yet it is not all about comedy. It is comedy/gag centric for sure but there are parts of it reminiscent of the 21st TB. There are fights, tournaments, races (grand prix) and other competitions which are all full of feats. But like Dragonball these are inconsistent with the numbers. You have Arale jogging nonchalantly around the Earth 3 times in less than 1 hour then later in the story her top speed was measured to be just Mach 3 instead of at least Mach100. You have Arale punching and splitting the Earth in two, hitting people and knocking them to other planets or the sun, throwing a rock to the moon and destroying it (the moon), jumping and moving the earth from Mars to Venus (!!!) ... yet she plays baseball and hits the ball with a maximum speed of just Mach1.5! What!? But fans let all these inconsistent numbers slide because Dr Slump is a "gag manga". But so is Dragonball actually. So is Dragonball...The sooner you realise this the less upset you will be about its power scaling while watching the series.

[TheMikado]

Who the hell dared to change my topic's title?!

The people who run the site, and no offense but that post just oozes the battle power obsessed fan who only think BP matter.

As a fan its his rite to be enjoy that aspect of the series, right or wrong. Like it or not Power and Feats are a huge aspect of the themes in Dragonball I don't see how you can be mad at a fan who takes issue with this. Its like the people who gripe about paleontologists being upset about Jurrasic Park/World. Its clear these people like dinosaurs, you make a movie whos entire appeal is about dinosaurs and expect there to not be complaints from people who really dinosaurs when there are things that don't make sense? Just because its not important you doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else and more importantly we are talking about different aspects of his writing as well.

^ I'm not really following you on how these aren't stories unless you mean they aren't written works? The same rules would apply equally for a movie, tv show, stage play, whatever. Any thing that has a story requires some exposition it is not necessarily all words or telling but exposition can be showing as well it just needs to occur.
Maybe this may be a helpful, it's a link about screenplay writing but, but manga has some similar aspects to story boarding and it talks about too little exposition.

Not everything need to be explained but your audience shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense. If they do then you have failed one of the tests of being a good writer.

https://www.writersstore.com/13-things- ... mmonly-do/

That's not a story. Walking down the street and a mouse popping its head out and smelling flowers aren't stories. Sure, stories need exposition, but you can do that implicitly, or just chalk up the explanation as being so beside the point, like how all of the physics of a fictional world work. You shouldn't have to make up scenarios to make things make sense? I have zero idea what that means.

There are so many aspects to a piece of art, especially a comic or a TV show that to base an entire work solely on something so trivial like inconsistency regarding lifting ability is silly to me. If I can believe a man can fly, I'm not going to call it poor writing when Superman catches Lois Lane from falling out of the helicopter without killing her terrible writing. Terrible writing is Superman turning back time to save the day. Even if it wasn't deus ex machina, there's still the issue of it being too easy of a fix. The difference between that and what you are talking about is much more fundamental. Dragon Ball has its problems, but this is an issue (assuming it even is) that's low on the list.

I'm not even going to get into what technically is and isn't a story but the point as I have repeatedly said is context and exposition. In grade school you are taught you can't say things like "She smelled the flowers." without context. Period. Is it technically a sentence/story/whatever? Yes, but there's no context and cannot and should not exist in a vacuum. Ironically your Superman examples at perfect examples. Superman catching Lois Lane without her dying are within the realm of believability without many questions. Superman turning time back by flying around the world in "reverse" or throwing his shield are universally considered BAD. There is no context, no reasoning for it, and and plan doesn't make sense even in a fictional work. This is bad writing as even you admit, but somehow its acceptable for Dragonball and Toriyama related works to do similar things because ...why? I'm not saying his works were at that level but he did have several poorly written aspects like that.

The two bolded parts are crucial here. We have no idea how strong they are. We can assume that they're at universe destroying levels, or we can assume that they are not. The fact that the option for them to not be on that level is open is what makes this a non-issue. Oh, it would be silly for them to struggle with something if they're "universe busters"? Well hey, then they're probably not universe busters. Problem solved. Act cleared. Hands washed.

Now, as for Goku in the Buu arc, this is another extrapolation on the part of fans. It's definitely a reasonable assumption that the battle power being multiplied means that the amount of pounds that someone can lift is also multiplied in the exact same linear fashion. But I don't think that such is explicitly stated, is it

We may not completely agree but this guy gets it. They are either universe busters or they aren't that's consistent writing. The only issue I take with your analysis is you state that the option for them not to be universe busting level is true. I can see how it can be... but it would take a fair amount of assumptions from the audience to draw that conclusion if they had watched the Beerus Fight and heard Beerus say Goku didn't power down much and made the power his own etc. A casual watcher would always assume Goku is universe busting level because its implied through the writing that Goku maintained the power level afterwards. So I would have to say it is poor writing in that regard.

No, we're saying that "power scaling" is ultimately a bullshit fan extrapolation of a story that was never written to have clear and concise extrapolations of that sort. It's a fan system, from top to bottom. It's a cool one, but it's not one that Toriyama is required to pander to in order to avoid "bad writing".

Toriyama's a bad writer for reasons completely unrelated to power level bullshit.

The problem as I said before is that power growth and feats are probably one of the main themes of Dragonball, so when fans latch on to that as their favored theme you can't blame them for being confused and upset. But yes Toriyama has more narrative dependent reasons for being labels with "bad writing" at certain points. This is just one of the point/exampled the OP raised.

Third, the reality is that characters in Dragonball are as strong or as weak as they need to be to serve the plot.

This too, so much and it doesn't bother me but it is evidence that the writing it more generally mediocre than good/great. This floating convenient plot resolutions are not a mark of a good writing.

[TheMikado]

So I guess there are no "good" movies, "good" music, or "good" art by that logic and guess there aren't any bad examples of them either..

I mean, I can come up with a dozen reasons why the Mona Lisa is terrible, but plenty of people seem to like it.

Something is "good" if it fulfils its intended purpose. For something as inherently subjective as entertainment, it naturally follows that the quality of said medium would be held to subjective interpretations as well. I mean, if you can't get people to agree on what is "entertaining," how can you objectively state how good something is at being entertaining?

Come on man, I guess we should also get rid of all awards shows or go hang some of my napkins scribbles in the Lourve in Paris or auction it for $100 million as an original. "All art is good art", or "there is no bad art" is a paper thin argument.

[ABED]

Walking down the street isn't a story because there's no conflict. Stories are inherently about some sort of conflict.

Superman catching Lois Lane without her dying are within the realm of believability without many questions. Superman turning time back by flying around the world in "reverse" or throwing his shield are universally considered BAD. There is no context, no reasoning for it, and and plan doesn't make sense even in a fictional work. This is bad writing as even you admit, but somehow its acceptable for Dragonball and Toriyama related works to do similar things because ...why? I'm not saying his works were at that level but he did have several poorly written aspects like that.

Not in a world that was up to that point, pretty grounded, it's more or less supposed to be the real world, except that Superman exists in it, the only thing that would make that believable in the story is if you are already buying that men can fly so there's a huge element of willing suspension of disbelief. The same thing applies in Dragon Ball. If you can buy dinosaurs, magic, and Ki, why can't you believe the physical strength thing? This is such an arbitrary line you've drawn, and comes off as making mountains out of molehills.

Lack of context? What lack of context? There were years of stories so there should already be a willing suspension of disbelief? Are you really complaining this much because you think Goku should be able to lift a city? Using the Superman example, just because Superman can fly, why is that context for Lois wouldn't just go splat in his arms?

Come on man, I guess we should also get rid of all awards shows or go hang some of my napkins scribbles in the Lourve in Paris or auction it for $100 million as an original. "All art is good art", or "there is no bad art" is a paper thin argument.

Sadly the equivalent of napkin scribbles passes for art in numerous museums. I would argue, however, that there are enormous amount of ways to go about judging art as a whole that are subjective. Toriyama's not great with plot, but the art is fantastic the characters are all distinct, and he has the ability to make people care what happens to his characters. Dragon Ball is also genuinely funny and has heart.